Here’s why the AfD is destined for the German government
By Tarik Cyril Amar | RT | April 12, 2025
Germany has an undeserved reputation for dour rationality and lacking an appreciation of the absurd. In reality, however, Germany is a – for want of nicer terms – very counterintuitive country.
If you are running a regime in Kiev (at least according to the official story) and blow up Germany’s vital energy infrastructure, Germans will say thank you and throw money and arms at you, while also helping you blame someone else (the Russians, of course: Germany has never been an imaginative country).
If you are in Washington and certainly had a hand in blowing up that infrastructure, and then go on to fleece the Germans by selling LNG at a high cost and promoting their deindustrialization by filching their companies, good Germans get very, very angry – at China.
If you happen to be the single most popular and perfectly legal political party in Germany, get ready to never be allowed to actually participate in governing. Because Germany is also a country in which that single most popular party – the Alternative for Germany (Alternative für Deutschland, commonly known simply as AfD) – is locked out of building governing coalitions. By definition.
That system is called a “firewall” – against that nasty most popular party that makes life so difficult for all those other, no longer popular parties. It has absolutely no basis in the constitution or in law.
Come to think of it, as the “firewall” systematically and deliberately treats the votes of AfD voters as somehow less effective than those of others, it may well be the “firewall” itself that is unconstitutional, at least in spirit if not even by the letter of the law. So much for Germany, the country that allegedly loves order and rules.
In reality, the “firewall” amounts to a dirty political cartel and a form of disenfranchisement: The traditional parties, feeling threatened by the insurgent AfD have simply decided that they do not care what the voters say and won’t have anything to do with it. Since German governments are virtually always based on coalitions, which means that the AfD and its voters are treated as inferior. That this means that, as of now, in particular voters in the former East Germany are subject to this kind of discrimination, adding a West-East aspect to it that sits very badly with talk about German unity.
To get one thing out of the way: For now, it is only one poll that shows the AfD in the lead; other polls still have it in (barely) second place after the mainstream conservatives of the CDU/CSU bloc (which, in reality, functions as one party) of soon-to-be chancellor Friedrich Merz. But these differences are irrelevant. What matters is that the AfD’s rising trend is unbroken. That is definitely a blow to Merz, even before he has officially assumed office, as international observers are noting. Especially in view of the fact that Merz’s own poll numbers are cratering at the same time.
Yet there is a broader point, too: The whole “firewall” strategy is malfunctioning extremely badly. Sensible observers have long predicted it, and now it is becoming ever more obvious: Freezing the AfD out only serves to make it stronger.
One thing that does not make Berlin’s ruling parties, the CDU and SPD, any more popular is that they have concluded their negotiations on how to divvy up the spoils of ministries and other goodies. Indeed, it is extremely embarrassing for the new governing coalition of conservatives and Social-Democrats (SPD) that the most recent AfD milestone breakthrough is happening now. It is a coincidence from hell: there they are, the traditional parties, seemingly safe behind their “firewall” and all ready to go, and the voters – uncouth as they can be – show them just how unpopular they are.
Germans expect little from them, even now: A fresh poll shows that two thirds do not believe that things will change under the new coalition of tired old parties.
Note that most Germans have been deeply unhappy with the status quo, as we also know from recent polls: In February, Ipsos found that the general mood was “as bad as never before.” Only 17 percent of citizens – less than a fifth – believed their country was “on a good trajectory.” The other 83 percent were not indifferent or neutral but felt Germany was on the “wrong” trajectory. Even for a nation with something of a culture of angst and doom, those are atrocious figures.
Hence, expecting no change now amounts to deep pessimism: Germans have felt for a while already that they are in dire trouble; and a preponderant majority thinks that that is where they will be stuck under new old management as well.
A senior AfD leader, Alexander Gauland, is already more than confident: “It’s a natural law that we’ll be ahead of the CDU at the next elections,” he recently declared. That may be jinxing it. The AfD is, after all, much less unlike other parties than the latter like to pretend: The AfD as well may end up squandering its current good luck with infighting, for instance, over how to react to US President Donald Trump’s tariff attacks, which will severely harm Germany.
Yet there is no doubt that the traditional parties are doing their utmost to repel not only voters but even their own members. In particular Merz’s CDU is in barely contained rebellion: its members and voters are fuming at having voted conservative and yet being saddled with a massive deficit spending program. The pretext that all of this is needed because of – drum roll – Big Bad Russia is not dampening down the anger.
One local CDU organization has already rebelled openly. In the state of Sachsen-Anhalt, formerly part of East Germany, CDU members from the Harz district have gone public with an official resolution making two points and one demand: There is “massive” unrest among the CDU’s base of ordinary party members, and in Germany’s “East,” that is, what used to be the former German Democratic Republic, the CDU has decisively lost the last federal elections. The demand is to tear down the so-called “firewall” against the AfD and start collaborating with it systematically. It is symptomatic that this very local rebellion is making news all over the country.
“What a scandal! Opening the gates to the far right!” many will scream. Yet they have it all upside down: Disregarding the fact that, in reality, the CDU/CSU conservatives and the AfD mostly see eye-to-eye ideologically, one day, in the not so far away future, the AfD may well enter and perhaps even dominate a German government. The irony is that when that happens, those who have upheld the, frankly, moronic “firewall” will have only themselves to blame. Because the real question is not if the AfD will enter government in Berlin but how and, in particular, how strong. The longer the “firewall” is kept up, the more likely the AfD will not just participate but dominate.
Tarik Cyril Amar, a historian from Germany working at Koç University, Istanbul, on Russia, Ukraine, and Eastern Europe, the history of World War II, the cultural Cold War, and the politics of memory
The end of La Grande illusion democratique
By Stephen Karganovic | Strategic Culture Foundation | April 11, 2025
Only the incurably naïve were shocked by the brazen and deliberate rigging of the French Presidential elections. Granted, the outrageous infringement of collective West’s verbally proclaimed democratic electoral canons in Romania, which took place shortly before, could have been taken by alert observers as a reliable signal of what might imminently occur in other precincts of the “European garden.” Blinded by cultural racism however some of them might have mistaken electoral rigging in Romania, a recently acquired patch of that garden, as a sui generis case, entirely attributable to Balkan primitivism. But they would have overlooked conveniently the now well established fact that instructions to corrupt Romanian bureaucrats to eliminate inconvenient candidate Georgescu did not emanate from Bucharest alone. We now know that they were issued imperatively from the idyllic Garden’s ideological centre, which is in Brussels.
Without diminishing, in the electoral disqualification and penal punishment of Marine Le Pen, the influence of the local French branch of the globalist cabal (it would be unpardonably incorrect to call that scum “elite”) there also the nefarious role of the nerve centre in Brussels must be stressed.
The arbitrary mechanism which allows the cabal to target virtually anybody it perceives as unsuitable or as a threat was laid bare by Croatian European Parliament deputy Mislav Kolakušić. The core charge pressed against Le Pen, let us recall, was of a basely pecuniary nature, namely that as an EU deputy she partially used her office employees in Strassbourg to do political work on behalf of her French political party, the Front National, improperly remunerating them with European Union funds. The outspoken EU parliamentarian Kolakušić knows of what he speaks because he was himself charged with this ghastly infraction, an accusation from which he managed to successfully defend himself only thanks to having kept meticulous records. It appears that acting with Gallic abandon Marine Le Pen or her office manager were not nearly as fastidious record keepers and they are now paying the political and penal price for the oversight.
What Kolakušić reveals about the inner workings of the system, based on his own experience and observation, is most unsettling and strongly suggests a deliberately built-in trap ready to be sprung on anyone who gets out of line. His remarks are in Croatian, but their gist is as follows. The way the European Parliament interprets its own rules, its officials are authorised to determine as they deem fit whether parliamentary deputies or their staff on any given day had worked a full eight hours as required on tasks exlusively related to matters pertaining to European Parliament affairs, or not. If not, there are unpleasant consequences that can be made to follow. That portion of salaries alleged to have been paid out from European funds for performing tasks deemed unrelated to European Parliament work is refundable on demand, as subjectively assessed by investigators who are empowered to act with arbitrary discretion. But that is the least of it. More ominously, the arbitrariness extends to the determination of how the matter shall be treated. It could be considered a harmless lapse curable with a reprimand and a refund. But if the powers that be take a particularly dim view of the alleged malefactor, it could also be treated as an act of moral turpitude, having been committed with the element of mens rea, which creates grounds for the imputation of criminal liability. It is by opting for the latter interpretation, of course, that with the helpful assistance of the French judiciary (that some naive folks had thought to be so incorruptible) that they got Marine Le Pen.
“Such a procedure,“ Kolakušić explains further, “is unprecedented anywhere else in the world or in any other parliament, but it is a perfect weapon for settling accounts with dissidents, be they of the so-called extreme right or extreme left, or independent parliamentarians, which is to say the only members of the European Parliament who think using their own brains and who formulate their own original positions on major issues.“
Before over-sentimentalising the plight of Madame Le Pen and showering her with excessive sympathy, some of which she undoubtedly deserves but not uncritically and always in prudent measure, her own responsibility for the situation she faces should be honestly confronted. At some point she made a conscious decision to play ball with the cabal that is now persecuting her. In order to try to accomodate them she went as far as reneging on her filial duties and renouncing her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, the founder of the political party she now heads, which she virtuously relabelled from Front National to Rassemblement national in an attempt to make it more palatable and sound less “extremist“ to her enemies. She then went on to ease her father’s associates out of the picture and replace them with a more “modern“ and “progressive“ crew, with the same goal in mind of ingratiating and reinventing herself as a “mainstream“ political actor (or actress, if you wish). Needless to say, she presided also over an ideological shift in her party’s political orientation which, whilst remaining verbally committed to sovereignism and the promotion of French national interests, conspicuously lost the sharp edge that previously had made it distinctive in the French political landscape.
And now, with the Presidency of France within her grasp, the French people having become utterly disgusted with the alien cabal that is running their country into the ground and ready to vote for her, what has Marine Le Pen got to show for her accomodations? She can boast a multimillion euro fine, a four year prison sentence, half of it suspended but the other half very much in effect, and a five-year ban on political activity, crashing her dream of becoming President of France for a long time, and more likely forever.
Madame Le Pen has now learned the hard way a painful lesson that Russians also have had to grasp gradually and at considerable cost to themselves. It is that the cabal are недоговороспособныe, or in plain English “not agreement capable.” All attempts to curry favour with them are futile. They have their trusted agents, “Mr. and Mr. Macron” being prime examples, whom they cultivate to do their bidding. No substitutes are solicited or accepted from the ranks of the profane, no matter how hard and long the newcomers have laboured to ingratiate themselves.
The massive outpouring of anger by the disenfranchised French people, who are rightfully furious at being deprived of the opportunity to vote for the candidate of their choice, may be of some consolation to Marine Le Pen, just as similar expressions of popular anger that have been going on in Romania for weeks may assuage the wounded feelings of Calin Georgescu, but will otherwise have no palpable effect.
Madame Le Pen may waste her time appealing the French court’s scandalous decision if she so wishes. She may publicly fume and denounce her persecutors to her heart’s content. (Humiliatingly, the video recording of one of her scathing denunciations, where she delusionally likens her electoral disqualification to a “nuclear bomb,” was removed from YouTube shortly after being posted, as can be verified by clicking on the hyperlink above.) But it is unlikely that any sort of commotion in the streets will produce significant changes in the dispensation that has from on high been decreed, either in France or in Romania.
Instead of wasting her time in the courts, which are as rigged as the electoral system, Marine Le Pen could perhaps have some fun and play a little game with her tormentors. Our advice to her is to pull a Perón stunt and delegate her super smart and photogenic niece Marion Maréchal Le Pen, an EU Parliament deputy and political figure in her own right, to take up the Le Pen mantle and with the blessing of aunt Marine run for President of France in 2027. It may be recalled that in the 1970s Juan Perón was in exile and similarly disqualified in Argentina to run for political office. He outwitted his opponents by designating Hector Cámpora to run on the Peronist party ticket in his stead. Cámpora won, annulled the impediments blocking Perón’s return to power and resigned in Perón’s favour. Surely Marion could do the same for aunt Marine.
Will Marine Le Pen have the creativity to step out of the box and twist the lion’s tail just a bit? We will soon find out.
US-Funded “Anti-Misinformation” Groups Are Still Quietly Active
By Didi Rankovic | Reclaim The Net | April 9, 2025
Despite the big and open push that came in with the new US administration to end the practice of the government funding third-party groups to effectively act as its censorship proxies – some of these arrangements continue to be operational.
Most appear to be working to strengthen previously established “preferred” narratives around health issues – as ever, with “combating misinformation” given as the declarative, overarching purpose behind the effort.
But critics say, that was/remains a smokescreen meant to manipulate public opinion.
The Federalist reports that the National Science Foundation (NSF) – one of the US government’s “independent agencies” designed to channel federal funds – had a number of programs under its “anti-misinformation” umbrella, the Convergence Accelerator.
Among the ones who continue to this day are Chime In, Analysis and Response Toolkit for Trust (ARTT), and Expert Voices Together (EVT).
Chime In’s original name was Course Correct. It was set up at the University of Wisconsin-Madison – with $5 million coming from NSF in 2022 – to provide “anti-misinformation” resources for journalists.
True to the era, its original “mission” was to persuade (Covid) vaccine skeptics to take the jab; and then it went into advocating (“misinformation detecting”) in favor of persuading people there was no reason to be skeptical about genetically modified (GMO) foods, Covid narratives, and vaccines in general, as well as issues like sunscreen product and raw milk safety.
ARTT, meanwhile, came up with its own “AI” chatbot, that focused on political discourse, but according to the Federalist, once again, heavily tied to vaccine hesitancy.
From 2021, ARTT received close to $750,000 from the NSF, and a further $5 million, “to develop practical interventions to build trust and address vaccine hesitancy.”
Another controversial tie-in concerning ARTT was the organization’s plans to partner with, among others, the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, which the article describes as being “infamous for performing transgender surgeries on, and administering opposite-sex hormones to minors.”
ARTT – now operating as Discourse Labs, a non-profit – was, while one of the groups incubated by NSF’s Convergence Accelerator, backed up by the World Economic Forum (WEF), Wikimedia Foundation, Google, Mozilla, and Meta.
EVT’s “new home” as of 2025 is “the leftist group Right To Be,” the report says.
Some of the issues covered by this group are named, “Bystander Intervention To Support The LGBTQIA+ Community,” “Conflict De-Escalation In Protest Spaces,” and “Bystander Intervention To Stop Police Sponsored Violence and Anti-Black Racism.”
But the Federalist reported earlier that, “a representative from Right To Be” previously told the site EVT “remains under the direction of George Washington University (and) direct inquiries there.”
Bitchute shuts down in UK because of Online Safety Act
To our valued users in the United Kingdom
After careful review and ongoing evaluation of the regulatory landscape in the United Kingdom, we regret to inform you that BitChute will be discontinuing its video sharing service for UK residents.
The introduction of the UK Online Safety Act of 2023 has brought about significant changes in the regulatory framework governing online content and community interactions. Notably, the Act contains sweeping provisions and onerous corrective measures with respect to content moderation and enforcement. In particular, the broad enforcement powers granted to the regulator of communication services, Ofcom, have raised concerns regarding the open-ended and unpredictable nature of regulatory compliance for our platform.
The BitChute platform has always operated on principles of freedom of speech, expression and association, and strived to foster an open and inclusive environment for content creators and audiences alike. However, the evolving regulatory pressures—including strict enforcement mechanisms and potential liabilities—have created an operational landscape in which continuing to serve the UK market exposes our company to unacceptable legal and compliance risks. Despite our best efforts to navigate these challenges, the uncertainty surrounding the OSA’s enforcement by Ofcom and its far-reaching implications leaves us no viable alternative but to cease normal operations in the UK.
Therefore, effective immediately, BitChute platform users in the UK will no longer be able to view content produced by any other BitChute user. Because the OSA’s primary concern is that members of the public will view content deemed unsafe, however, we will permit UK BitChute users to continue to post content. The significant change will be that this UK user-posted content will not be viewable by any other UK user, but will be visible to other users outside of the UK. Users outside the UK may comment on that content, which the creator will continue to be able to read, delete, block, reply and flag. Users outside the UK may share UK-user produced content to other users outside of the UK as normal. In other words, for users in the UK, including content creators, the BitChute platform is no longer a user-to-UK user video sharing service.
We deeply regret the inconvenience and disappointment this decision may cause to our UK users and partners. This decision was not taken lightly. It reflects our commitment to maintaining the highest standards of compliance, protecting our community, and ensuring that our platform remains a safe and sustainable space for creative expression globally. We recognize the value of our UK community and extend our sincerest apologies for the disruption caused by this necessary step. Our support team remains available to answer any queries or concerns regarding this transition.
We appreciate the support and engagement of our community around the world and remain dedicated to providing a platform that champions free expression and innovative content sharing in an environment of regulatory certainty.
Thank you for your understanding.
Marine Le Pen on trial while corrupt Ursula von der Leyen protected
By Ahmed Adel | April 10, 2025
Although European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen should be in prison for the Pfizergate scandal, not to mention inciting war crimes in Ukraine and the Gaza Strip, nothing will come of it as Brussels is evidently corrupt. However, following the verdict handed down to right-wing French National Rally party leader Marine Le Pen, the question arises as to why Ursula von der Leyen has not been indicted for the Pfizergate scandal, which is worth several billion euros.
Le Pen has been sentenced to four years in prison, fined 100,000 euros, and banned from running in the 2027 presidential election. She was convicted of corruption, having allegedly embezzled 2.9 million euros from European Parliament funds. Nonetheless, no one cares whether Marine Le Pen will actually be in prison or not. What matters is that she is banned from political activity and that a coup is carried out against the National Assembly at a time when the ruling paradigm is in crisis.
The case against the former French presidential candidate is not the first instance of a political process canceling unsuitable politicians in the EU, nor is it a precedent, as seen in the ban on Călin Georgescu’s candidacy, where it is clear that the European Commission undermined democracy in Romania.
It is also recalled that in 1999 and 2000, when the right-wing Austrian Freedom Party won 27 percent of the vote in the elections, its then-leader, Jörg Haider, was supposed to be the prime minister. However, Brussels completely isolated Austria, and it ended with Haider giving up, even resigning from the party leadership, and eight years later, he died in a suspicious car accident.
Therefore, the ban on political activity by politicians unsuitable for Brussels is not a surprise, as the EU has never been distinguished by its democratic character, which is why it has often been advertised as “the greatest peace project.” The EU has long had a European Commission composed of unelected bureaucrats, which is why Ursula von der Leyen, as an unelected politician from Germany, has often been perceived as acting like the de facto leader of Europe, or one of two, alongside French President Emmanuel Macron.
EU elites support all authoritarians on the continent that suit their interests, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Moldovan President Maia Sandu, and even on Europe’s periphery, such as Syria’s self-designated president, Ahmed al-Sharaa, regardless of the fact that he committed genocide against Alawites and Christians last month.
Corruption is also an integral part of EU structures. It would not be so significant if it were not accompanied by political action. This is exemplified by the fact that liberal Ursula von der Leyen escapes prosecution for Pfizergate, while right-wing Marine Le Pen is imprisoned.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, von der Leyen made a deal with Albert Bourla, the CEO of US pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, to purchase 1.8 billion doses of untested COVID-19 vaccines, valued at approximately $37.6 billion. Von der Leyen negotiated this deal through a series of text messages that she eventually deleted — supposedly by mistake — along with those she exchanged with her husband, Heiko, a medical director at a biotech company with ties to Pfizer. As a result, von der Leyen was accused of corruption and “abuse of power.”
Even before becoming European Commission president, at the end of her term as Germany’s Defense Minister (2013-2019), von der Leyen became the target of an investigation by the Federal Audit Office for continually awarding lucrative contracts to external consulting firms. In its 2018 report, the Federal Audit Office questioned the awarding procedures of some of these contracts, worth millions of euros, which appeared to have been made without proper cost assessment or a proper tendering process.
Although this may seem like incompetence at first, the American consulting firm McKinsey, for example, attracted attention when its Berlin office hired the daughter of von der Leyen. The firm eventually won contracts worth millions of euros.
While von der Leyen is protected from prosecution by German and European Union authorities, Le Pen is being prosecuted because she does not conform to the liberal values of Brussels and is described as far-right.
US President Donald Trump even demanded on April 4 for Le Pen to be freed and allowed to run for office, calling her ban a “witch hunt.”
On Truth Social, he described the court case as “another example of European Leftists using Lawfare to silence Free Speech and censor their Political Opponent, this time going so far as to put that Opponent in prison.”
Trump added that it is “all so bad for France and the Great French People”, before ending his post with “FREE MARINE LE PEN!”
In this way, while von der Leyen is protected, Le Pen is being prosecuted on allegations stemming from her time in the European Parliament that are not yet fully substantiated, all because she threatens the rule of Macron, a loyal servant of Europe’s elites.
Ahmed Adel is a Cairo-based geopolitics and political economy researcher.
Max Blumenthal: Banning Protests Against Israel
Glenn Diesen | April 9, 2025
The editor-in-chief of The Grayzone, Max Blumenthal is an award-winning journalist and the author of several books, including best-selling Republican Gomorrah, Goliath, The Fifty One Day War, and The Management of Savagery. He has produced print articles for an array of publications, many video reports, and several documentaries, including Killing Gaza.
Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen: Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
12,000 Brits arrested per year over social media posts – Times
RT | April 7, 2025
Thousands of people in the UK have been detained and questioned by police over online posts deemed threatening or offensive, The Times has reported, citing custody data.
According to figures published on Friday, officers make around 12,000 arrests annually under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and Section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988. These laws criminalize causing distress by sending messages that are “grossly offensive,” or by sharing content of an “indecent, obscene or menacing character” via electronic communications networks.
In 2023 alone, officers from 37 police forces made 12,183 arrests – around 33 per day. The Times said this marks a 58% increase from 2019, when 7,734 arrests were recorded.
At the same time, government data shows that convictions and sentencings have dropped by nearly a half. While some cases were resolved through out-of-court settlements, the most commonly cited reason was “evidential difficulties,” particularly when victims declined to proceed.
The statistics have sparked public outcry, with civil liberties groups accusing the authorities of overpolicing the internet and undermining free speech through the use of “vague” communications laws.
The Times highlighted the case of Maxie Allen and Rosalind Levine, who were arrested on January 29 after raising concerns in a private parents’ WhatsApp group about the hiring process of their daughter’s school. Six uniformed officers arrived at their home, detained them in front of their youngest child, and took them to a police station.
The couple was questioned on suspicion of harassment, malicious communications, and causing a nuisance on school property after the school alleged they had “cast aspersions” about the chair of governors. They were fingerprinted, searched, and locked in a cell for eight hours.
“It was hard to shake off the sense that I was living in a police state,” Allen told the Daily Mail, adding that the messages contained “no offensive language or threat” but were simply a “bit sarcastic.”
Le Pen’s verdict exposes Western Europe’s dangerous trend
The EU’s repression is backfiring spectacularly

By Vitaly Ryumshin | Gazeta.ru | April 4, 2025
What’s happening in Western Europe is increasingly raising uncomfortable questions. On March 31, a French court found Marine Le Pen guilty in the so-called “fictitious aides” case, sentencing her to four years in prison and banning her from running for office for five years. Remarkably, the ban took effect immediately, without even waiting for an appeal.
The court’s decision has proved highly controversial, and not only among Russians, who typically see Le Pen as part of Europe’s Moscow-friendly political forces. Even French political figures have expressed bewilderment. Given Le Pen’s position as the frontrunner in the 2027 presidential elections, her conviction has undeniably taken on political dimensions. Some French politicians have already called upon President Emmanuel Macron to pardon Le Pen in order to preserve the face of the country’s “democracy.” Prime Minister François Bayrou reportedly expressed alarm, admitting privately to aides, “France is the only country that does this.”
But Bayrou is mistaken in believing France stands alone. Suppressing opposition figures through tactics reminiscent of hybrid autocracies is becoming the latest trend in EU states. Recently, Romania spectacularly canceled the first round of its presidential election, later jailing Calin Georgescu, the leading candidate.
Germany seems likely to follow suit. The emerging coalition government between the CDU/CSU and SPD is drafting legislation that could bar anyone convicted of “incitement to hatred” from political activity. Though not openly stated, this measure unmistakably targets the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD).
The reason behind this crackdown lies deeper than any immediate legal disputes. Far-right parties across the bloc have increasingly challenged the European integration project itself. These political forces have openly called for slowing down or completely dismantling the EU in favor of returning to traditional nation-state structures. While some of these right-wing parties, including Le Pen’s National Rally and Germany’s AfD, have moved toward the political center in order to broaden their appeal, their reputation as “destroyers of Europe’s garden” remains entrenched.
Western European bureaucrats and established national elites are deeply unsettled by the growing popularity of these parties. Having benefited tremendously from the EU’s expansion and centralization for over three decades, they are unwilling to surrender their privileged positions without a fight. It’s as if they feel the ground shifting beneath their feet and will do anything necessary to preserve their status quo.
Yet here lies the paradox: the more the EU establishment struggles to remain in power through repressive measures, the quicker its authority and legitimacy erode. The bloc’s foundational identity rests on liberal democratic ideals, institutional sanctity, and the rule of law. When Brussels arbitrarily removes opposition candidates, it saws off the very branch upon which its entire elite sits.
The surge of Europe’s far right has not emerged in a vacuum. Its popularity directly stems from the existing EU leadership’s chronic inefficiency and inability to respond adequately to today’s challenges. Attempting to remove right-wing politicians from the playing field is not a solution. Discontented voters will inevitably find alternative ways to express their frustrations – likely even more fiercely once their grievances are compounded by deep mistrust of the political establishment.
Romania’s recent experience provides a vivid example. After the scandal involving the canceled election, Calin Georgescu’s popularity surged dramatically – from 23% to 40%. Once Georgescu was banned from running, voters swiftly pivoted to another far-right candidate, George-Nicolae Simion, who is now leading the race. This scenario seems almost comical, but could soon be replicated across France, Germany, and other EU states where authorities are excessively targeting opposition figures.
Western European leaders appear somewhat aware they’re playing a dangerous game. However, their conclusions and reactions to this crisis remain fundamentally flawed. EU bureaucrats try to unify the continent by exploiting citizens’ fears – fear of global instability, fear of military threats, fear of economic chaos. Their agendas emphasize support for Ukraine, joint military initiatives, and endless symbolic summits. Billions of euros are readily allocated to armament and defense.
Yet none of these actions address the real issues underlying the bloc’s deepening political divisions – economic stagnation, deteriorating living standards, mass immigration challenges, and declining trust in traditional governance structures. The EU’s refusal or inability to tackle these fundamental problems continues to fuel voter disillusionment.
Ultimately, the more the EU establishment clings desperately to power through authoritarian methods, the faster its cherished structures crumble. Until Western Europe’s leaders face reality and address genuine citizen concerns, this spiral of distrust and repression will only accelerate, making the EU’s future increasingly uncertain.
This article was first published by the online newspaper Gazeta.ru and was translated and edited by the RT team
Prof. JOHN MEARSHEIMER : ‘Ukraine Cannot Survive.’
Judge Napolitano – Judging Freedom | April 3, 2025
IDAHO GOV VETOES MEDICAL FREEDOM BILL
The HighWire with Del Bigtree | April 3, 2025
A sweeping bill to ban forced medical interventions in Idaho, including vaccines and masks, passed both chambers only to be vetoed by Governor Brad Little, who ironically cited “medical freedom” in his opposition. Now, a political clash brews as Attorney General Raul Labrador urges lawmakers to override the veto and defend Idahoans from future mandates.
South Korea’s top court removes president over martial law controversy
Press TV – April 4, 2025
South Korea’s top court has officially removed President Yoon Suk Yeol from office following his surprise declaration of martial law which triggered a political crisis in the country.
The decision by Constitutional Court on Friday came after parliament voted to impeach him in December, ending his presidency which started in 2022.
Yoon, a former star prosecutor, had leaped from political novice to president in less than a year after he entered politics. Four months ago, however, he plunged South Korea into political turmoil by declaring a controversial martial law in the country.
The eight-member Constitutional Court announced on live television that it upheld Yoon’s impeachment because his martial law decree was a serious violation of South Korean laws.
The court explained that there was no serious national threat at the time Yoon declared martial law.
“The defendant not only declared martial law, but also violated the constitution and laws by mobilizing military and police forces to obstruct the exercise of legislative authority,” the court’s acting chief Moon Hyung Bae said.
Moon pointed out that Yoon’s declaration of martial law decree was a serious violation of the country’s laws and “cannot be justified.”
“Given the grave negative impact on constitutional order and the significant ripple effects of the defendant’s violations, we find that the benefits of upholding the constitution by removing the defendant from office far outweigh the national losses from the removal of a president,” Moon added.
The court concluded that Yoon, as head of the armed forces, not only violated the formal process of declaring martial law, but also committed a “grave betrayal of the people’s trust.”
It noted that since there was no justification for Yoon’s behavior, he must be removed from power.
The Constitutional Court’s ruling takes effect immediately and sets the stage for a new presidential election in South Korea.
Meantime, South Korea’s Prime Minister Han Duck Soo was reinstated by the Constitutional Court as acting president.
Political observers cite the swift rise and fall of Yoon, who was once touted as a key US ally who forged close ties to former US President Joe Biden, as an anomaly.
Yoon’s removal had been a hugely divisive issue in South Korea, with mass rallies held by those in favor and those against his removal.
Anti-Yoon demonstrators gathered outside the court to celebrate the announcement, waving flags and dancing to music.
His supporters who had gathered outside the president’s official residence in the South Korean capital Seoul demonstrated deep sadness.
To maintain law and order in Seoul, South Korean law enforcement agencies have ramped up security and police issued warnings to the protesters against any sort of violence.
According to reports, there had been an increase in police presence, and barriers and checkpoints had been set up in the capital.
