Germany’s “far-right” party the Alternative for Germany (AfD) won the regional elections in the province of Saxony-Anhalt, but the European Union’s response will be the same as previously against Hungary and Poland, namely by cutting Saxony-Anhalt out of a 500 million Euro a year EU subsidy. The plan is to starve the German voters who dared vote right of center.
Concerning the AfD, there are rumours that the party is being supported by the USA, and others say it is being supported by Russia. It is in any case led by a lesbian woman married to a Sri Lankan woman who are raising adopted kids together. The more pressing issue is that there cannot be a reactionary revolt against globohomo wokery if White men cannot put themselves in charge of it. The other issue is that we need a movement carried by European people without playing into the hands of foreign geopolitical interests either. We need a grassroots European reactionary movement.
This appears a complex matter. Since behind the scenes it appears that the USA most certainly favors a dissoluted European Union, a scenario in which the German economy (which is already bankrupt anyway) continues its collapse into forgetfulness, and likewise, France, so that the USA might take over French post-colonial interests in Western Africa. Russia, too, will favor the collapse of Germany, to reopen the road toward a Slavic reintegration into the Russian Empire.
What strengths, then, does the European Union possess to counter both the USA and Russia, without subjugating itself to either China or the surrounding crescent of the Islamic world? Well, that’s exactly the scenario: the European Union will rather dissolve itself into the Islamic and North-African world than make a stand for the survival of its people, all the while promoting homosexuality, transgenderism, surrogacy motherhood, single fathers adopting babies, ultra-feminism, and children in drag. Europe is thus to become Islamic and African—and somehow also gay—as though the idea were to continue Kalergi’s “plan” and replace European natives with the mixed-race mongrels of the future.
When German Chancellor Merz recently claimed that remigration of unwanted asylum seekers is the same as “ethnic genocide”, he is echoing the beliefs of the EU headquarters in Brussels. We find the exact same exclamation on the Justice for Prosperity website, a Dutch secret service initiative meant to uphold Europe’s “gay values” against “Russia’s traditionalist values” (as though Europeans don’t have traditionalist values, and having them makes one a Russian spy). We learn several things from this: Merz is a puppet echoing EU tropes, an actor reading off of a script written in Brussels. And: the EU pushes its narratives not via the democracy but via manipulation.
Why exactly shouldn’t European nations begin remigrating unwanted, criminal, or outright rapist immigrants? What precisely is the disaster the EU is trying to prevent? I think the answer is quite heinous, namely: Why should the EU deport people back to North Africa, the middle East, Turkey or elsewhere, when the European Union wants to become the Global Open Society that includes everyone anyway? You may have heard of the Eurafrican Union idea, of a fusion between Europe and Northern Africa, if not also black Africa. Mass gang rape and industrial-scale migrant crime then become things we should learn to live with.
Still, the EU’s whole strategy is based on making itself likeable. Being nice is supposed to stop one from getting raped. And if attacked by a non-European, well then you shouldn’t have been racist. If only the world will like us more than the USA or Russia or China, then the world will donate us their cheap labor and affordable resources. This is a strategy of submission to an abuser in hopes of winning love. Anyone who isn’t a delusional old hag will know that this is a losing strategy. The European Union isn’t attracting foreigners because they like us, but because they hate us. They see our welcoming attitudes as an opportunity to rob and rape our nations.
This basic insight never occurred to our bureaucrats-in-chief: that good foreigners generally have important things to do in their own countries, and that migrants tend to be the bad ones.