Connect with us

International

EU elections turn ‘sharp right’ as immigration woes wreak havoc in Europe

Published

11 months ago

16 minute read

Plenary chamber of the European Parliament, Strasbourg,                                                                            FranceHadrian/Shutterstock

From LifeSiteNews

By Frank Wright

The recent European Union elections have resulted in significant gains for right wing and nationalist parties across major European countries in a signal move against widespread liberal immigration policies.

As predicted by the European Council on Foreign Relations in January, the EU elections have delivered a “sharp right turn” in the major nations of the European Union.

France saw the biggest gains for population friendly politics, with the right-wing National Rally party (RN) securing up to 33 percent of the vote: more than twice that of President Emmanuel Macron’s party. The map below shows in blue where nationalists won:

This 2022 map below shows the sharpness of the right turn in France in only two years:

Macron has announced a parliamentary election in France, to be held within 30 days.

In addition to the 30 seats won by the RN, led in the EU by Jordan Bardella, the Reconquest party of Marion Marechal took another five seats, leaving nationalists in France with 35 against 13 for the governing coalition. Marechal is the niece of the RN’s National Assembly leader Marine Le Pen.

A full summary of the results at the time of writing is available at Politico.

In Germany, Europe’s most solid anti-globalist party the Alternative for Germany (AfD) came second to the “conservative” Christian Democratic Union of Germany, its 15 seats and 16 percent of the vote putting it ahead of all the parties of the “traffic light” coalition of reds, greens, and yellow liberals. The ruling parties have long threatened to criminalize the AfD, as it continues to rise in the polls.

Geert Wilder’s PVV took the most seats in the Netherlands, winning six – with the anti-globalist Farmer Citizen Movement (BBB) winning a further two.

Hard right and nationalist parties came joint first in Belgium, with the Vlaams Belang returning from destruction by liberal lawfare of its immensely successful predecessor, the Vlaams Blok, to secure three seats.

Hungary’s staunchly pro-family and pro-nation ruling party Fidesz took almost 45 percent, its 10 seats edging out the second placed “conservative” Respect and Freedom Party on seven.

No change at the top of the EU

Yet the encouraging results for the reality-based community are tempered by two facts: the “conservative” faction of Ursula von der Leyen remains the largest, and the real power will still be divided among the ruling liberal establishment.

Von der Leyen is seeking a second term in office, and will likely work with red, green, and liberal globalists to get one.

In an early indication of the response to popular politics by the globalist elite, she has recently announced an enormous EU-wide censorship and propaganda effort. Known as the European Democracy Shield, its purpose is to shield the ruling elite she leads from democracy.

Real power in the EU, as in all “democracies,” is not in the Parliament – but lies with the permanent government at the top.

The real power is not in Parliament

The EU Parliament, whose new makeup now includes 157 seats for a divided right-nationalist faction, does not set EU policies.

The positions which decide EU policy are those on the European Commission and European Council. These, as before, will be allotted to members of the liberal consensus: the EPP group – led by the current EU Chief Commissioner Von der Leyen – remains the largest group with 186 seats and is “conservative” in name only. With 720 seats in total, 361 seats are required for a majority.

The EPP is expected to continue to collaborate with the reds, greens, and liberals to achieve this.

The liberal left has 135 seats – eleven fewer than the nationalists – but being a single group achieves second place as a result.

Added to this, the 79 seats of the liberals grants the globalist uniparty a majority in the EU Parliament.

Why are the nationalists divided?

The nationalist bloc – Identity and Democracy (ID) – is led by the largest party, the French RN. It suspended the AfD in May, as the French group sought to distance itself from continued attempts to discredit the AfD in the German press.

As a result, the AfD’s 15 seats join the 10 of Hungary’s ruling Fidesz in the non-aligned group. These 25 non-aligned seats for the politics of sanity are buttressed by the nationalist ID group of 58 seats, and the national-conservative ECR group with 73. A nominal total of 157 right-nationalists emerges, when the single seat from the Niki party of Greece is included.

General elections

Calls were made for a general election in France and in Germany following the decisive defeat of the ruling parties in the two major nations of Europe.

The French National Assembly has been dissolved by Macron, with a parliamentary election to follow within 30 days. With no presidential election scheduled until 2027 it is likely that Macron will remain the head of state over a Parliament firmly opposed to his personal platform which has delivered war, mass migration, and mounting left wing street violence.

In an early sign of rising political violence, left wing rioters marauded through Paris, smashing windows and burning cars in Bordeaux, Toulouse, and other French cities following the results of the EU elections in France.

In Germany, the leader of the right-liberal Christian Democratic Union called for elections after his “conservative” party topped the polls, with the AfD in second place. The current Chancellor Olaf Scholz ruled out snap elections,  promising  instead to crack down on the AfD and propagandize his people into becoming more “modern” and “progressive.”

This was the prescription written for the ruling parties of the elite in the Council on Foreign Relations’ January warning, which said globalist power must be secured by information control:

Progressive policymakers need to start considering the trends that are driving these voting patterns and begin preparing narratives that can cut through them.

With this report in detail from Ireland, narrative control is compounded with another “conspiracy theory” in action: the replacement of the electorate by mass migration driven by war.

Irish elections ‘rigged’? Globalist replacement in action

Ireland has seen the most widespread popular revolt against what Irish natives call the “plantation” of huge volumes of male migrants into their nation.

Yet this popular upsurge was not reflected in local and EU elections, whose results are yet to be fully declared. The talk in Ireland is of migrants bussed to polling stations, and a media blackout on non-mainstream candidates for an Irish Ireland.

Dublin doctor Jane Holland, had this to say: “Imagine a government operated so poorly they had to import an entire nation of new voters because they lost the citizens’ vote.”

Holland sensibly suggested that “Voting should be reserved for citizens only.” Is she representative of a far-right conspiracy theory known as the “Great Replacement”?

Since 2004, non-Irish residents have been permitted to vote in elections in Ireland. An NGO campaigning for increased migrant rights to Irish homes and benefits has been “bussing” migrant voters to polling stations, ensuring they “vote correctly.”

Both the newspaper which reported this fact above, and the NGO bussing migrants to vote for migrants in elections – are funded by the European Union to do so.

The efforts of this NGO ensured “90 percent of asylum seekers turned out to vote.”

They celebrated many victories, including the first Nigerian woman to hold office in Galway.

Former Irish republican party Sinn Fein, now globalist, has been caught “farming votes from Ukrainians” in Ireland, with the promise of housing and accelerated citizenship in return.

Media ‘lockout’ of non-establishment candidates

Irish people simply do not hear of any alternative, according to critics, thanks to media censorship by omission.

“This is very clear after these elections. The national media worked in a deeply unethical manner to shield the general public from conservative perspectives in particular.”

So said independent journalist Eoin Lenihan, explaining, “There was a blanket lockout of non-leftist and non-establishment parties and independents.”

Lenihan’s statement on X (formerly Twitter) referenced another Irish user’s claim that “Irish journalists working for national media are toxic and a threat to democracy in Ireland. There was a blanket lockout of non-leftist and non-establishment parties and Independents.”

Despite regime efforts to suppress native Irish politics, four nationalists were elected to council positions in Dublin. Pro-life Patrick Quinlan won for the National Party, and Catholic Gavin Pepper is one “working class ordinary Irishman” who managed to break through the “lockout” to win a local council seat in Dublin.

“We’re up against the media” he said in his victory speech, “who don’t let us have a fair say.”

Attempted murder of Catholic nationalist

Another breakthrough came with the victory of pro-life Catholic Malachy Steenson, also in Dublin. Steenson, described as the “Plantation resistance leader,” recently addressed a crowd of 15,000 in a mass demonstration against the “plantation” of migrants into Ireland by its globalist government.

The Irish nationalist was attacked in his office last month by an “antifascist thug” who had arrived to kill him. Having announced his intention to assassinate Steenson to Irish police, he was followed to Steenson’s office, where he was arrested whilst attempting to carry out his threat.

Steenson is a strong critic of Israel’s actions in Gaza, and on his election denounced the Irish state broadcaster RTE as a “government propaganda organization.”

Steenson’s message was simple, stating that with his victory, “The revolution has begun.”

The view from Russia

With the mainstream media a component in the consolidation of globalist elite power, the perspective from a so-called enemy nation is perhaps the most sincere appraisal of the European situation.

When asked about the election results – and why EU policies will not change despite them – Chargé d’Affaires of the Russian Mission to the EU Kirill Logvinov said this on June 10 in an interview with Russian news outlet RIA:

The main reason is that protest sentiments have been ignored for a long time. The attempted violation of rights and freedoms during the pandemic, the failed migration policy, rising inflation, the deteriorating socio-economic situation, the urge to equate pro-European and pro-Ukrainian interests – the public grievances piled up and sooner or later had to find a ‘way out.’

And they found it in the European elections.

It is startling to see how the Russians view Europe: a managed democracy which is radicalizing its own populations against itself. Continuing, Logvinov stated:

In a number of countries, voters have virtually passed a vote of no confidence in the parties in power. Contrary to the rules of political life, however, ‘flawed’ national governments are not obliged to learn lessons immediately, which could lead to further radicalization of society.

The Russian diplomat concluded that the EU system will simply neutralize the will of its people:

Despite the voters’ simple demand for attention to their vital interests, the centrist majority will do its utmost to ‘dilute’ views and approaches that go against the political mainstream.

This is all the easier when MEPs are essentially unaccountable to their own electorate.

With a locked down media and the plantation of an imported voting bloc, Ireland is one nation to watch to see how long the politics of elite repression can continue under the European Union.

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 3 hours ago

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Alberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change

Agriculture / 3 hours ago

Liberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk

International

Nigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Angeline Tan

The 2025 Global Christian Relief Red List report has found that the deadliest region for Christians is Africa, with Nigeria taking the top spot with 10,000 deaths in 2 years.

The 2025 Global Christian Relief (GCR) Red List report, which highlighted “the 25 worst countries for Christian persecution across five categories of concern” including killings, building attacks, arrests, displacements, abductions and assaults, has found that Africa, in particular Nigeria, is the most dangerous region for Christians.

Released in January, the GCR report, which relied on data from the Violent Incidents Database, a project founded by the International Institute for Religious Freedom (IIRF), summarized:

Africa remains the deadliest region for Christians, with Nigeria consistently being the most dangerous country for followers of Jesus. Between November 2022 and November 2024, nearly 10,000 Christians were killed, primarily by Islamic extremist groups such as Boko Haram, Armed Fulani Herdsmen, and the Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP). Similar patterns emerge in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Mozambique, and Ethiopia, where numerous armed militant groups target Christians.

The GCR report detailed how “most of the killings” in Nigeria happened in the country’s northern “sharia” states, where Christians “often live in remote villages in semi-arid landscapes, making them particularly vulnerable to attacks.” Notably, the same report highlighted the failure of the Nigerian government in stopping these anti-Christian attacks, stating that “despite government assurances that they will defeat the extremists, the violence continues to escalate.”

Ranking second to Nigeria as the next “deadliest country for Christians” was the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where “390 Christians were recorded as killed” during the reporting period of November 2022 to 2024. The GRC report singled out “Islamic militant groups like the Allied Democratic Forces” as the “main killers.”

Coming in third was Mozambique, with “262 recorded deaths.” The report declared that although Mozambique was “once a relatively peaceful Christian-majority country,” “a swarm of militants led by the Islamic State Mozambique (ISM)” has disrupted the peace of the country.

Strikingly, Ethiopia emerged as the fourth deadliest country for Christians, “with at least 181 Christians killed.” The GCR report detailed how “believers — particularly converts — faced high risks of violence in regions dominated by Islamic militants”.

Apart from killings, African Christians have to contend with the risk of displacements, assaults, and kidnappings.

“Despite the intense challenges in places like Nigeria, China, and India, we continue to see remarkable resilience in these communities,” Brian Orme, acting chief executive of Global Christian Relief, declared. “Even in the darkest circumstances, the Church not only survives but grows stronger — millions are choosing to follow Jesus despite knowing the risks they face.”

“Working closely with our partners on the ground in these high-risk areas, we provide emergency aid, safe houses, and trauma counseling to Christians facing violent persecution,” Orme said.

According to the report, “much of the violence occurred in Manipur, where unrest erupted in May 2024. Rioters, driven by Hindu extremists from the Meitei tribe, attacked predominantly Christian Kukis, systematically burning churches and setting fire to the homes of believers.”

Meanwhile, China led the world in arrests of Christians, with more than 1,500 believers detained under the communist government’s religious prohibitions. The report stated:

It is no surprise that China tops the 2025 GCR Red List for Arrests, given that the communist nation has the world’s most sophisticated surveillance mechanisms.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump’s bizarre 51st state comments and implied support for Carney were simply a ploy to blow up trilateral trade pact

Published on May 1, 2025

By

From LifeSiteNews

By Conservative Treehouse

Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics.

Note from LifeSiteNews co-founder Steve Jalsevac: This article, disturbing as it is, appears to explain Trump’s bizarre threats to Canada and irrational support for Carney. We present it as a possible explanation for why Trump’s interference in the Canadian election seems to have played a large role in the Liberals’ exploitation of the Trump threat and their ultimate, unexpected success.

To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) renegotiation. If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.

During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.

In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed that NAFTA was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two separate bilateral trade agreements. One between the U.S. and Mexico, and one between the U.S. and Canada.

In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.

Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the “environmental” aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.

Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement. President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.

When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80 percent of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.

When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S.-Canada.

Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the U.S. Trump would win every demand.

Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if Congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.

Realizing what was about to happen, Prime Minister Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland quickly changed approach and began to request discussions and meetings with USTR Robert Lighthizer. Keep in mind more than 80 to 90 percent of the agreement was already done by the U.S. and Mexico teams. Both President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and President Trump were now openly talking about when it would be finalized and signed.

Nancy Pelosi stepped in to help Canada get back into the agreement by leveraging her Democrats. Trump agreed to let Canada engage, and Lighthizer agreed to hold discussions with Chrystia Freeland on a tri-lateral trade agreement that ultimately became the USMCA.

The key points to remember are: (1) Trump, Ross, and Lighthizer would prefer two separate bilateral trade agreements because the U.S. import/export dynamic was entirely different between Mexico and Canada. And because of the loophole issue, (2) a five-year review was put into the finished USMCA trade agreement. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2020.

TIMELINE: The USMCA is now up for review (2025) and renegotiation in 2026!

This timeline is the key to understanding where President Donald Trump stands today. The review and renegotiation is his goal.

President Trump said openly he was going to renegotiate the USMCA, leveraging border security (Mexico) and reciprocity (Canada) within it.

Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist.

In essence, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.

To wit, President Trump then said that if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses (which it cannot), then Canada should become the 51st U.S. state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process.

However, what everyone missed was the strategy Trump began outlining when contrast against the USMCA review and renegotiation window.

Again, Trump doesn’t like the tri-lateral trade agreement. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada. Multilateral trade agreements are difficult to manage and police.

How was President Trump going to get Canada to (a) willingly exit the USMCA; and (b) enter a bilateral trade agreement?

The answer was through trade and tariff provocations, while simultaneously hitting Canada with the shock and awe aspect of the 51st state.

The Canadian government and the Canadian people fell for it hook, line, and sinker.

Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America First economics. When asked about the election in Canada, President Trump said, “I don’t care. I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.”

By voting emotionally, the Canadian electorate have fallen into President Trump’s USMCA exit trap. Prime Minister Mark Carney will make the exit much easier. Carney now becomes the target of increased punitive coercion until such a time as the USMCA review is begun, and Canada is forced to a position of renegotiation.

Trump never wanted Canada as a 51st state.

Trump always wanted a U.S.-Canada bilateral trade agreement.

Mark Carney said the era of U.S.-Canadian economic ties “are officially declared severed.”

Canada has willingly exited the USMCA trade agreement at the perfect time for President Trump.

Continue Reading

Trending

X