Alvise Pérez claims Spain is 'the little whore of the United States'

Alvise Pérez calls Spain 'the little whore of the United States'

The phrase was uttered by the leader of Se Acabó la Fiesta (a political party) during an interview, and its echoes persist today: Spain is not a sovereign state, but rather a subordinate piece within a chain of command that begins in Washington and passes through Brussels and Berlin. This thesis is not new—it has circulated on the fringes of geopolitical analysis for decades—but the megaphone provided by a candidate with a parliamentary seat turns it into something else. At its core lies an uncomfortable question: how much real sovereignty remains for a country that does not control its debt, its energy, or its foreign policy?

What Alvise Pérez says about Spain and the United States

Alvise Pérez maintains that Spain functions as a satellite of Washington and that the Spanish political class acts as a transmission belt for foreign interests. The specific phrasing—'the little whore of the United States'—is his own and appears in the context of an interview reviewing Spain's foreign submission. The underlying idea is that the country has surrendered sovereignty in defense, energy, and monetary policy, and that local elites benefit from this concession.

The diagnosis is supported by verifiable facts: membership in NATO, dependence on the American military umbrella, and automatic alignment with Brussels' positions. What is debatable is the conclusion: whether this subordination is the result of deliberate betrayal rather than a mere correlation of forces.

The chain of command: from Washington to Berlin and Berlin to Madrid

A part of the circulating analysis suggests the real hierarchy is longer: the United States commands, Germany executes in Europe, and Spain occupies the bottom rung. The Eurozone crisis between 2010 and 2012 is cited as proof: the conditions imposed from Berlin and Frankfurt were applied without room for negotiation. Those defending this reading emphasize that Spain is not Washington's 'little whore,' but rather the 'little whore of the little whore,' which, in terms of dignity, is even worse.

A simple argument weighs against this: no medium-sized EU country has full sovereignty, and Spain is not a tragic exception but a normal case. The criticism, then, would not be against the subordination itself, but against the naivety of believing a simple alternative exists.

The role of Israel and the narrative of financial elites

Another line of analysis introduces Israel as a higher link. The thesis, repeated in various forms, is that there is a symbiosis between Anglo-Saxon and Israeli interests that conditions the foreign policy of much of the West. It cites diplomatic support for Israel, the influence of lobbies, and alignment within international organizations. Some go further, speaking of a financial elite that controls governments through debt.

It is important to be clear: these claims about global financial control are not backed by evidence and operate in the realm of conspiracy theory. What is verifiable is something else: Spain's public debt in foreign hands, energy dependence, and strategic subordination to NATO. There, the data exists. The rest is narrative.

Criticism of Alvise Pérez: between exposure and political theater

Not everyone who shares the diagnosis buys the messenger. One current argues that Alvise Pérez tells truths merely to gain influence: that his function is to channel discontent without changing anything structurally. He is reproached for building a career based on exposing scandals—corruption cases, compromising videos of public officials—without translating that capital into concrete proposals for sovereignty.

The harshest argument is that his work normalizes corruption instead of fighting it: exposing all the filth at once saturates public opinion and ends up generating indifference. If everyone is corrupt, no one is corrupt. And meanwhile, the system continues to function exactly the same.

The fundamental question: is there real sovereignty in Europe?

The question looming over the entire matter is how many countries possess effective sovereignty today. The honest answer is very few. Those who control their currency, energy, defense, and industry have leeway; the others manage their dependence. Spain belongs to the second group, as does almost all of the EU.

That does not exempt those managing that dependence from responsibility. The legitimate criticism is not 'Spain is subject to others'—a geopolitical obviousness—but rather 'what has been done with the available margin.' That is where the debate becomes interesting and where answers cease to be mere slogans.

---

Given these elements, it is predictable that the phrase will continue to circulate and that everyone will use it as they see fit. Some will cite it as proof of insight; others, as an example of simplistic thinking. What will not change is the underlying fact: Spain does not decide its foreign policy alone, and a slogan will not fix that.