AVE Atrium

The entire status quo political sphere is dying. Its steadfast defenders are increasingly discredited under even the most meagre scrutiny and by the weight of reality. In Europe, despite our dire situation, many in the mainstream still cling to outdated and false ideals and political worldviews. They are unable to truly grasp the civilisational predicament we are all in, and thus unable to fully rectify it. Ave Europa is the political answer to this problem, filling the vacuum on the pro-European Right with an authentic pan-European movement. We offer a fresh and honest outlook on politics that is grassroots, uncompromising, and strives to protect our civilisation. Be part of history by helping us forge a European future together. Join @AveEuropae.

MEPs voted 389 to 206 in favour of deporting illegal migrants to return hubs outside of Europe. We support this legislation, as it signals a step in the right direction. Ave Europa is committed to protecting Europe’s ethnocultural identities through large-scale repatriation.

Official Statement of the Ave Europa Board Dear friends, dear Ave Europa comrades and dear Europeans, Over the past few days, comments have been circulating on X and other platforms that are not only factually incorrect but, in some cases, written with clear malicious intent. What has unfolded makes it once again clear what Europe continues to suffer from: political dishonesty, political cowardice, and opportunism. The Board has therefore decided to issue a fully transparent statement - the time has come to take a clear stance. 1. On the current wave of attacks A group of people have chosen to publicly attack Ave Europa together with expelled members - on X and on Substack. We have no fundamental objection to being criticised or attacked - that is part of political life. What is not acceptable are deliberate false claims and disinformation. A large portion of the attacks we have received recently comes from individuals we were compelled to expel from the organisation or remove from the federal board - due to sabotage, toxic behaviour, and condescending comments against women in private chat groups 2. On the specific allegations We are accused of having become an organisation close to the AfD, neo-Nazi, or illiberal in character. These labels are hollow attacks without a substantive basis - the result of wounded egos, not serious political engagement. They use precisely the tactics we otherwise see from other anti-European actors. We cannot fight disinformation on one front whilst tolerating it being used against us on another. These accusations are simply untrue. 2.1 On the invitation of Tim Schramm The most concrete point of contention concerns our decision to invite Tim Schramm to our planned Assembly in May 2026. Schramm is a 22-year-old dissident AfD member who publicly advocated for Ukraine and even took up arms at the front - a stance that has made him a target within his own party. We do not share all of his political positions. He is invited to contribute perspectives on the anti-European right in a debate panel, and is known for exposing and criticising the full Russian influence within the AfD. Anyone who wishes to effectively combat the anti-European right must first understand it. What is being practised here is guilt by association - the insinuation that engaging in dialogue with someone legitimises their views. That is not a political argument; it is political cowardice. It is also worth noting that some of those now criticising this invitation had themselves previously engaged with the same pro-Ukrainian figures from the right in the context of Ave Europa only a few months ago. 3. What Ave Europa is - and what it aspires to be Ave Europa stands for democracy and the foundational values of freedom in Europe - without reservation. We did not set out to prop up Macron or von der Leyen; our mandate is to be an unmistakable voice for better and clearer leadership in Europe. We believe the ECHR must be reformed - not because we aspire to an illiberal democracy, but because we want to improve and save Europe. We also invited an MEP and mostly Renew People, despite not being entirely aligned with everything. The political reality in Europe is serious: almost 30% of German voters lean towards the AfD; in France, the RN reaches over 40% in some polls. Add to that Orbán in Hungary, Reform UK, Vox in Spain, and other anti-European forces across the continent. If Europe does not change, its opponents will win. That is something we refuse to accept. Ave Europa exists because we genuinely want to change Europe - not for funding, sponsorship, or prestige on a CV. Our goal is to offer people a political home - a voice on the European stage that has quite simply been missing until now. 4. Outlook: Assembly May 2026 In May 2026, our major anniversary event will take place - the Assembly in the castle. Our motto is: Reclaim Europe. We have invited thinkers from business, politics, and civil society, and the programme has been carefully assembled. The team behind the scenes - loyal, committed, and driven by genuine conviction - will keep advancing this organisation regardless of turbulence. Closing words To all those considering leaving Ave Europa, or to whom this message has been forwarded, our advice is not to act hastily. An organisation and an idea must grow organically. A European civilisational state is not built overnight. We are not illiberal anti-democrats, and the movement won’t pursue such a path. We will always fight for freedom and for Europe - regardless of whether we grow, stagnate, or shrink. We can look at ourselves in the mirror and say: we remained true. We wish you all a wonderful week. With European regards, The Ave Europa Board

Europe has to stop the appeasement. We WILL celebrate our heroes. Turks themselves would never avoid celebrating their own history to appease non-Turkish feelings. Why do we care about what they think? Europeans who side with the Turks on this issue are traitors.

Whoever begins to understand the deep causes of the war will realize that it will only end with the collapse of Ukraine or the collapse of Russia. There will be no genuine negotiations or viable peace agreements, and whenever they are presented as options, the underlying analysis is usually superficial or deliberately dishonest. Russia started the war with two clear objectives: to destabilize Europe and to bring Ukraine under its political control. It will not abandon its maximalist positions unless it faces a real existential threat—something that, unfortunately, no one has seriously considered. Today, Russia views this war as a civilizational conflict against the West, and the survival of its regime is inextricably linked to the continuation of the confrontation. No amount of square kilometers, cities, resources, or people conquered will satisfy them, except for Ukraine’s ungovernability, absolute control over its destiny, and the ability to influence the West’s strategic decisions—from admitting new members into our military alliances to shaping trade blocs. This is because a core tenet of the Russian worldview is that countries like Ukraine are not sovereign entities but natural extensions of its sphere of influence, a position that rejects clearly defined borders for Russia. Thus, the rules-based international order did not cease to exist because Russia invaded Ukraine, but because we failed to defend it when it did. Worse still, the risk of escalation does not decrease but increases with each day the war continues. Every day we hesitate to send weapons, we put the security and lives of our citizens at stake, because the Kremlin perceives our inaction as weakness. The reality of our situation is uncomfortable but inevitable. If Russia is not defeated in Ukraine and forced to retreat to internationally recognized borders, we will face the scenario Churchill warned of: 'You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war.'"La realidad de nuestra situación es incómoda, pero inevitable. Si Rusia no es derrotada en Ucrania y obligada a retroceder a las fronteras internacionalmente reconocidas, nos enfrentaremos al escenario que advirtió Churchill: “You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.”

First they say that there's no such thing as a European civilisation. Then they say "European" is an imaginary, artificial identity with no substance. Finally they say that English, French, Italian and German are also constructed categories. ("There is no French culture" - Macron) They keep going until there's nothing left for you except empty "values". To reject this paradigm, we have to think backwards. European civilisation is a web of ideas, history, experiences and institutions that have deeply shaped and influenced many peoples within a geographical area. The European identity bases itself on recognising the forces that have influenced us all, from Christianity to Roman Law to philosophy. Once we understand that a people's identity and substance is shaped by common ideas, institutions and history, we finally can understand that our nations are legitimate subdivisions in the exact same way with their own legitimate identity and substance. We cannot cut off this chain at any point, or we will lose our foundation. Recognising our European heritage as part of a layered identity framework is the precondition to save any of them.

Ave España Statement 🇪🇺🇪🇸 Sánchez’s mass regularisation is not social policy; it is suicide for Spain and Europe. More pressure on jobs, housing and public services in a country with millions unemployed and young people without a future. While Podemos turns immigration into a moral taboo, Vox into a tool of agitation, and the PP hides, Spain loses direction and credibility in the EU. We defend a European migration policy: real border control, return of illegal migrants, strict quotas and demanding cultural integration. Firmness without extremism, sovereignty without naivety.

According to a recent poll, the far left in France is somehow more frequently against abortion and same sex relations than the moderate right wing. How could this be? It's the result of the far left actively courting Muslim youths who do not align with their values at all, but who simply support them out of their direct personal interest (such as open borders benefiting them as well as due to their fight against the far right), without being interested in the larger left wing progressive project. The universalism of the left is consuming it from within: its courting of Muslim voters results in the undermining of the very progressive values it claims to uphold, sacrificing its ideals in order to attract a highly conservative Islamic audience. This trend, of course, will not stop but will continue due to growing demographic imbalances, which for some time now have been leading to the transformation of the left into a movement that represents the culture and mindset of the developing world at the expense of European civilization. The far left supports migrants and people from different cultures due to their commitment to blankslateism - the idea that deep down we are all the same and very similar and only made different by chance. The idea that different cultures could *genuinely* believe in different things is foreign for them. The left in Europe risks the same fate the left in Iran suffered: Being used as a useful idiot for Islamic ethnoreligious self interest.

The European Commission insists it doesn't engage in censorship. Its opponents, from Elon Musk, the US government and various activists in Europe insists it does. What is the truth? It's true that the European Commission doesn't engage in censorship. The DSA doesn't provide provisions on what should be deleted. There's no EU law on what should be allowed. The DSA compels social media sites to comply with the law, but it doesn't set the law itself. But this is misleading. For the Commission, free speech is an unfortunate reality they begrudgingly accept. While they do not seek to engage in censorship outright, the language of its official documents is clear. It identified content that it considers "harmful" (such as anti refugee sentiment) which nonetheless is covered by free speech. (See image below). But reading between the lines makes it clear: there's no attempt made to actually protect the rights or the individuals to say things that are harmful, there's no sentence that underlines the Commission's commitment to free speech. The entire document focuses on one thing and one thing only: The protection of EU values, which it describes as the basis of our society, and the measures to take to protect those values. For the EU commission, free speech is thus an obstacle to their actual goal. Again, the EU does not censor, but it seems like it would like to, because free speech is not its priority. The report is littered with quotes from various leftists from history - including Nelson Mandela - and the tone is clear: We in the EU are building a pluralistic society of tolerance. Everything that stands in the way of this must be combatted. The EU is becoming an empire. But not in the way the people want: It's shifting towards imperial illiberalism that is sacrificing freedom for the sake of managing social harmony between disparate groups. Its purpose is to allow the European nations to absorb immigrants with fewer tensions and issues. It's an imperial management strategy. Nonetheless, we have to agree with the European Commission on some counts. We agree that social media has to be regulated. Ultimate power should lie with the people and its representatives. AI slop, fake news, bots is a real problem. Russian funded and aligned actors are spreading lies on a daily basis. We have to defend truth and authenticity on the internet. We also disagree with and reject it when false information is spread about any specific groups in Europe. We also reject the free speech issue being used by the USA and others as an excuse to erode European sovereignty. On the other hand, we cannot allow certain overly ambitious wannabe neo imperialists to keep watering down our ability to speak about and reject rapid demographic change (which, in the end, is what this is about) in Europe. It is not a coincidence that Pedro Sanchez announced social media regulation a few days after the unprecedented legalisation of 500k new immigrants. They want to continue doing this, but without the populace being able to organise to oppose it. We cannot accept an EU commission that creates a hierarchy between legally allowed speech like the below text does. All legal speech must be just be equally valid and equally respected. Incitement to violence should remain illegal, as should all calls to outright discriminate against a group or treat them differently. This report is attempting to use such sensible laws as a slippery slope: Isn't it possible that even stereotyping a group could lead to outright discrimination, hate or incitement to violence? Shouldn't we then try to prevent crimes before they happen? The answer is no. This is authoritarian overreach that we reject.

RT @Tim_AveEuropa: Epstein and his friends were involved in the Brexit campaign and extremely hostile to European cooperation and integrati…

The Sánchez government, in an insolent and underhanded manner, has legalised 500,000 undocumented migrants, turning Spain into a gateway into the EU while simultaneously creating the conditions for future granting of residence permits and citizenship—and thus free movement to any EU country they wish. Make no mistake. A federal Europe would decisively eliminate any unilateral policies of this kind, since decisions would be taken with the interests of all EU nations and citizens in mind. European citizenship would mean everyone, from Sweden to Romania, would have at least a say in who becomes a European citizen. Therefore, a legislative act that involves any part of the EU reverberates across its entire breadth and length and would see immediate opposition. In the Spanish case, a coalition of the far left, migrant NGOs and the church coalesced together to push for the legalisation. However, their influence would not have succeeded in pushing this through if citizenship had a more European dimension. That is not to say that in a federal Europe individual nations wouldn't have leeway and autonomy over who is granted citizenship. Switzerland is a great example: different cantons have different standards. However, such callous mass legalisation would meet great federal opposition and be seen as a violation of good practice.

Alright, that's it. Hand over the crown, America. You've had it long enough. Europe will take it from here.

It is striking that Europe today, almost exactly 100 years later, faces the exact problems Kalergi wanted to fight against: An aggressive Russia in the East and economic vassalisation by the United States.

whose capitalists could, unlike their European colleagues, avoid any and all control and checks by the working class. Europe would become a colony of the United States."

We translated Coudenhove-Kalergi's 1924 appeal to join the Pan-Europa Union, published in a Viennese magazine for geopolitics. Even almost a hundred years later, it remains visionary. Many points may ring even more true now than they did back then. A thread: 🧵