Movements for national identity and border security are regularly attacked in the media. In France and Germany globalist officials are attempting to make it impossible for conservative leaning political parties to participate in elections.

In Romania they have succeeded in disrupting the normal voting process, arresting populist candidate Calin Georgescu after he won the first round of presidential elections. EU controlled authorities have ruled that he will not be allowed to run again. And for those that think he was blocked due to Russian interference, well, they just blocked the candidacy of another conservative simply because she criticized the EU. Romania is also tightening rules for online speech in an effort to silence public dissent. In true dystopian fashion, the powers-that-be call this “protecting democracy”.

Armies of third world invaders, largely from Islamic nations, have flooded into the EU and UK and threaten to completely displace the native born population. Muslims view the west as a cultural and spiritual enemy that needs to be brought under their control. Fundamentalists (around 70% of Muslims globally) believe that the entire world must one day submit to Islam and Sharia Law. They revel in the invasion and see Europeans as cattle ripe for subjugation.

And does any of this matter? For an answer, just ask the old-line Democrats of Hamtramck, Michigan (if you can catch them during an honest moment.) That city, now majority Muslim, became in 2021 the first American municipality in which every elected official is Islamic. This change involved the ouster of Hamtramck’s traditional Democrats, who possibly no longer chant “Our strength lies in our diversity!” After all, they ended up being diversified right out of a cherished agenda. That is, the Muslim government wasted no time prohibiting the display of the “LGBTQ” rainbow “Pride” flag on city property.

Does any of this matter? Dr Mudar Zahran, a Jordanian Opposition Coalition leader currently living in Great Britain, certainly may think so. Just consider how Zahran, a self-professed practicing Muslim, has characterized the phenomenon of mass Islamic migration into Europe. It is “the soft Islamic conquest of the West,” he warned in a 2015 interview.

The current situation with Alternative for Germany (AfD) strikingly mirrors the 2024 US presidential election of Donald Trump, where every attempt by the globalist establishment to undermine or eliminate him — both politically and personally — only seemed to strengthen his position and bolster his public support.

Every legacy media outlet in Germany, whether they describe themselves as ‘conservative’ or ‘liberal,’ has spent years relentlessly portraying the AfD as an evil, Nazi-aligned, far-right extremist party — without ever affording the AfD a fair opportunity to respond.

Similarly, the parties often referred to as the “old parties” — the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, Greens, Free Democrats, and the Left — have established what they call a “Brandmauer” or “firewall” (known as a cordon sanitaire in French), effectively prohibiting any collaboration with the AfD. This action silences the democratic voice of the millions of AfD supporters.

Getting this glimpse into what is (or should have been) the private thinking of the Trump White House is the most remarkable gift of Providence. By some bizarre accident, a journalist unconnected to the administration received top secret information on military planning, which in itself must constitute an illegal security breach, and gave us an unforgettable view into the American government’s attitude to its role in the world. Jeffrey Goldberg, editor of the Atlantic magazine, and the surprise beneficiary, was scrupulous enough to keep the sensitive military details from public exposure – for which he received no gratitude whatever from the White House.

Indeed, he was met with the administration’s stock response when its own actions result in public humiliation: he was pilloried in the most vicious terms by the Defence Secretary, Pete Hegseth, as a “deceitful and highly discredited so-called journalist who’s made a profession of peddling hoaxes time and time again”. What on earth is this supposed to mean? That this whole incident is some sort of malicious lie invented by Mr Goldberg? When the White House has already admitted that his account is absolutely true?

There are demands now for both Mr Waltz, who has been described by a White House official as a “f—ing idiot”, and Mr Hegseth to resign, which – given the seriousness of the security breach - should be the minimum required of them.

But what must we conclude about JD Vance, who joined in the sneering at what are supposed to be his country’s chief allies with such gusto?

And what about the future of our security operations?

Do we continue to supply highly sensitive intelligence to a White House which holds us in contempt and might just accidentally broadcast critical information to random contacts?

And the biggest question of all: whose side is America on now? The “pathetic” Western countries with which it supposedly shares a democratic tradition or its new friend, Vladimir Putin, with whom it could comfortably carve up the world?

On the face of it, the strike against the Houthis had far more to do with the administration’s policies on protecting maritime trade and containing Iran than its concerns about Europe freeloading on US defense spending and military prowess. But Vance appears determined to push that angle as a reason to postpone the strike.

“I think we are making a mistake,” wrote Vance, adding that while only 3% of US trade goes through the Suez canal, 40% of European trade does. “There is a real risk that the public doesn’t understand this or why it’s necessary,” he added. “The strongest reason to do this is, as [Trump] said, to send a message.”

Waltz, a foreign policy traditionalist, said: “It will have to be the United States that reopens these shipping lanes.” But he agreed that the administration sought to “compile the costs associated and levy them on the Europeans”. “If you think we should do it let’s go. I just hate bailing Europe out again,” Vance replied. Hegseth agreed that “I fully share your loathing of European free-loading. It’s PATHETIC.” But, he added, “we are the only ones on the planet (on our side of the ledger) who can do this.”

So, he is negotiating with Scholz's SPD to accept half a million migrants a year; he flirts with the Greens that he’ll make sure that their climate lunacy is enshrined into the constitution – and maybe he will support their push to ban right-wing AfD.

And that’s not all: Merz has worked to scrap longstanding caps on government expenses – but his spending spree plans have generated a domestic political blowback. At this point, the margin between the CDU and AfD is just four points, half the gap of four weeks ago when the election took place.

Image, say analysts, counts for a lot: even as the party has moved ever further to the right on immigration and Islam, Weidel has helped somehow to detoxify it in the eyes of some voters. “She is often smiling at the same time as having very aggressive rhetoric,” said Busch, who added that she had at times maintained a “dangerous” ambiguity in order to expand the AfD’s electoral appeal.

Having emulated the electoral gains of other women on the far right in Europe, most notably Marine Le Pen in France and Giorgia Meloni in Italy, Weidel now faces the challenge of piloting the party in opposition towards its ultimate goal of victory in the next election in 2029. In the short term, Weidel has little hope of breaking through the “firewall” erected by the other mainstream parties to block the AfD’s entry into government. But if another unwieldy, quarrelsome coalition fails to get Germany back on track, her party will be waiting in the wings next time round.

Shouting over appeals from the father of the house to stick to the agenda, Baumann declared: “We from the AfD are stronger than ever before. You will not thwart our rise with your tricks.” On that point, he was indisputably right. After last month’s election the AfD is now the second largest party in the Bundestag and the dominant force in the opposition, holding nearly a quarter of the seats in the chamber and the right to plum posts on various committees.

Its strategy for the next four years is clear: all-out parliamentary warfare. The AfD is locked out of government as Friedrich Merz, the election winner and leader of the conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU), tries to form a ruling coalition with the Social Democratic Party (SPD). Instead it has signalled that it will use every point of order and procedural trick in the Bundestag’s rulebook to annoy, embarrass, divide or harangue the parties of the centre.

This began right at the start of the first sitting, when the AfD challenged the right of Gregor Gysi, a left-wing politician who is the longest-serving MP, to make the first speech. During Gregor Gysi’s speech some MPs began talking among themselves and one started reading a book.

That bought Baumann a prime-time platform from which to lambast Merz, the incoming chancellor. “If you vote for the CDU, at the end of the day you will get the green left,” he said. “You will get open borders, mass immigration, 72 genders and the rainbow flag flying from the top of the Bundestag.” If anyone had expected the German parliament to settle down after a series of uncharacteristically bilious debates during the election campaign, their hopes were misplaced.

Stephan Brandner, the AfD’s deputy leader, accused the CDU of capitulating before the “stunted Germans” of the centre-left and issued an ominous warning to his fellow MPs. “You can do what you want; you have the majority. We accept that,” Brandner told the centrist parties. “But you should also know: you are the past of an old, ruined Germany. We are the future of a blossoming [AfD] blue Germany.”