The Final Call: Europe on the Brink

August 24, 2015, will be remembered as one of those dates when history was made. On that date, the German government officially announced that it would take in all “Syrian refugees” as “asylum seekers” and that it was suspending a previous European Union arrangement by which those seeking asylum in the EU had to do so in the first country they reached.

Just twelve days later, on September 5, 2015, Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that there was “no upper limit” on the number of “refugees” Germany would accept.

By the end of that year, more than a million—and by some estimates, 1.5 million or more—“refugees” had poured into Europe, headed straight for Germany, cheered on by the controlled media and the liberal European establishment.

This influx shows no sign at all of slowing down, even though it has long been proven that the vast majority of these “refugees” are not from Syria, and that they are responsible for a crime wave and mass sex-attacks which the German police have described as “unprecedented” in Germany’s history.

Those establishment politicians who have defended this policy have argued that the numbers involved do not mean any major change in Germany—or in Europe, to where hundreds of thousands of these blatantly bogus refugees have now dispersed themselves. How could, they say, one or two million “refugees” make a difference to the German population of 80 million?

Germany: Nonwhite in One Generation

The reality is very different. An analysis of the invasion carried out by Professor Adorján F. Kovács from the Goethe-Universität at Frankfurt am Main, and published in The European magazine in Germany under the title “Truths about the Refugee Crisis,” revealed the imminent catastrophe awaiting Germany.

Africans in Germany.

Professor Kovács said that proponents of the current “unprecedented immigration” such as Chancellor Angela Merkel argue that “one, two, or three million are only a few compared to the 79–80 million people who currently live in Germany.”

This claim, Professor Kovács, says, is simply wrong because it does not take into account the age demographic which the influx is affecting.

He pointed out that figures released by the German “Federal Office for Migration and Refugees” shows that the “refugees” are almost exclusively limited to people aged between 20 and 35 years of age, or even younger.

A much more accurate picture of the influx can be obtained when it is compared to the already existing German population within this same age group, Professor Kovács said.

The official Federal Statistical Office currently counts some 15 million people in this age group in Germany, he continues, adding that the “proportion of people with an immigrant background in this age group is about 3.5 million people.”

In other words, the current native—European—German population aged between 20 and 35, excluding the new wave of “refugees,” stands at 11.5 million people.

Working on a rough figure of around a million more “refugees” coming to Germany every year for the next few years—and the real figure may be higher—it is perfectly reasonable to expect a total “asylum-seeking” population in Germany of between three and four million by the year 2020, Professor Kovács said.

This is, however, only the tip of the iceberg. Presuming, he continued, that only half this number will actually be granted asylum and stay in Germany, this means that there will be around two million successful applicants by 2020.

“The fact that the majority of so-called asylum seekers are men means that in almost all the cases, a successful bid for family reunification will be made. This will add between three and eight extra persons per successful asylum seeker, which means that by 2020 the total number of this group will be in excess of eight million.”

The fact that that are currently only 11.5 million European Germans in the 20- to 30- year-old age group means that by 2020—just four years away*—white Germans will be an outright minority in this age category.  (*This report appeared in 2016).

“Of the 23 million people in this country who are between 20 and 35 years, approximately 11.5 million people have a migration background within five years,” Professor Kovács said. Furthermore, the higher birth rate of immigrants “has not even been factored in,” he continued.

“You have to think ahead 30 years. If the majority, that is, more than 50 percent of those now living in Germany are elderly, and will have died within that time, it takes no imagination to get an idea of the composition of the future German population.”

The conclusion is inevitable: if the current situation remains unreversed, Germany will become a majority nonwhite country within one generation from now.

Western Europe in Same Boat

While some readers may find these facts shocking, the reality is that this extreme racial demographic shift has already been coming for a long time. In fact, the only change is that it has now happening faster than before. Consider the following facts:

  • According to the Federal Statistical Office of Germany, of the 80 million people in Germany in 2010, at least 20 percent were of “immigrant background.”
  • In 2014, more than half the residents of Brussels, the “capital of Europe,” were of Third-World origin.
  • In 2012, 53 percent of children in schools in Vienna, Austria, were of “immigrant origin.”
  • The foreign population of Spain rose from 3.2 percent in 1996 to 13.4 percent only eleven years later.
  • According to a 2004 study, there were 14 million persons of “foreign ancestry” in France.
  • In 2009, the Dutch government reported that about 20 percent of the population had “non-Western” roots.
  • A 2011 census revealed that the white share of the British population is falling by nearly 8 percent of the total each decade.
  • In 2012, official figures published by the UK’s Department for Education (DFE) revealed that nearly 70 percent of all school children in Greater London were nonwhite.
  • A 2013 report issued by Britain’s Birmingham Community Safety Partnership (BCSP) revealed that 69 percent of all school pupils in that city were nonwhite.
  • The 2011 UK Census revealed that London’s white British population had dropped to just 44 percent.
  • According to a 2012 official Norwegian government report, nearly one-third of Oslo’s populations were of “Third World extraction.”

It will, of course, be appreciated that this demographic shift grows starker with each passing year. The bottom line is this: racial replacement in Western Europe has been well underway for decades.

London street scene, 2016.

It does not take the powers of a Nostradamus to predict that, given faster Third World reproduction rates, slowing (and in most cases, negative) European birth rates, and immigration levels prior to the current mass invasion, Western Europe was sliding to become majority nonwhite—and Muslim—by the year 2040.

Thus, all that the current invasion has done is to speed up an already existing crisis—but even then, only by a few years at the most.

The reality is that Western Europe has been facing its own self-inflicted, liberal immigration catastrophe, for the past few decades—and, unless this policy is soon reversed, the racial demographic shift is as inevitable as the sun rising in the east and setting in the west.

Democratic Political Efforts to Halt the Invasion

Not all Europeans have supported the invasion, both prior to the current crisis and now. So far, resistance to mass, nonwhite immigration has come from nationalist political parties, which have tried to enter government through democratic means.

The sad truth is that nowhere have they achieved much success.

This is largely because Western democracy has turned into rule by the wealthy elite and the powerful Jewish lobby, while what is regarded as “public opinion” has been artificially molded by the controlled media (although, thankfully, this power is being eroded with the Internet and social media).

However, this strict control of the electoral process means that it remains only an outside chance that any nationalist party will attain power within the relatively brief time that whites can be expected to retain their majorities in their respective nations.

Even really viable nationalist parties—such as France’s Front National, or Austria’s Freedom Party (FPÖ)—routinely struggle to raise even more than a third of their nations’ electorate to vote for them. And even if they do (as did for example Marine le Pen’s  most recent electoral bid), the racial demographics combined with the effect of white liberals makes it impossible to win. (To illustrate the point: it is estimated that Le Pen won just over 50 percent of the white French vote. Yet, the 45% white liberal vote, combined with the nonwhite vote—France is now at least 30% nonwhite—ensured victory for her opponent).

Marine le Pen—could not win democratically despite winning majority of white French vote.

This means that the establishment parties—all fanatically committed to continued Third World immigration, always band together in a revealing conservative-through-to-socialist party alliance to keep anti-immigration parties out of power.

Furthermore, nonwhites everywhere—who form an ever-increasing number of voters in all Western European nations—always vote as a block for the most pro-immigrant parties.

Finally, the bitter reality must be faced: and that is that large numbers of Western Europeans appear to ardently believe that there are no racial differences, and that there is no link between race and civilization, culture, and history. They appear to really believe that anyone, from anywhere, regardless of racial origin, can become a “European” simply by putting on Western style clothes and speaking a new language.

This race-blind liberalism is so widespread as to be breathtaking, and is the cause of policies which, to the racially conscious, seem insane.

Who in their right mind, for example, would deliberately import “refugees” from nations which have just been bombed back into the Stone Age by the West—and expect them not to carry out terrorist attacks in Europe?

Who in their right mind, for example, would deliberately import “immigrants” from nations which are in self-inflicted chaos because average IQs are so low that nothing beyond tribal warfare and mass starvation are possible?

Yet these are precisely the sort of “immigrants” which race-blind liberals believe will “become Europeans” as soon as they set foot in Europe, as if culture, race, and civilization can be doffed on and off like a coat at passport control.

And the reality is that large numbers—very large numbers—of Western Europeans believe this claptrap.

What if, one might ask—and presuming they could overcome all the “democratic” obstacles outlined above—a nationalist party actually came to power in say Austria or France and took steps to reverse the impending demographic disaster?

If they could survive the resulting political storm (see for example, when the Austrian FPÖ became a junior government coalition partner in 2002, and the rest of the EU actually placed sanctions on Austria!), then it is of course possible that such a political revolution might spread further.

This would be the ideal solution, and could save Europe. However, sensible people do not put all their eggs in one basket.

Non-Democratic Efforts to Halt the Invasion

While talk of revolution, uprisings, and insurrection often make the rounds, the reality which must be faced is that there is almost no chance of any such occurrence taking place—at least not at the time of writing.

Apart from the very obvious fact that the establishment’s security services, through the miracles of modern technological surveillance, are capable of suppressing any incipient uprising before it even begins, there is another factor which the proponents of revolution fail to take into account: popular support.

To illustrate this, one has to look at two historical examples: the Provisional Irish Republican Army (IRA) which operated in Northern Ireland against the British from 1969 to 1998, and the Baader-Meinhoff Red Army Faction (RAF) which operated in Germany from 1970 to 1993.

Looking at these two examples does not imply support for, or sympathy with, their actions or beliefs—it is merely of instructional value as to why one succeeded in its aims, and why the other failed and collapsed into insignificance.

On paper, both organizations had an equal chance of success: they had significant funding and support from the Communist bloc, used violence as a political tool, and shared a Marxist-based worldview.

Yet, by 1998, the IRA had fought its way into government in Northern Ireland, and today, a former Provisional Irish Republican Army leader, Martin McGuinness, shares power with an Ulster Unionist.

In contrast, the RAF had been destroyed for all practical purposes by the 1980s, and only sporadic incidents of terror were carried out in its name for a few years into the 1990s. The organization was formally dissolved in 1998, a total failure.

Why then, did the IRA succeed, and the RAF fail?

The answer is simple: in Northern Ireland, the IRA could rely on mass popular support among the Catholic community. This support provided an always-ready latent support network for IRA guerillas, and, most importantly, a never-ending supply of recruits to replace those killed or arrested in the course of their armed struggle.

The RAF, on the other hand, had no popular support inside Germany outside of a handful of student fanatics. This meant two things: they could not rely on the public helping them in any way, and they lived precariously on the run at all times, and, most importantly, it meant that once their most important frontline fighters and ideologues—Andreas Baader and his colleagues—were caught, killed, or otherwise taken out of the fight, there was no steady stream of replacements.

The lesson of these two organizations is forgotten by would-be radicals today: that even if it were possible to bypass the state’s security apparatus, it is clear from the broader public’s voting choices in Europe that there is no appetite for “revolution.”

Non-democratic change is therefore even more unlikely than democratic change.

It is of course, always possible that things could change on a dime—but dealing in theoretical possibilities based on conjecture is not a wise way of planning ahead.

The Need for Alternative Strategies

Far-sighted people who have an understanding of race, demographics, and political power, must, as a matter of urgency, start considering and implementing alternatives.

Critical to this alternative strategy is an understanding of the relationship between demographics and political power.

As I wrote in my book Nova Europa: European Survival Strategies in a Darkening World:

Political power comes from physical occupation: not historical rights, not title deeds, not moral rights—only occupation. Those people who occupy a territory determine the nature of the society in that region.

All civilizations rise and fall exclusively because of this principle: a civilization is only in existence as long as its founding race makes up the majority—the vast majority—of the people within that nation’s territorial borders.

Thus, those who cling to past nation state borders and try to claim them back because of “historical rights” have lost touch with reality. Once a population shift happens, a power shift happens—and that shift is irreversible until the population changes once again.

With this principle in mind, what then is the alternative to which racially-conscious Europeans can aspire?

As outlined in Nova Europa, we have to start building autonomous European communities wherever it is practically possible to do so, and ultimately create a European ethnostate (or states).

There are in fact two good examples of what must be done. Both examples contain lessons of do’s and don’ts—and the use of them as examples in Nova Europa does not imply endorsement or rejection—merely as objects of study.

The Fall of White South Africa and the Rise of Orania

The first example used in Nova Europa is the town of Orania in South Africa. In 1990, a small group of Afrikaner intellectuals under Professor Carel Boshoff—with whom I had the good fortune to be personally acquainted—realized the true cause of white South Africa’s downfall.

Contrary to what many conservatives believe, white South Africa was not undone by “traitors” within, by ANC “armed struggle,” or even by international sanctions. White South Africa was killed by its reliance on black labor, and nothing else.

In Apartheid South Africa—and Rhodesia, for that matter—blacks were used as manual laborers for absolutely everything. Almost all white households employed black domestic servants, black gardeners, and black laborers to build the houses. This practice was also widespread throughout the entire society, from business, to mining, and, of course, to farming (a fact which is the primary cause of the murders in that community which have attracted international attention).

Thus it was that black economic power—in the form of internal industrial unrest, strikes, and the inability of the state security services to indefinitely ward off internal violence, were the things that finally brought South Africa to a fall.

In fact, white South Africa was the perfect example of how demography dictates political power: those who make up the majority of the population determine its societal structure.

Professor Boshoff was one of the few Afrikaners to realize this, and also that the only solution was to create a new Afrikaner state, founded upon the principles of real self-determination which first and foremost included the use of volkseie (“own people”) labor.

In 1990, he and a handful of colleagues purchased a small, deserted, prefabricated housing camp on the banks of the Orange River in the middle of South Africa, hundreds of miles away from the nearest urban areas. There, in the development now known as Orania, he hoisted the flag of Afrikaner self-reliance.

The growth of Orania from then until now could fill a book by itself. All that needs to be said here is that as of January 2016, it has a population of nearly 2,000 people, is a stable successful community, with no crime, no unemployment, three schools, an industrial park, extensive agricultural holdings (including South Africa’s largest pecan nut farm which exports its products all over the world), supermarkets, all manner of other shops, a doctor, dentist, lawyers, architects, a radio station, and it is growing month by month.

Even more significantly, Orania’s location, the Northern Cape, is the only area of South Africa which could effectively be colonized by Afrikaners with the least amount of disruption to the rest of the country. In 2010, the entire Northern Cape had only 2.3 percent of the country’s population. Majority Afrikaner occupation could be achieved with only 500,000 or so Afrikaners moving to the area.

The long-term plan is to expand the concept—and build similar settlements—all the way to the west coast, and, ultimately, to have a de facto Afrikaner state, achieved through simple majority occupation and volkseie labor.

While right-wing critics heap abuse upon Orania and dismiss it as impractical, they have yet to come up with a plan of any sort, and all of their organizations have dissolved into irrelevancy in the face of demographic realities.

The problems facing Orania—and there are many—should not detract from the valuable lessons that these brave Afrikaner pioneers have learned the hard way, and their achievements in the face of the most staggering odds are not only worthy of the highest praise, but also of emulation.

Quite frankly, if the Oranians could build a viable settlement on their own in the middle of a viciously hostile black-ruled South Africa, then it can be done anywhere, with much greater ease, and far less danger.

Israel and the Lessons of Zionism

The second case study of a successful ethnostate—actually only the second successful complete ethnostate ever to have been built—is Israel.

Whatever one thinks about Jews, Zionism, or Israel, the reality remains that there are great lessons to be learned from the planned Jewish experiment which created a Jews-only state, and it is these lessons, good and bad, which make up another chapter in Nova Europa.

Israel is the product of a Jewish plan stretching back decades before that state’s founding. From the time of Theodor Hertzl’s book The Jewish State (1896) to the World Zionist Congresses which began the next year, the Zionists laid out a step-by-step plan to seize Palestine as a Jewish homeland.

In 1901, the Jewish National Fund was created to buy land in Palestine. At the same time, a formal office for the Zionist Organization was established in Palestine to develop Jewish agriculture, settlement, education, land, finance, and immigration.

In 1917, Britain’s “Balfour Declaration” gave formal recognition at the international level of the Zionist effort and undertook to set aside parts of Palestine for a national home for the Jewish people.

By 1923, 40,000 Jews had migrated to Palestine; by 1939 another 382,000 had arrived; several hundred thousand more came during the war and the early postwar period. On May 14, 1948, the state of Israel declared independence. All this happened within 53 years of Herzl’s book being published.

Once again, we can argue back and forth on the legality of this process, what subterfuges were used to obtain the territory, the influence of the Jewish lobby in supporting and maintaining that state from their bases in America and elsewhere, how the Jews succeeded in physically occupying the land, and so on. All of these are valid topics of discussion, but, I would suggest, distract from an objective study of the practical steps they took to reach their goal.

The Zionists realized very early that prospective settlers had to be provided with economic opportunities to support themselves and their families. Very few Jews, they found out, were prepared to move purely for ideological reasons—they needed to be able to earn a living as well. Thus they deliberately created communes—kibbutzes—which provided work and community support for pioneer settlers, and then later—ironically with the help of Nazi Germany’s Transfer Agreement protocol—industrial and manufacturing capability.

Kibutz ceremony in Israel, 1951.

In other words, the Zionists knew that once a small beachhead had been established, the very first priority was to create a substantial infrastructure which would provide newcomers with a means to make a living.

Not all of the Zionist lessons are positive. Israel illustrates the danger of choosing a territory that requires displacement of a different (and subsequently hostile) group. The ongoing Palestinian–Israeli conflict—and the wider regional wars which the Jewish lobby has tricked Americans into fighting for them—are all part and parcel of the disastrous choice of territory which the Zionists made.

European Survival Depends on Geographic Consolidation

Before proceeding, it is worthwhile to recap the major points so far:

  1. Given current Third World immigration, nonwhite reproduction rates, and white shrinkage, it is a demographic certainty that, unless halted and reversed, Western Europe will be overrun by a Muslim majority before the year 2050.
  2. There is only an outside possibility that this process can be reversed through democratic means and it seems set that a very large number of Europeans are quite happy to see themselves obliterated from history under a Third World invasion.
  3. There is even less of a possibility that this process can be reversed through non-democratic means.
  4. It is therefore incumbent upon those Europeans who wish to survive, to develop an alternative strategy.

As outlined in Nova Europa, there are two main pillars to developing this alternative strategy: physical geographical consolidation to achieve majority occupation, and the crossing of a “psychological Rubicon” as to the fate of those Europeans who refuse to accept racial realities.

Geographic consolidation means that like-minded Europeans must be able and willing to accept that the nation states of Western Europe are—failing a dramatic political breakthrough—a thing of the past.

This is a staggering concept to even contemplate, never mind comprehend. It means that the ancient civilizations of Britain, France, Germany, the Low Countries, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, and even Austria are coming to an end. The tragedy of it all can be overwhelming, until one realizes that greater, mightier civilizations had fallen in the past—Rome, classical Greece, ancient Egypt, and so on—and all for the same reasons.

Geographic consolidation means that racially-conscious Europeans are going to have to start physically moving to the only parts of Europe which are still immune to the liberal race-blind poison—the states of Eastern Europe. Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and possibly Romania, Bulgaria, the Baltic states, and perhaps even Belorussia, are the most obvious candidates.

Although all of these nations have their challenges, at the very least they have governments which have stood up to the Merkel-suicide madness, and are majority European in outlook.

The leaders of some of these states are already aware of the historical importance they have inadvertently shouldered by building the anti-immigrant border fences during 2015—and are willing to stand up and be counted against the sea of immigrant, sexual, and moral degeneracy which is sweeping through the West like a cancer.

This means, as Nova Europa says, crossing a “psychological Rubicon” with regard to those whites who refuse to accept the reality of the immigrant threat.

As I wrote in Nova Europa, the reality is that there are many, many, whites—“ignorant, apathetic, small-minded”—we will never save. “Brutally put, we are better off without them.” In fact, I would now go further: we don’t want to save them.

For example, who really wants to form a community with people who continue to believe absurdities such as homosexual “marriage,” or that men who cut off their penises and tell everyone they are now “women,”  are not mentally ill, but are instead admired and promoted as role models?

If that is modern Western culture and civilization, then count me out of it,  thank you.

The Final Call Has Sounded

As the events of 2015 have shown, Eastern European nations have demonstrated that they are deeply suspicious of Western liberalism—and many in those nations’ governments are acutely aware of their own low birth rates and the urgent need to repopulate.

Once all the pieces are put together, Eastern Europe remains as the clear choice for those Europeans seeking to consolidate and preserve their racial identity, culture, and civilization.

The most difficult step in creating a European ethnostate then, is mustering the willpower. However, the traumatic events of 2015, combined with an understanding of the longer term demographic forces at work, provide a convincing argument for all but the most fainthearted.

The final call is now being sounded. The only question that needs to be answered is how many will answer the call.

You May Also Like


  1. Excellent article. However, there is one point I think you got wrong and one other point that I’d like to bring to attention.

    1.What I think you got wrong is that the majority of Europeans “are quite happy to see themselves obliterated from history under a Third World invasion” as you wrote. That is not true, in my opinion. The fact is that the majority of Europeans are not aware that that is what is happening. If they were, most would not support it.
    Most whites believe that they are supporting the underdog by supporting migrants, that they are doing the right moral thing, and think that the migrants are only a small insignificant minority and have no significant impact on European society.

    I am sure that if more were actually aware of the catastrophic demographic reality as outlined in this article and that they are being replaced by the third world then there would be much less support for this take over. Most whites believe that they are supporting the underdog, once they see that they themselves are soon destined to become the underdogs under the rule of an intolerant and unintelligent non-white society they’ll think twice about their unquestioned support for migration.

    So the conclusion is that I think A LOT more effort should be put on bringing the facts to the European public, before declaring it a lost cause. Only a tiny tiny minority are aware of the demographic realities you quoted in this article, for example.

    In addition for putting greater effort on bringing awareness to the upcoming demographic disaster, it is also important to bring awareness as to how the elite’s mainstream media is brainwashing people to: first of all, not notice what is happening, and second of all, to be ashamed to say anything against it. In other words, how the media creates the appearance that this is a done deal and that everyone supports it and if you dare to ask questions then you are crazy.

    The mainstream corporate media is in almost complete control of the narrative. And before declaring western Europe a lost cause there is A LOT that must be done to present alternative narratives that will actually reach the wide public (and not just the very very few who will read this article). This is very uneasy because the elite have already conditioned most of the people to immediately view anyone who questions their narrative as a dangerous extremist, so we have our work cut out for us.

    That is why, when educating the public and presenting it with the facts of the demographic reality, it is VERY important to do so in a non-aggressive non-angry non-superior tone (which is all too common among white nationalists), because then people will not listen to us and it will only confirm the media’s label of us as irrational hateful extremists.

    2. Second thing I’d like to point out is that even if western Europe is a lost cause (which I strongly disagree with, if we put our minds into humbly educating the public and bringing the facts about the demographic realities to a wider light) and we start looking for alternatives to create a new white/european society, it is imperative to take into account the economic system that brought us to our current state (namely, capitalism) by its insistence on profit above all else which leads to the logical conclusion of importing non white cheaper labor in order to increase profits.

    If that economic system stays in place in whatever new society is established then sooner or later we will reach the same results as western Europe and north America and south Africa have reached, because that is the logical conclusion of this capitalist system.
    Other economic systems must be used in the future white society if we are to survive as whites (my personal favourite is a ‘resource based economy’ as suggested by ‘the venus project’).

  2. In addition to the comment above, another very powerful we can do to bring about a democratic change (before prematurely declaring western Europe to be a lost cause) is to call for a more direct democracy involving frequent referendums on specific issues. It seems to me that even if many Europeans are not willing to vote for an anti-migration party into power, still many will be willing to vote with us on a specific case by case basis in referendums.

    As one example – many who won’t vote for an anti-migration party into power will still support a referendum on whether our tax money should be going to provide benefits for the migrants (which is probably the biggest reason why they are coming to Europe).

    This way, with a direct democracy of frequent referendums, you don’t need an anti-migration party in power in order to introduce sensible anti-migration policies and halt the current madness.

    Another example for a referendums – many who won’t vote a nationalist party into power, will still support a referendum which determines heavy penalties, imprisonment and expulsion for migrants who commit crimes, especially sexual assaults.
    Many others who won’t vote for an anti-migration party into power will support a referendum that limits the amount of those with non white ancestry in Europe.

    So A LOT can be done on the political democratic front even without having an anti-migration party voted into power.

    There is very strong support in western Europe, especially among the young, for a more just and direct democratic system. So many young Europeans who do not necessarily think of themselves as pro white will be strongly in favour of such a call for direct democracy and frequent referendums.

    A technical note – when I write ‘referendums’ of course it doesn’t mean that the government should be the one deciding about when and how to conduct them. Part of the call for a more directly democratic system should be that a referendum will be called by the people the moment a certain percentage of the population vote for it (say, for example, 15-25% of the population. Referring to either the population of the European Union or to the population of a particular country, or region, or town etc.)

    I think the anti-migration parties will gain a lot of support if they call for such changes towards a more direct democracy.

    So I think that A LOT can be done before declaring western Europe a lost cause.

    And I won’t even begin to mention the huge amount of cultural work that can be done to expose how the elite bankers and their media and advertising agencies are programming and conditioning, especially young people, to view the migrants as cool etc. and the whites as as boring and uncool. It is literally in every TV show and every magazine and every catalogue these days. Tons that can be done to expose and deconstruct that.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.