When we see the nationwide "student riots" in France, it’s clear that this is not really about the conditions at the schools.
President Trump posted on Tuesday that the rioting isn't about the conditions of the schools, it’s about “Islam wanting to take over a once great Country!” but I disagree.
Many 50 IQ Islamists do feel entitled to a European caliphate but the Islamic conquest of Europe wouldn’t be on the verge of becoming a reality if European leaders hadn’t purposefully allowed it to happen over the past 50 years and if the European peoples hadn’t been lulled into accepting its inevitability.
The argument that what’s happening is the result of “good Intentions and bad outcomes” or “incompetence” does not wash. These are not the unintended consequences of a plodding bureaucracy that can’t find its ass with both hands.
Enforcing draconian “Green” policies without having energy sources with which to replace the nuclear power plants that you’re shutting down – while waging an unwinnable war against the military superpower that provides most of your oil – while also importing millions of illiterate, culturally incompatible, violent people who are totally dependent on you is the perfect recipe for complete societal and economic collapse.
In the book, ‘Morals and Dogma’ written by Sovereign Grand Commander Freemason Albert Pike, he said that in order to have a One World Government, we must have three world wars and the third world war is to be a religious war.
The Globalists are obviously manipulating European governments towards World War III. It should be clear to us by now that the people behind the migrant invasions are the same people trying to start World War III, the same people behind 9/11, the same people behind COVID and the pharmaceutical industry, the drug cartels, the chemtrails, the Fake News, MKULTRA, Freemasonry, the Bank for International Settlements, WEF, UN, NATO, CCP, IRGC, Israel, Communism, Islammunism, etc, etc.
Once you see it, you can’t unsee it and more people are finally seeing it, which is why Globalism (aka World Communism) is being increasingly repudiated in favor of national sovereignty, border enforcement, merit-based immigration, cultural and social re-anchoring, economic localism, energy realism, next-generation small modular nuclear reactors (SMRs) and domestic grid modernization.
In this video, Japan-based Canadian YouTuber Felix Rex of Black Pigeon Speaks talks about how historically, when governments have had to confront major demographic problems, these have been resolved by the alteration of borders, partition, population exchanges and sometimes through violent expulsions – none of which were pleasant at the time.
He says:
“History does not support the idea that demographic conflicts simply disappear because politicians refuse to discuss them or allow anyone else to do so.
“In that context, what has to be understood is the very real fact that we, human beings, are tribal. We have always been tribal. We will always be tribal…
“Now, of course, people have always moved, traded, conquered, and intermarried. There’s never been a society in history that was some perfectly homogenous racial utopia, but there is a rather large difference between people moving gradually over generations, like the Huguenots into England, to what now, when governments are bringing in millions upon millions upon millions of people over into the country in a relatively short amount of time, whilst, at the same time telling the native population that the resulting demographic and cultural transformation of their nation is inevitable and something they must not only accept, but celebrate.
“But history is full of things that were supposedly inevitable, right up until they weren’t. If you want to see how rapidly populations can be transformed, you don’t have to go back that far.
"In 1923, Greece and Turkey formalized a population exchange involving roughly 2 million people. After the Second World War, millions of Germans were expelled from territories in Eastern Europe.
"The partition of India and Pakistan after the Raj produced one of the greatest and largest population movements in modern history.
"And of course, there was the population exchange of Greek and Turkish Cypriots after the 1975 partition.
“The implosion and multi-sided ethnic conflict in 1990s Yugoslavia is where the term ‘Balkanization’ was coined.
"Even the 2014 ethnic conflict known as the War in the Donbass, which has culminated in the current Russian-Ukraine war, could be called an ethnic civil war.
“So you have exchanges, partitions, expulsions, civil wars; different circumstances and very different levels of violence, but the basic lesson is the same. Demographic and political arrangements that appear permanent can change remarkably quickly.”
Felix Rex then reminds us of the recent history of North Africa, when French rule collapsed across Morocco, Tunisia and Algeria between 1956 and 1962 and more than a million Europeans, the Pieds-Noirs, who’d lived there for generations, owning businesses, farms, schools, churches were forced to leave.
He says:
“The lesson is not that Europe should reproduce the chaos that accompanied the expulsion of Europeans from North Africa. Quite the opposite. The lesson is that demographic and political arrangements that appear permanent can change extraordinarily quickly, when the political assumptions sustaining them change.
“The European populations of Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco were not allowed to stay simply because their families had lived there for generations, or that their children had always lived there and had never been to France.
“No. The political system changed, the definition of national belonging changed, and eventually the population changed with it, or simply reverted when native rule was re-established. And if this is true, then we have to ask the very uncomfortable question about Europe today.
“Why is demographic change treated as ‘irreversible’ when almost every other form of political change is treated as malleable? Apparently, even asking this question is now extremely controversial.
“Governments can change tax policy, welfare policy, trade policy, and environmental laws, yet somehow the policy of mass demographic transformative immigration is an irreversible law of nature. It cannot be changed. It cannot be stopped. It cannot even be spoken about.
“Well, who decides this? Mass immigration was a political decision. It wasn’t an asteroid hitting the continent. Governments chose it. Parliamentarians voted for it. Institutions facilitated it. And the media has covered up the consequences of it. And if it was a political choice to begin with, then surely, it remains a political choice to change it.
“That doesn’t mean violence. That doesn’t mean collective punishment. That doesn’t mean repeating the horrors of the 20th century population transfers. It means a return of borders, immigration law, citizenship policy, integration, and, where appropriate, return, being treated as legitimate instruments of a sovereign state, rather than as unspeakable concepts.
“What is true is that multiculturalism was always going to fail, because the people that designed the experiment, much like the Soviet Union, forgot to take human nature into account. Because people care about family, community, history, and the place where their parents and grandparents lived.
“They care about whether the society they hand to their children still resembles the one they inherited. Even Chancellor Angela Merkel, herself said more than a decade ago that multiculturalism had failed in Germany. And the years since have not rescued the grand experiment.
“It has, in fact, shown that we are now entering the endgame. And that, ultimately, is what the re-migration debate is about. It’s not about some fantasy of cruelty.
“It’s about a policy that treats Europeans as a people with a homeland, rather than as a tax base with a guilt complex. And that’s why there are only so many cycles of social rioting and violence a society can withstand before the hard choices will have to be made. The question is whether Europe still believes it has a right to determine its own future.
“Because once a civilization accepts that its future is inevitable, it has already surrendered something far more important than its borders. It has surrendered the belief that it even has one.”
This may be easier said than done, because the true enemy of the Europeans is not the Islamo-Fascists, it’s the Masters of the Universe who’ve pitted them against a once-powerful people so successfully demoralized that they may have lost the will to live.
TRANSCRIPT
Felix Rex: Well, here we go again. Mass rioting and street violence in Europe, this time across France. The answer, as always, of course, from the governing financial and media class is that nothing fundamentally can be done, and that an African and Islamic hybrid Europe is inevitable, and that whatever remains of the native population must simply accept this new reality.
Well, what is true is that the civilizations that refuse to defend themselves do not get to negotiate the terms of their own replacement. They simply disappear into someone else’s story, and the only eulogy on offer is the complaint that they should have been “kinder”, “more open”, and “more tolerant” while it happened.
But if history has taught us anything when we are talking about the future, it is that nothing is inevitable.
(Promo)
Visegrád podcast:
Woman: Young people, the newest generation of migrants, are much more radicalized than their parents were.
Man: The second and third generation from Muslim-majority countries is usually more radical than their parents or grandparents who arrived and left a Muslim-majority country.
Felix Rex: Historically, when populations become divided by ethnicity, religion, language, or competing national identities, governments eventually have to confront the demographic question, sometimes through borders, partition, or population exchanges, and unfortunately, as is so often in the historical record, through violent expulsions.
Of course, none of these were pleasant solutions. But history does not support the idea that demographic conflicts simply disappear because politicians refuse to discuss them or allow anyone else to do so.
In that context, what has to be understood is the very real fact that we, human beings, are tribal. We have always been tribal. We will always be tribal.
Small family groups became clans, tribes, kingdoms, and eventually nation-states.
The terminology changed, the borders changed, but one basic human instinct remained remarkably consistent: People organized themselves around common ancestry, history, language, culture, religion and territory.
Look around Europe today, and you can still see this instinct for belonging operating in real time in places like Catalonia, Flanders, Corsica, Scotland, among many others.
The word “nation” itself comes from the Latin “nacio” and “naci”, meaning to be born or original and stock.
Now, of course, people have always moved, traded, conquered, and intermarried. There’s never been a society in history that was some perfectly homogenous racial utopia, but there is a rather large difference between people moving gradually over generations, like the Huguenots into England, to what now when governments are bringing in millions upon millions upon millions of people over into the country in a relatively short amount of time, whilst, at the same time telling the native population that the resulting demographic and cultural transformation of their nation is inevitable and something they must not only accept, but celebrate.
But history is full of things that were supposedly inevitable, right up until they weren’t. If you want to see how rapidly populations can be transformed, you don’t have to go back that far.
In 1923, Greece and Turkey formalized a population exchange involving roughly 2 million people. After the Second World War, millions of Germans were expelled from territories in Eastern Europe. The partition of India and Pakistan after the Raj produced one of the greatest and largest population movements in modern history. And of course, there was the population exchange of Greek and Turkish Cypriots after the 1975 partition.
The implosion and multi-sided ethnic conflict in 1990s Yugoslavia is where the term “Balkanization” was coined. Even the 2014 ethnic conflict known as the War in the Donbass, which has culminated in the current Russian-Ukraine war, could be called an ethnic civil war.
So you have exchanges, partitions, expulsions, civil wars; different circumstances and very different levels of violence, but the basic lesson is the same. Demographic and political arrangements that appear permanent can change remarkably quickly.
And then, there is the example of North Africa that I’d like to focus on. Between 1956 and 1962, French rule collapsed across Morocco, Tunisia, and Algeria. In Algeria alone, more than a million Europeans eventually left.
These were not simply recent arrivals. Many had been born there, as had their parents, and some families had lived there for generations. They had houses, businesses, farms, schools, churches, and entire communities. This was all they knew.
These Europeans living in North Africa were then caught inside a much larger transformation, in which the political definition of who belonged to Algeria had changed. And within a few years, that European population was largely gone.
And this is precisely why the North African example matters to the current European debate, although not in the simplistic sense that some people would like to make it matter.
The lesson is not that Europe should reproduce the chaos that accompanied the expulsion of Europeans from North Africa. Quite the opposite. The lesson is that demographic and political arrangements that appear permanent can change extraordinarily quickly, when the political assumptions sustaining them change.
The European populations of Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco were not allowed to stay simply because their families had lived there for generations, or that their children had always lived there and had never been to France.
No. The political system changed, the definition of national belonging changed, and eventually the population changed with it, or simply reverted when native rule was re-established. And if this is true, then we have to ask the very uncomfortable question about Europe today.
Why is demographic change treated as “irreversible” when almost every other form of political change is treated as malleable? Apparently, even asking this question is now extremely controversial.
Governments can change tax policy, welfare policy, trade policy, and environmental laws, yet somehow the policy of mass demographic transformative immigration is an irreversible law of nature. It cannot be changed. It cannot be stopped. It cannot even be spoken about.
Well, who decides this? Mass immigration was a political decision. It wasn’t an asteroid hitting the continent. Governments chose it. Parliamentarians voted for it. Institutions facilitated it. And the media has covered up the consequences of it. And if it was a political choice to begin with, then surely, it remains a political choice to change it.
That doesn’t mean violence. That doesn’t mean collective punishment. That doesn’t mean repeating the horrors of the 20th century population transfers. It means a return of borders, immigration law, citizenship policy, integration, and, where appropriate, return, being treated as legitimate instruments of a sovereign state rather than as unspeakable concepts.
What is true is that multiculturalism was always going to fail, because the people that designed the experiment, much like the Soviet Union, forgot to take human nature into account. Because people care about family, community, history, and the place where their parents and grandparents lived.
They care about whether the society they hand to their children still resembles the one they inherited. Even Chancellor Angela Merkel, herself said more than a decade ago that multiculturalism had failed in Germany. And the years since have not rescued the grand experiment.
It has, in fact, shown that we are now entering the endgame. And that, ultimately, is what the re-migration debate is about. It’s not about some fantasy of cruelty.
It’s about a policy that treats Europeans as a people with a homeland, rather than as a tax base with a guilt complex. And that’s why there are only so many cycles of social rioting and violence a society can withstand before the hard choices will have to be made. The question is whether Europe still believes it has a right to determine its own future.
Because once a civilization accepts that its future is inevitable, it has already surrendered something far more important than its borders. It has surrendered the belief that it even has one.
SEE ALSO
Gen Blaine Holt: Humanity’s 2,000-Year War
VIDEO: “Gen Blaine Holt: Humanity’s 2,000-Year War” - Pub Sep 11, 2026 by ForbiddenKnowledgeTV.net
The Black Nobility
Speaking of the parasite billionaire class, have you ever heard of the disgusting joke called "The Aristocrats"? I'm beginning to believe that the Aristocrats comedy routine is not actually a joke.
Communist China CCP Was Created by Rothschilds and their Agents
We know, from the work of Antony Sutton that prominent bankers on Wall Street financed the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution in Russia, so it shouldn't be too much of a surprise that a similar mechanism was at work in creating Communist China. Sutton also wrote