‘Incredible uniformity’: The West’s ‘Kardashian-esque’ identity crisis



From woke ideology to digital disincarnation, Western civilization has been collapsing into total chaos as purpose, tradition, and identity are melting away.

Jonathan Pageau, Symbolic World Press founder and master icon carver, and James Poulos of “Zero Hour” are well-aware — and they understand that the loss of traditional values is directly tied into why Americans are facing such an identity crisis.

“Maybe some of our identity problems that everyone seems to be suffering through has to do with the fact that we can’t understand who we are in a world that is constantly filled with words,” Poulos theorizes.

“I agree,” Pageau answers. “We tend to forget that identity is participation, it’s not actually totally who you think you are, or how you think about yourself, it’s where you are and how you participate in that world.”


“And so, identity is something that you engage in,” Pageau continues. “Participating in the world that you’re in, being a father, being a husband, being a part of your community. When you do that, in practice, a lot of the identity problems just go away.”

On a macro level, something like the national anthem is a great example of where identity is formed — and where it’s been broken.

“The attack on the national anthem that happened a few years ago in all these sports events, that is a sign of identity fragmentation. You know, because identity and being something and participating in something never means that you agree with everything that ever happened in the history of the thing you’re in,” Pageau explains.

“I am Pageau, and I come from a line of people and family, and I’m happy for that, but it doesn’t mean that everything that everybody’s ever done in my family lineage is worthy of praise,” he continues.

However, as we’ve catapulted everything and everyone under the sun into the social media spotlight, identity fragmentation like this has become harder to avoid.

“You create the internet, and you say, ‘This is amazing, it’s going to be like the ultimate library,’ and then as time goes on, the number of books in that library seems somehow to start shrinking, or every book that you pull off the shelf starts to look strangely increasingly similar to every other book,” Poulos says.

“And you look at Instagram and the beauty standards on Instagram. You know they’re trying so hard to say, ‘No, you can be as big of a mutant, you can disfigure yourself as much as possible, and that’s beautiful, too,’ but what’s really happening in the vast majority is just sort of coalescing around this kind of alien-esque, Kardashian-esque,” he continues.

“It’s like when they would do those composites of, you know, ‘We took every race in the world and sort of turned it into one face,’ and it’s kind of becoming that one face. Incredible uniformity,” he adds.

Want more from James Poulos?

To enjoy more of James's visionary commentary on politics, tech, ideas, and culture, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

The Economist Blames Trump For Europe’s Weakness, But Europe Should Blame Itself

The Economist says President Donald Trump poses a "threat" to Europe. But instead of blaming Trump, Europe should look in the mirror.

Trump’s success inspires conservatives around the world



Donald Trump’s victory confirms that the post-Cold War liberal consensus in America is over and the revolution of common sense is here to stay. Now, with the rise of populist parties and leaders once dismissed by Europe’s elite, that revolution appears to have crossed the Atlantic.

Thirty years after the United States and Europe tore down the Iron Curtain, the countries of the continent are dismantling another barrier: the cordon sanitaire. And for that, they have Trump to thank.

While conservatives remain focused on solving domestic issues and prioritizing America first, they should also support their European allies.

For decades, the European Union and its member states have maintained an anticompetitive political system. Parties on the left and right have refused to form coalitions or even to vote alongside so-called far-right parties, no matter how many millions of votes those parties receive. This system has crushed the representation of common sense in the EU, silencing voters concerned about unchecked migration, the EU’s overreach, and the continent’s ongoing economic struggles.

As recently as 2019, nearly every EU party erected a firewall against representatives of the Identity and Democracy group — the predecessor of today’s Patriots for Europe. This bloc, which includes France’s National Rally and Italy’s Lega, was excluded from key committee posts, blocking them from influencing policy.

Over the past five years, the political tide has shifted in the opposite direction. After rebelling against the literal cordon sanitaire imposed by public health elites in 2020, common-sense Europeans are now fighting the metaphorical one. Parties like the Party for Freedom in the Netherlands, Spain’s Vox, and Hungary’s Fidesz are gaining electoral support and toppling failed governments.

The rise of Patriots for Europe represents the strongest symbol of this reinvigorated populist movement — one fueled in part by Donald Trump’s political revolution. While European patriots deserve credit for their movement, it likely would not have gained momentum without Trump leading the global charge over the past decade. His success exposed the incompetence of the globalist elite and provided leaders worldwide with a playbook for securing their borders and challenging the cultural dominance of the woke left.

At the Patriots for Europe party summit in Madrid earlier this month — and again at the Alliance for Responsible Citizenship conference in London — conservative leaders gathered and praised Trump as their brother in arms.

Santiago Abascal, leader of Spain’s Vox Party, praised Trump for dismantling USAID, which he believes funded media outlets that “demonized” his movement. Contrary to media claims that Europeans fear Trump’s tariffs, Abascal argues that “the Green Deal and the confiscatory taxes of Brussels and socialist governments” pose a far greater threat to his country’s prosperity.

Beyond admiration for Trump, the prevailing sentiment in Europe is hope. His victory is fueling a wave of momentum for populist conservative leaders determined to challenge the European Union, dismantle wokeness, and curb mass migration into their countries — and they know it.

Marine Le Pen, the leader of France’s National Rally party, calls Trump’s victory a “global tipping point” and says that “everybody understands that something has changed.”

Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban sums it up simply by saying: "Yesterday we were the heretics. Today we are the majority.”

By advancing common-sense policies that serve the public good, Trump has made clear the deep divide between liberal elites and everyday Americans. European leaders see the same divide in their own countries and believe the time has come to go on offense — finally breaking through the cordon sanitaire imposed by the elites.

Right now, Patriots for Europe is the third-largest group in the European Parliament. With elections approaching, the momentum from Trump’s success could be a decisive factor in expanding their influence, both in their home countries and in Brussels.

This is good news for the United States. While conservatives remain focused on solving domestic issues and prioritizing America first, they should also support their European allies as they dismantle the stagnant oligopoly that has controlled Europe for too long.

Leaders such as Orban, Abascal, and Geert Wilders are not only more pro-America than Europe’s current socialist ruling class, but they also want to make their countries stronger, which means relying less on America’s resources for their security and defense. It is vital that our NATO allies in Europe bear greater responsibility themselves for the defense of Europe.

That’s just common sense. And that’s the spirit animating both sides of the Atlantic. As President Trump wields a sledgehammer against decaying institutions in the United States to make America great again, he has a new host of allies across the ocean picking up their own tools to make Europe great again. As they break down the doors of the halls of power in Brussels, Americans are cheering them every step of the way.

The ‘propositional nation’ myth crumbles under real-world tests



Americans elected Donald Trump because they were tired of being despised by their own leaders. The real estate billionaire has his flaws, but at a time when politicians left and right were calling the country sexist, racist, lazy, and entitled, Trump called on Americans to Make America Great Again.

Now, as Trump’s second term begins with an impressive start, most of his supporters feel relieved to have a president who loves the country back in office. However, his early success raises larger questions. Greatness is tied to what Aristotle called telos — the ultimate purpose or end. To make America great, we must first answer the defining question of our time: Who are we?

If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.

Trump’s election marked a clear rejection of several ideas about national identity. Americans do not want to be “global citizens.” They want a distinct and sovereign nation. They do not want to live in a multicultural patchwork of segmented communities speaking different languages and celebrating different identities.

Americans reject the idea of acting as the world’s police force, sacrificing their sons and national resources to impose a global order that places their own country last. They do not want the United States to function as an office park or an economic zone. Instead of maximizing arbitrary economic measures like gross domestic product, they want a government that prioritizes the well-being of its people.

The American people are tired of leaders who belittle them for wanting a real nation — one that values its citizens above abstract economic statistics or globalist ideals. While Americans have clearly rejected progressive visions of identity, the question remains: Is there a unifying identity they can embrace?

An unrecognizable world

Rejecting multiculturalism, globalism, and economic essentialism is not enough. To make America great, conservatives and right-wing leaders must present an alternative identity — one that unites the nation and gives it a clear purpose.

This realization unsettles many conservatives, who have been conditioned to avoid discussions of identity for fear of being labeled extremists. That fear is understandable. Identity is powerful; it can inspire both great and terrible actions. It should not be taken lightly. However, conservatives cannot afford to abandon this conversation to Democrats and the political left. The question Who are we? will be answered — either by those willing to engage or by those who wish to redefine America entirely.

If conservatives retreat from this debate out of cowardice, they will find themselves living in a world shaped by their ideological opponents.

Is America merely a dream — an unattainable goal toward which the nation is always striving? Is it a set of ideas that anyone from anywhere can adopt and embrace? For decades, conservatives have promoted the idea of a “propositional nation” — one built on adherence to a set of principles rather than shared culture or heritage. With the failure of the multicultural globalist vision, many on the right now seek to return to this framework.

The problem is that this definition does not hold up to scrutiny.

The Liberia test

If America is merely an idea — a collection of abstract principles that anyone can adopt — then any society should be able to replicate those ideas and achieve the same results. There would be no need for immigrants to physically come to the United States or integrate with its people, because the location and the population would be irrelevant — only the principles would matter.

Yet history suggests otherwise. Liberia, for example, was founded as an African republic for freed slaves and freeborn black Americans. Its constitution mirrored the United States’ system, incorporating separation of powers, checks and balances, and a Bill of Rights. On paper, Liberia should have thrived under the same principles.

But reality tells a different story. Despite adopting America’s founding framework, Liberia has experienced persistent corruption and instability, ranking among the most corrupt nations in the world. Its struggles challenge the core assumptions of the propositional nation and raise a critical question: If America is just an idea, why can’t it be easily replicated?

The idea of a propositional nation falls apart when applied to domestic politics in the United States. The argument suggests that anyone who believes in America’s founding principles should be welcomed as a citizen. This assertion is rarely followed to its logical conclusion, however.

Consider Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), a Somali immigrant serving in Congress who frequently criticizes the United States. Omar has repeatedly described the country that granted her asylum as racist and oppressive. She often addresses her supporters in Somali and has pledged to prioritize the interests of Somali immigrants — and, depending on the translation, Somalia itself.

Media reports have suggested that Omar’s second husband was actually her brother, allegedly part of an immigration fraud scheme. Despite this, there has been no serious effort to remove her from office or to revoke her citizenship.

Who will enforce the idea?

If America’s identity is based solely on adherence to its founding principles, Omar’s open disdain for those principles should disqualify her from political leadership. Yet even suggesting denaturalization for her alleged immigration fraud — let alone her rejection of American values — would prompt accusations of racism or fascism, even from many conservatives.

No one who promotes the idea of a propositional nation seriously intends to enforce it. Doing so would require a totalitarian state where citizenship depends on ideological conformity. Such a system would resemble actual fascism far more than the bogeyman that progressives like to conjure.

So if America is not a proposition, what is it? What defines it as a nation? The same factors that have shaped nations throughout human history: shared language, history, heritage, traditions, religion, and culture.

In “Who Are We?” Harvard professor Samuel Huntington — far from a right-wing radical — argued that America’s core identity is rooted in the Anglo-Protestant tradition. While Huntington, as a man of the left, did not advocate restricting American identity to Protestant Christianity or English ancestry, he recognized the necessity of a core culture. He believed that new members of the nation must assimilate into this cultural foundation for America to remain cohesive.

Without a clearly defined cultural heritage for new arrivals to embrace, a country risks devolving into a fragmented, multicultural patchwork. Principles and ideas matter, but they are not abstract concepts detached from the people who uphold them.

The American proposition emerged from a specific people — the American nation — and cannot simply be transplanted elsewhere with the expectation of identical results.

If America is to regain its greatness, it must do so within the context of its Anglo-Protestant heritage, ensuring that those fortunate enough to join this nation seek to assimilate into that tradition.

The question Who are we? will be answered, whether conservatives engage with it or not. It is essential that they put forward a shared national identity — one that honors America’s past while embracing the remarkable achievements its people can accomplish together in the future.

Trump, Milei, and Orbán lead a conservative resurgence worldwide



Over the past several years, global political ideologies have shifted dramatically from left to right. Across Europe, the Americas, Asia, and Africa, nations that once embraced progressive policies have experienced a surge in right-leaning populism and conservative movements.

Liberal politicians aligned with the Davos-driven global agenda are being replaced by nationalists putting their countries first. Leaders like Javier Milei in Argentina, Viktor Orbán in Hungary, and Donald Trump in the United States have transformed the political landscape, leaving traditional elites scrambling.

The current shift to the right has ushered in Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. A successful Trump presidency could sustain this momentum for decades to come.

This trend continues. Governments in Canada, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom face mounting pressure from right-leaning factions. In the United States, even liberal figures like New York Mayor Eric Adams are echoing Donald Trump’s rhetoric, while progressive prosecutors, such as San Francisco’s Chesa Boudin, backed by George Soros, have been voted out of office.

This shift reflects more than political realignment. It signals a broader societal transformation driven by economic instability, cultural upheaval, unchecked immigration, and the political fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic. The failed Biden administration serves as a clear example of the transformation underway.

Economic instability

The fiscal and monetary policies of the Biden administration led to the highest inflation rate in decades, going from 1.4% when Joe Biden took office in January 2021 to a peak of 9.1% in June 2022. On average, prices were up approximately 20% during the Biden presidency. People could not afford to put gas in their cars, fill their grocery carts, or make their mortgage payments. Americans’ credit card debt reached record levels, topping $1.1 billion in February 2024.

The Biden administration’s answer was to tell the American people that inflation was transitory and that Americans had it better than the rest of the world. Not much help to a single mother trying to afford to feed her children and pay the rent.

Trump understood this and promised to return America to the economic success it realized during his first term as president. Vowing to Make America Great Again ... again.

Social and cultural upheaval

During the Biden administration, the United States experienced a cultural transformation as private companies and government agencies put diversity, equity, and inclusion over profits and efficiency.

Controversial decisions, such as using a transgender influencer as a spokesperson for Bud Light and Target’s introduction of “tuck-friendly” swimsuits for transgender teens, led to consumer backlash, boycotts, and significant revenue losses.

The White House hosted Pride Month celebrations, where some transgender attendees paraded topless. The administration also flew the transgender flag at the White House and U.S. embassies around the globe and supported policies allowing biological men to compete against biological women in sports.

Working Americans perceived these moves as a threat to traditional values and their children’s well-being. With a struggling economy, many found it difficult to support a president who, in their view, prioritized cultural debates, like access to bathrooms, over addressing pressing financial issues.

Trump capitalized on this discontent, opposing policies that allowed men to compete against women in sports, keeping boys out of girls’ bathrooms, and emphasizing unity by celebrating all Americans rather than dividing them into groups. As the newly elected president, Trump has gone further, declaring it U.S. policy to recognize only two sexes. He also mandated that only the American flag be flown at government buildings, embassies, military bases, and on government websites.

Illegal immigration

Trump made immigration and building the wall a central focus of his first presidential run. Then, Biden made a joke out of the nation’s borders by allowing unchecked illegal immigration and forbidding organizations such as ICE from deporting those illegal aliens who committed violent crimes.

An estimated 10 million people — at minimum — entered the country illegally since January 2021. Violent crimes committed by illegal aliens became a central part of the 2024 election, partly due to the brutal murder of nursing student Laken Riley at the hands of a Venezuelan national in the country unlawfully.

Trump promised the most massive deportation effort in American history of those in the country illegally. It resonated, especially with legal immigrants, with Trump winning a record number of Hispanic votes.

The COVID response

The response to COVID-19 underscored the stark divide between left-leaning and conservative leadership. Democratic governors in states like New York, Michigan, Illinois, and California imposed strict lockdowns, confining residents to their homes and forcing businesses to close. Meanwhile, Republican governors in states like Texas and Florida kept their economies open, allowing their states to thrive.

President Biden mandated that military personnel receive the experimental COVID-19 vaccine and attempted to use OSHA to enforce a nationwide vaccine requirement for workers. The Supreme Court ultimately struck down the mandate. In contrast, Donald Trump opposed such mandates, a stance that resonated with many Americans who rejected forced vaccinations. Trump leveraged his opposition to COVID mandates to bolster his support for smaller, less intrusive government, continuing his “drain the swamp” message from 2016.

Sometimes called the “people’s billionaire,” Trump demonstrated a keen understanding of Americans’ frustrations during his successful 2024 presidential campaign. By addressing hot-button cultural issues such as men in women’s sports and illegal immigration, Trump appealed to voters alarmed by perceived negative changes to America’s values and culture. His promises to restore the economy, dismantle DEI initiatives, and reduce government interference in daily life resonated with middle-class voters seeking to provide for their families, keep more of their paychecks, and simply be left alone.

Political influence tends to swing between left and right over time. The current shift to the right has ushered in Donald Trump and the MAGA movement. A successful Trump presidency could sustain this momentum for decades to come.

JD Vance cuts straight to the heart of what animates Trump's nationalism — and it's not 'just an idea'



The National Conservatism Conference is a project of the Edmund Burke Foundation, chaired by Israeli-American philosopher Yoram Hazony. For years, NatCon has offered conservatives of different stripes and from different countries a rallying point to discuss ways of reinforcing, improving and thinking about their respective nation-states.

The organizers define "National Conservatism" as "a movement of public figures, journalists, scholars, and students who understand that the past and future of conservatism are inextricably tied to the idea of the nation, to the principle of national independence, and to the revival of the unique national traditions that alone have the power to bind a people together and bring about their flourishing."

The attempt earlier this year by socialist officials in Belgium to shut down a NatCon conference highlighted the perceived threat posed by speakers at these conferences — to leftist internationalism, globalism, and other schemes aimed at the erasure of borders and individual sovereign states. Some speakers ostensibly also threaten libertarian agendas.

'America is a nation. It is a group of people with a common history and a common future.'

Sen. J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) revealed in an address at NatCon Wednesday the fundamental understanding underpinning his economic nationalism — an understanding that both attracted him to President Donald Trump's America First agenda and justifies the kind of protectionism that Vivek Ramaswamy criticized at the conference a day earlier.

According to Vance, while America was founded "on great ideas," it is not, as some have suggested, reducible to "just an idea."

"America is a nation. It is a group of people with a common history and a common future," said Vance. "One of the parts of that commonality as a people is that we do allow newcomers to this country, but we allow them on our terms, on the terms of the American citizens, and that's the way that we preserve the continuity of this project from 200 years past to hopefully 200 years in the future."

The senator reflected on the generations of his family who came up in central Appalachia and others like them — "people who love this country, not because it's a good idea but because, in their bones, they know that this is their home and it will be their children's home, and they would die fighting to protect it."

Vance emphasized that the people who have "fought for this country, who have built this country, who have made things in this country, and who would fight and die to protect this country if they were asked to" were not motivated to sweat, bleed, and potentially give their all for an abstraction — the idea of America — but rather for their homes, their families, and their children's future.

Vance indicated that while he was initially a critic of President Donald Trump, he became a "convert" upon recognizing that Trump's America First agenda was not devoted to the protection of an idea but rather to the protection and prioritization of concrete realities, namely the American people and their physical homeland.

Vance's citizen-centered nationalism accounts for his desire to secure the border, to axe immigration policies that flood the market with cheap foreign labor, to reverse the trend of de-industrialization and offshoring, and — as suggested in a recent New York Times interview — to apply "as much upward pressure on wages and as much downward pressure on the services that the people use as possible."

'There are still these weird little pockets of the old consensus that continue to bubble to the surface and continue to fight us on all of the most important questions.'

Blaze News previously reported that Ramaswamy suggested at the NatCon conference that moving forward, the America First movement has the choice of embracing one of two types of nationalism: "national protectionis[m]" — what some have alternatively referred to as economic populism — or "national libertarianis[m]." He advocated for national libertarianism and intimated that Vance is partial to national protectionism.

National protectionism, according to Ramaswamy, is animated by a desire to ensure that "American workers earn higher wages and American manufacturers can sell their goods for a higher price, by protecting them from the effects of foreign competition." National protectionists apparently also "believe in reforming the regulatory state to redirect its focus to helping American workers and manufacturers."

In his speech Wednesday, Sen. Vance made no secret of his national protectionism, instead doubling down on the kind of commentary that has sent libertarian observers into fits of rage.

Vance, who stands a good chance of becoming Trump's running mate, insisted, for instance, that America should not let China "make all of our stuff" and should instead re-industrialize America.

"Even the libertarians, even the market fundamentalists — and I think we have a few in the audience, and we won't beat up on you too much," said Vance, "even they acknowledge that you can't have unlimited free trade with countries that hate you. It'd be the equivalent of allowing the Nazi Germans in 1942 to make all of our ships and missiles."

"People recognize that that era has come to a close. Even the people who are generally going to disagree with us about how much to protect American industry from this point forward agree that you can't let the Chinese make all of your stuff," continued the Ohio senator. "And yet I will say that as much as we've made some great progress, there are still these weird little pockets of the old consensus that continue to bubble to the surface and continue to fight us on all of the most important questions."

Vance also noted that the "real threat to American democracy is that American voters keep on voting for less immigration, and our politicians keep on rewarding us with more."

He suggested that while Western elites are have been more than happy to flood "the zone with non-stop cheap labor," immigration has "made our societies poorer, less safe, less prosperous, and less advanced."

Jason Miller, senior adviser for the Trump campaign, indicated Monday that the former president is poised to announce his running mate within a week's time. Vance, whose name has been raised in the past by the campaign and who reportedly received a vetting package, appears to be a top contender for the role. As of Thursday morning, Vance — whose speech appeared to resonate well with Donald Trump Jr. — was the top named pick on Polymarket.

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Potential Trump Cabinet pick Vivek Ramaswamy wants America First movement to lean libertarian



Ohio businessman Vivek Ramaswamy is convinced that President Donald Trump is going to win in November. Ramaswamy, a potential Cabinet pick, is, however, uncertain about what making America great again means to some of those who may ultimately claim victory with Trump come Election Day.

In a speech Tuesday evening at the National Conservatism Conference in Washington, D.C., Ramaswamy identified two dominant branches within the America First movement and indicated which he thinks is more likely to bear fruit.

In his remarks, Ramaswamy noted how Trump effectively landed the killing blow against the neoliberal consensus, offering instead a "nationalist vision for America's future." While the America First movement could apparently agree that nationalism is the way to go, Ramaswamy expressed concern about what kind of nationalism would dominate in the years to come: national protectionism, which some might alternatively recognize as economic nationalism, or national libertarianism, which he favors.

National protectionism, according to Ramaswamy, is animated by a desire to ensure that "American workers earn higher wages and American manufacturers can sell their goods for a higher price, by protecting them from the effects of foreign competition." National protectionists apparently also "believe in reforming the regulatory state to redirect its focus to helping American workers and manufacturers."

Judging from Ramaswamy's comments, it appears he figures Ohio Sen. J.D. Vance (R) — a favorite to become Trump's running mate — for a champion of the protectionist branch of the America First movement.

Vance has, after all, signaled a willingness to use statist interventions to improve the lot of Americans, as in the case of raising the minimum wage. The Ohio senator recently drew the ire of libertarians by advocating in a New York Times interview for "applying as much upward pressure on wages and as much downward pressure on the services that the people use as possible."

The national libertarianism advocates alternatively "care foremost about making sure that our trade and immigration policies do not compromise our national security and national identity, in ways that neoliberal policies inadvertently did."

'We don't want to replace a left-wing nanny state with a right-wing nanny state.'

National libertarians "don't believe in reimagining the regulatory state, but instead believe in shutting it down — not because National Libertarians are agnostic to the plight of American workers and manufacturers but because it is their profound conviction that the regulatory state is indeed the enemy itself," said Ramaswamy.

Despite railing against the old consensus, Ramaswamy advocated in his speech for the kind of deregulation that previous National Conservatism speakers indicated was symptomatic of the outgoing liberal regime — the kind of deregulation that elements of the protectionist group might otherwise be resistant to.

After detailing the divergence between these two branches of America First nationalism when it comes to the regulatory state, immigration, and trade, Ramaswamy underscored that he is partial to the national libertarian view because he believes it "is the way to help American workers and manufacturers."

"The National Libertarians — and if it's not obvious already, that's the camp I'm in — believe that we won't beat the left by adopting its methods," Ramaswamy said in his conclusion. "We don't want to replace a left-wing nanny state with a right-wing nanny state. Instead our goal is to dismantle the nanny state and its regulatory apparatus altogether, permanently, once and for all; to metaphorically burn its edifice and then to burn the ashes. And if we succeed in doing so, that will mark the beginning of an American revival that starts with the radical principle of our Founding: The people we elect to run the government will once again be the ones who actually run the government."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

Establishmentarians weep, clutch their pearls over European Parliament's rightward shift



Voters across the Atlantic Ocean sent a message to the political establishment Sunday night, driving the European Parliament rightward and humiliating parties whose policies have radically transformed the continent with unchecked migration, failed assimilation, costly climate alarmism, and globalist tendencies.

The election results will reverberate for weeks and months to come. One country's prime minister has already resigned, and other leaders now face potential ousters in their respective nations.

Italy

As of Monday morning, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni's national conservative Brothers of Italy party had gained 14 seats and secured nearly 29% of the vote. Reuters indicated the party's success Sunday more than quadrupled its showing in the 2019 European Union election and exceeded the 26% it secured in the 2022 national ballot.

"I am proud that Italy will present itself to the G7, to Europe with the strongest government of all. This is something that has not happened in the past but is happening today, it is a satisfaction and also a great responsibility," said Meloni.

"What we need is a Europe that will listen to citizens, that will look more to the centre-right and has more pragmatic and less ideological policies," added the Italian prime minister.

This victory has made Meloni one of the most powerful figures in the EU.

Meloni's Brothers of Italy party is part of a coalition in the parliament called European Conservatives and Reformists, which now holds 73 seats in the 720-seat parliament. ECR is set to gain the support of the National Popular Front of Cyprus, which secured 11% of the vote Sunday, largely on a message to address the problem of immigration.

Just as ECR made headway Sunday, so did the right-wing Identity and Democracy coalition, which nabbed nine seats for a total of 58. ID's gains were driven in large part by the success of France's National Rally.

France

Marine Le Pen's National Rally party ran circles around French President Emmanuel Macron's pro-European Renaissance Party, more than doubling its votes with 31.37%. The Need for Europe coalition, which includes Macron' Renaissance Party, secured only 14.6% of the vote.

This result was so embarrassing as to prompt Macron, who already lacks a majority in the French parliament, to call snap national elections on June 30 and July 7 and to call for the dissolution of the National Assembly in a few weeks.

After the French people largely kicked his party to the curb, Macron tweeted, "I have confidence in the ability of the French people to make the fairest choice for themselves and for future generations."

Axios highlighted that Macron leaned in to old scare tactics following his humiliation.

"The rise of nationalists and demagogues is a danger for our nation and for Europe," said the president. "After this day, I cannot go on as though nothing has happened."

"The French people have sent a very clear message to the Macronist power, which, vote after vote, is disintegrating," Le Pen noted on X, suggesting that such is the consequence of denying a people their history and curbing their "influence, identity and freedom."

Following Macron's announcement of the National Assembly's dissolution, Le Pen said, "I call on the French to come and join us to form a majority around the RN [National Rally] in the service of the only cause that guides our steps: France."

Macron's government is not the only one left tottering after Sunday's election.

Germany

Despite its vilification by the liberal media and the German political establishment, and a member's pre-election stabbing, Alternative for Germany gained six seats and placed second with 15.9% of the national vote. The top spot was firmly held by the center-right Christian Democratic Union and the Christian Social Union, which took 30.2% of the vote.

Extra to its 5% gain over its showing in the 2019 EU election, Alternative for Germany managed to beat German Chancellor Olaf Scholz's establishment Social Democratic Party, which is expected to finish third with less than 14%.

According to the German publication Bild, 76% of Germans think the SPD-led (Social Democratic Party) government is not governing successfully. 570,000 voters who cast votes for the SPD in 2019 instead cast votes for AFD on Sunday.

Social Democratic Party politician Lars Klingbeil doubled down on his party's ineffective rhetoric after its trouncing, stating, "I believe that the result of the European elections will wake many people up to the fact that the Nazis have become stronger in this election."

The Telegraph indicated that less than a third of German voters cast ballots for the ruling parties combined. Joining Scholz's party in humiliation was the Green Party, which hemorrhaged roughly 9%, and Scholz's coalition partners, the Free Liberals, which netted 5%.

Migration and refugees were far and away the top concerns for Germans going into the election — more so than energy, climate, the economy, pensions, and the war in Ukraine.

The poor showing of Scholz's ruling coalition has prompted some to suggest the government has lost legitimacy.

The AFD reportedly seeks to join the ID coalition, sacrificing its scandal-plagued candidate Maximilian Krah to sweeten the deal. That would mean that between the ID and ECR, rightists in the European Parliament would control over 131 seats in the chamber, not including the seats held by Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán’s Fidesz party, by the Polish Confederation party, and other right-leaning groups.

Elsewhere

In Spain, the center-right People's Party overtook leftist Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez's Spanish Socialist Workers Party. The PP took 34.2% of the vote and gained nine seats, ending up with a total of 22 of Spain's 61 seats in the European Parliament. Sanchez's radical party lost a seat and now only has 20 seats.

The right-leaning Vox party came third with six seats, having secured an additional two seats Sunday and 9.6% of the vote.

Dutch politician Geert Wilders' Party for Freedom gained six seats and 17.7% of its nation's total vote, placing second in the Netherlands. The Party for Freedom campaigned primarily on two issues: immigration and health care, reported the NL Times.

"The Greens and Liberals are the big losers, they will lost many seats in the European Parliament," Wilders tweeted Sunday. "On the other hand, the PVV is winning big, just like our friends in France, Belgium, Austria, Portugal and many other countries. It was a very beautiful election day!"

In Austria, the Freedom Party, whose members will join the ID coalition, placed first with 25.7% of the vote, gaining three seats for a total of six in the parliament. According to EuroNews, the Freedom Party largely campaigned on an anti-immigration, anti-Green Deal, and Euroskeptic platform.

Ahead of the vote, the Freedom Party wrote on X, "Asylum crisis, corona chaos, warmongering and eco-communism – are you fed up with all of this? Then ABSOLUTELY VOTE FOR THE FPÖ today! Together we will STOP the EU madness!"

A weepy Belgian Prime Minister Alexander De Croo announced his resignation Sunday after his Flemish Lierals and Democrats party was crushed by right-leaning and nationalist parties. Croo's party lost a seat, such that it placed last with only one seat in the parliament.

"For us, it's a particularly difficult evening. We lost. As of tomorrow, I will resign as prime minister," said Croo, reported the Guardian.

The nationalist right-wing New Flemish Alliance placed first. Its leader, Bart De Wever, will likely become the country's next prime minister. The anti-immigration Vlaams Belang Party came second.

Unsuccessful concern-mongering, continued

Ursula von der Leyen, a member of the centrist European People's Party — the biggest coalition in the new legislature — vowed to serve as a check on the ascendant right, reported Reuters.

"We will build a bastion against the extremes from the left and from the right," said von der Leyen. "But it is also true that extremes and on the left and the right have gained support and this is why the result comes with great responsibility for the parties in the center."

Von der Leyen's continued presidency over the European Commission will rely upon the backing of the EU's national leaders.

Days ahead of the election, the BBC warned that a rightward shift might mean "more power for nation states, less 'Brussels interference' in everyday life"; less power for the European Commission; tougher EU legislation on migration; and a pushback against climate alarmist policies.

Upon seeing the results pour in, the Washington Post sounded the alarm that the "'cordon sanitaire' erected by more mainstream parties against the putative descendants of Europe's fascist movements had collapsed" and that "a new age of right-wing politics in the West" had arrived.

The New York Times noted that right-wing parties "have gained across the continent as voters have grown more concentrated on nationalism and identity, often tied to migration and some of the same culture-war politics pertaining to gender and L.G.B.T.Q. issues that have gained traction in the United States," then warned the result could "hearten kindred political forces loyal to former President Donald J. Trump as he seeks a return to office."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

The Most Dangerous Part Of The NYT Alito Flag Meltdown Is The Politicization Of Patriotism

The New York Times is convinced an iconic banner of American patriotism is an emblem of extremism. It isn't.

Museum warns that paintings of the British countryside can evoke 'dark nationalist' feelings



A British museum owned by the University of Cambridge recently tried to shake things up, moving around its displays and providing new signage. In an apparent spasm of self-awareness, the director of the Fitzwilliam Museum denied that his new "inclusive and representative galleries" were "woke." This denial, of course, prompted greater scrutiny.

It turns out the university's 208-year-old collection has been reshuffled and augmented in the service of a leftist agenda — one that seeks to repurpose art as propaganda and takes issue with too great a historical appreciation for the country that was England.

Luke Syson, the director of the Fitzwilliam Museum, shared with the campus paper Varsity in 2021 his apparent contempt for European civilization and its fruits, including his institution and the art that hangs therein.

"[The Fitzwilliam] has collections of material that were considered [historically] as belonging to the category of art, as belonging to civilizations that were deemed to be part of the chain of being that led to our own glorious civilization," Syson told the paper. "Despite the fact that European artists were annexing or citing artwork from Africa, it wasn't regarded as being part of the narrative the Fitzwilliam wanted to tell."

Richard Fitzwilliam was an Anglo-Irish nobleman who effectively founded the museum upon his death, conveying his extensive art collection and library to the University of Cambridge.

According to Syson, the narrative embraced by his long-dead benefactor "was a white, European, male-dominated history of art."

"And even if I thought that was acceptable, the rest of the world doesn't and I don't either," added Syson. "What I would really like us to be doing is to make sure that our public spaces are populated in the right way with works of art that we are commissioning and creating now. ... So we are creating an environment, in Cambridge, say, where you don't walk into colleges and see no people of color, no women: we're actually representing people."

Syson has gotten his way.

The Telegraph reported that the museum has dispensed with chronological displays since art history failed to conform with the inclusivity requirements of the day.

Accordingly, a contemporary black artist's painting of an interracial family will serve as an apparent check on the 18th-century painter William Hogarth's painting of a merchant family in a room now called "identity."

Barbara Walker, a contemporary painter and race obsessive, has her work featured in the same room as centuries-old classics.

Other artists, including John Singer Sargent, were shoehorned into exhibits on the basis of their supposed sexual preferences or immutable characteristics.

"I would love to think that there's a way of telling these larger, more inclusive histories that doesn't feel as if it requires a pushback from those who try to suggest that any interest at all in [this work is] what would now be called 'woke,'" said Syson.

Rebecca Birrel, the woman responsible for overseeing the shuffle, said, "Something I've been very conscious of, doing this particular rehang, is that you want to provide the audience with stories without being overly didactic or determining the meaning of artworks. It's just trying to provide possible readings, possible ways in, rather than definitive explanations."

"You want the work to have the space to speak for itself," added Birrel.

Despite Birrel's suggestion that she doesn't want to be didactic and Syson's aversion to being labeled woke, it is clear from the museum's new signage that they have failed on both counts.

The Telegraph noted that the sign for the nature gallery at the museum — where one can find the beloved English painter John Constable's 1820 "Hampstead Heath" — states, "Landscape paintings were also always entangled with national identity."

"The countryside was seen as a direct link to the past, and therefore a true reflection of the essence of a nation," continues the sign. "Paintings showing rolling English hills or lush French fields reinforced loyalty and pride towards a homeland."

"The darker side of evoking this nationalist feeling is the implication that only those with a historical tie to the land have a right to belong," added the sign.

The sentiment echoes that recently expressed by the British leftist environmental outfit Wildlife and Countryside Link, which suggested to parliamentarians in November that "racist colonial legacies continue to frame nature in the U.K. as a 'white space' and people of color as 'out of place' in these spaces and the environmental sector."

The group also claimed that "it is White British cultural values that have been embedded into the design and management of green spaces and into society's expectations of how people should be engaging with them."

British Home Secretary Suella Braverman, the daughter of migrants from Kenya and Mauritius who indicated last year that multiculturalism has failed, responded by underscoring, "No, the countryside is not racist. ... More left-wing identity politics, victimhood & division. Not everything needs to be about race."

The administrators at the Fitzwilliam Museum are evidently of a different mind, and it's not just those green hills and plains that raised generations of Britons that they figure are at issue.

The sign for the "identity" gallery denigrates many of those depicted on the paintings within, claiming that the portraits of uniformed and wealthy sitters were "vital tools in reinforcing the social order of a white ruling class, leaving very little room for representations of people of color, the working classes or other marginalized people."

The Telegraph highlighted that a portrait of the very man responsible for the museum, Fitzwilliam, is among the condemned. The label for his portrait notes that his wealth "came from his grandfather, Sir Matthew Decker, who had amassed it in part through the transatlantic trade of enslaved African people."

Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!