Ward Van Meensel: Mister Taylor, these last few months you have travelled Europe far and wide. What message do you bring here today?

Jared Taylor: The message that I bring is one of not just hope, but confidence, and I’ll tell you why. When I first started standing up for white people, 35 years ago, there were so few young, active, smart, well prepared and committed young people. And some of the young people have been kind enough to say that I inspire them. They inspire me, because now I know for sure our race and our people have a future.

Ward Van Meensel: In all of the countries that you’ve been to in this last two or three months, by now almost, was there any place or any movement that really stood out to you?

Jared Taylor: You know, I can’t honestly say that there has been. There is a kind of commonality, a common understanding of the crisis that we face, and a common understanding of how we must get over it. I would be hard pressed to say which is the most impressive movement. Here I am in Ireland. I have never been to a National Party event before. I didn’t know what to expect, but this turned out to be a marvelous, well organized, inspiring event. And that’s been my experience wherever I’ve gone in Europe. It’s very, very heartening.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Ward Van Meensel : Monsieur Taylor, ces derniers mois vous avez parcouru l’Europe de long en large. Quel message apportez-vous ici aujourd’hui ?

Jared Taylor : Le message que j’apporte n’est pas seulement un message d’espoir, mais de confiance, et je vais vous dire pourquoi. Quand j’ai commencé à défendre les Blancs, il y a 35 ans, il y avait si peu de jeunes actifs, intelligents, bien préparés et engagés. Et certains de ces jeunes ont eu la gentillesse de dire que je les inspire. Ils m’inspirent, parce que je sais maintenant avec certitude que notre race et notre peuple ont un avenir.

Ward Van Meensel : Dans tous les pays où vous êtes allé ces deux ou trois derniers mois, jusqu’à présent, y a-t-il un endroit ou un mouvement qui vous a particulièrement marqué ?

Jared Taylor : Vous savez, je ne peux honnêtement pas dire que ce soit le cas. Il y a une forme de point commun, une compréhension commune de la crise à laquelle nous faisons face, et une compréhension commune de la façon dont nous devons la surmonter. Je serais bien en peine de dire quel est le mouvement le plus impressionnant. Me voici en Irlande. Je n’étais jamais allé à un événement du National Party auparavant. Je ne savais pas à quoi m’attendre, mais cela s’est révélé être un événement formidable, bien organisé, inspirant. Et c’est ce qu’a été mon expérience partout où je suis allé en Europe. C’est très, très réconfortant.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Ward Van Meensel: Herr Taylor, in den letzten Monaten sind Sie kreuz und quer durch Europa gereist. Welche Botschaft bringen Sie heute mit?

Jared Taylor: Die Botschaft, die ich mitbringe, ist nicht nur eine der Hoffnung, sondern der Zuversicht, und ich werde Ihnen sagen, warum. Als ich vor 35 Jahren begann, mich für die weiße Bevölkerung einzusetzen, gab es nur sehr wenige junge, aktive, kluge, gut vorbereitete und engagierte junge Menschen. Und einige dieser jungen Menschen waren so freundlich zu sagen, dass ich sie inspiriere. Sie inspirieren mich, denn jetzt weiß ich mit Sicherheit, dass unsere Rasse und unser Volk eine Zukunft haben.

Ward Van Meensel: Gab es in all den Ländern, in denen Sie in den letzten zwei oder drei Monaten waren, bislang einen Ort oder eine Bewegung, die Ihnen besonders aufgefallen ist?

Jared Taylor: Wissen Sie, das kann ich ehrlich gesagt nicht sagen. Es gibt eine Art Gemeinsamkeit, ein gemeinsames Verständnis der Krise, vor der wir stehen, und ein gemeinsames Verständnis davon, wie wir sie überwinden müssen. Es würde mir schwerfallen zu sagen, welche Bewegung die beeindruckendste ist. Hier bin ich nun in Irland. Ich war noch nie zuvor bei einer Veranstaltung der National Party. Ich wusste nicht, was mich erwartet, aber es stellte sich als eine wunderbare, gut organisierte, inspirierende Veranstaltung heraus. Und das war meine Erfahrung, wo auch immer ich in Europa war. Es ist sehr, sehr ermutigend.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Support by Einprozent

Ward Van Meensel: Tom, the Flemish and Irish share a special bond, as both peoples have fought for their freedom for centuries and strive for full independence. How do you see that brotherly bond?

Tom: Yes, Flemings and Irish have indeed had more than a millennium of ties, really, from the Flemish settlers in Kilkenny in the 11th century with the wool trade, to even the first Catholic college in Leuven, where many Irish monks fled after the Penal Laws. The... The ties between Flemings and Irish go back a very long way, and even now, still today, we have the same problem with language and migration issues. Not only is migration becoming a problem here and its a very big problem but also in Flanders, we have huge problems with migration, and they’re now seeing the same thing, and in that we have something in common, and we’ll also have to look at the same solutions, namely remigration and language issues: exactly the same thing happened here. We had to speak English here in the days before independence, and just as we had to speak French to get anywhere near the top, they had to speak English.

Ward Van Meensel: A few months ago, the big NSV! remigration demo took place in Leuven. Does the NSV’s activism cause it a lot of legal problems?

Tom: Yes, less so this year, but it only just took place, after all three months in Belgian legal time is like three seconds in the real world, so to speak, with how cases can sometimes drag on for five years. I think it might still be coming, that some case or other gets opened, or something like that. I know there are people on the far left who have filed complaints against our people over... the speeches we give at the end of the demonstration. they are just good-for-nothing. What we also know is that, for example, in Ghent last year there was a complaint from the mayor, because he just had to do something, because he’s such a liberal lapdog for his green-left friends, he filed a complaint against us for racism, and that still hasn’t gone anywhere. I can’t complain about that, but it could still come. In any case, we know that right now we’re probably in the crosshairs of the state, and that we can’t make a single mistake or afford to slip up.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Ward Van Meensel: Tom, les Flamands et les Irlandais partagent un lien particulier, puisque les deux peuples se sont battus pendant des siècles pour leur liberté et aspirent à une pleine indépendance. Comment vois-tu ce lien fraternel ?

Tom: Oui, les Flamands et les Irlandais ont en effet plus d’un millénaire de liens, vraiment, depuis les colons flamands de Kilkenny au 11e siècle avec le commerce de la laine, jusqu’au premier collège catholique de Louvain, où de nombreux moines irlandais se sont réfugiés après les lois pénales. Les... Les liens entre Flamands et Irlandais remontent très loin, et encore aujourd’hui, nous avons le même problème avec la langue et les questions migratoires. Non seulement la migration devient un problème ici et c’est un très gros problème, mais en Flandre aussi, nous avons d’énormes problèmes de migration, et ils voient maintenant la même chose, et en cela nous avons quelque chose en commun, et nous devrons aussi envisager les mêmes solutions, à savoir la remigration et les questions de langue : exactement la même chose s’est produite ici. Nous avons dû parler anglais ici à l’époque avant l’indépendance, et tout comme nous avons dû parler français pour arriver quelque part au sommet, eux ont dû parler anglais.

Ward Van Meensel: Il y a quelques mois, la grande manifestation pour la remigration organisée par la NSV! a eu lieu à Louvain. Est-ce que l’activisme de la NSV lui cause beaucoup de problèmes juridiques ?

Tom: Oui, moins cette année, mais elle vient tout juste d’avoir lieu, après tout trois mois en temps juridique belge, c’est comme trois secondes dans le monde réel, pour ainsi dire, sachant que les procédures peuvent parfois traîner pendant cinq ans. Je pense que ça pourrait encore arriver, qu’une affaire ou une autre soit ouverte, ou quelque chose comme ça. Je sais qu’il y a des gens de l’extrême gauche qui ont déposé des plaintes contre nos gens à propos... des discours que nous donnons à la fin de la manifestation. ce sont juste des bons à rien. Ce que nous savons aussi, c’est que, par exemple, à Gand l’année dernière il y a eu une plainte du maire, parce qu’il fallait bien qu’il fasse quelque chose, parce que c’est un tel toutou libéral pour ses amis vert-de-gauche, il a déposé une plainte contre nous pour racisme, et ça n’a toujours abouti à rien. Je ne peux pas m’en plaindre, mais ça pourrait encore venir. En tout cas, nous savons qu’en ce moment nous sommes probablement dans le collimateur de l’État, et que nous ne pouvons pas nous permettre la moindre erreur ou le moindre faux pas.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Ward Van Meensel: Tom, die Flamen und die Iren verbindet ein besonderes Band, da beide Völker seit Jahrhunderten für ihre Freiheit gekämpft haben und nach voller Unabhängigkeit streben. Wie siehst du dieses brüderliche Band?

Tom: Ja, Flamen und Iren haben tatsächlich mehr als ein Jahrtausend an Verbindungen, wirklich, von den flämischen Siedlern in Kilkenny im 11. Jahrhundert mit dem Wollhandel, bis hin zum ersten katholischen Kolleg in Leuven, wohin viele irische Mönche nach den Strafgesetzen flohen. Die... Die Verbindungen zwischen Flamen und Iren reichen sehr weit zurück, und selbst heute noch haben wir das gleiche Problem mit Sprache und Migrationsfragen. Migration wird nicht nur hier zu einem Problem, und es ist ein sehr großes Problem, sondern auch in Flandern haben wir riesige Probleme mit Migration, und sie sehen jetzt dasselbe, und darin haben wir etwas gemeinsam, und wir werden uns auch mit denselben Lösungen befassen müssen, nämlich Remigration und Sprachfragen: genau dasselbe ist hier passiert. Wir mussten hier in der Zeit vor der Unabhängigkeit Englisch sprechen, und genau wie wir Französisch sprechen mussten, um überhaupt in die Nähe der Spitze zu kommen, mussten sie Englisch sprechen.

Ward Van Meensel: Vor einigen Monaten fand in Leuven die große Remigrations-Demo der NSV! statt. Bereitet der Aktivismus der NSV ihr viele rechtliche Probleme?

Tom: Ja, dieses Jahr weniger, aber sie hat gerade erst stattgefunden, immerhin sind drei Monate belgische Rechtszeit wie drei Sekunden in der wirklichen Welt, sozusagen, wo Verfahren manchmal fünf Jahre dauern können. Ich glaube, es könnte noch kommen, dass irgendein Verfahren eröffnet wird, oder so etwas. Ich weiß, dass es Leute von der radikalen Linken gibt, die Anzeigen gegen unsere Leute erstattet haben wegen... der Reden, die wir am Ende der Demonstration halten. das sind einfach Nichtsnutze. Was wir auch wissen, ist, dass es zum Beispiel letztes Jahr in Gent eine Anzeige vom Bürgermeister gab, weil er einfach irgendetwas tun musste, weil er so ein liberaler Lakai für seine grün-linken Freunde ist, er hat Anzeige gegen uns wegen Rassismus erstattet, und das ist bis heute nirgendwo hingeführt. Darüber kann ich mich nicht beklagen, aber es könnte noch kommen. Jedenfalls wissen wir, dass wir gerade wahrscheinlich im Visier des Staates stehen, und dass wir uns keinen einzigen Fehler oder Ausrutscher leisten können.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Support by Einprozent

Ward: Yann, you’ve been the leader of the National Party youth wing for some years by now. As a young father, how do you mix your intense activist lifestyle with your family life, and does the birth of your child influence things you do in any way?

Yann: That’s a good question, and a very similar question was asked to me in a previous interview I had with Philip Dwyer there. And a lot of it is simply balance, ensuring that there’s a healthy balance between family life. I try to make sure as much as possible that politics doesn’t seep into family life aggressively, and vice versa.

In regards to having a child, actually, I find... I remember my father told me years ago, he said, oh, you’ll see Yann, one day when you have a son of your own or a child of your own, you won’t be as radical in politics or you won’t have these radical views. Well, actually, I’ve got more radical. And because, quite literally, with mass immigration, with the way the country is gone, you bet your bottom dollar I wanna fight for our race. You bet your bottom dollar that I wanna fight for a future for him.

And I think there’s a lot of parents, especially in Ireland, especially in Dublin that are facing this huge mass immigration crisis that, yeah, they... it’s clicked. And I mentioned in one of the panels and talks that a lot of the women, for example, a lot of mothers, there’s like a flip on the propaganda. Women have been the target of this propaganda by international... international media companies, and and it’s flipping in Ireland. You have now these women are now who are mothers, where they’re saying instead of, oh no, let’s look after all these poor refugees, is hold on a second, let’s look after our children.

And so, yeah, this maybe it’s radicalized me further and not in an aggressive manner or anything, but in just how important our job actually is, and the unique perspective I have as being a youth leader for the last over six years now, and having being a husband, being the head of my family, had bearing a son it’s... I’m blessed.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Ward: Yann, tu diriges l’aile jeunesse du National Party depuis plusieurs années maintenant. En tant que jeune père, comment concilies-tu ton mode de vie militant intense avec ta vie de famille, et est-ce que la naissance de ton enfant influence tes actions d’une manière ou d’une autre ?

Yann: C’est une bonne question, et une question très similaire m’avait été posée lors d’une précédente interview que j’avais donnée à Philip Dwyer. Et une grande partie de la réponse tient simplement à l’équilibre, à s’assurer qu’il y a un équilibre sain avec la vie de famille. J’essaie de faire en sorte, autant que possible, que la politique ne s’immisce pas dans la vie de famille de façon agressive, et inversement.

En ce qui concerne le fait d’avoir un enfant, en fait, je trouve... je me souviens que mon père me disait il y a des années, il disait, oh, tu verras Yann, un jour quand tu auras un fils à toi ou un enfant à toi, tu ne seras plus aussi radical en politique, ou tu n’auras plus ces opinions radicales. Eh bien, en fait, je suis devenu plus radical. Et parce que, très littéralement, avec l’immigration de masse, avec la direction que prend le pays, tu peux parier ton dernier dollar que je veux me battre pour notre race. Tu peux parier ton dernier dollar que je veux me battre pour un avenir pour lui.

Et je pense qu’il y a beaucoup de parents, en particulier en Irlande, en particulier à Dublin, qui font face à cette immense crise d’immigration de masse et, oui, ils... ça a fait tilt. Et j’ai mentionné dans l’un des panels et des interventions que beaucoup de femmes, par exemple, beaucoup de mères, il y a comme un retournement de la propagande. Les femmes ont été la cible de cette propagande de la part des... des entreprises médiatiques internationales, et et ça se retourne en Irlande. Vous avez maintenant ces femmes, qui sont mères, qui disent au lieu de, oh non, occupons-nous de tous ces pauvres réfugiés, c’est plutôt attends une seconde, occupons-nous de nos enfants.

Et donc, oui, ça m’a peut-être encore radicalisé, et pas d’une manière agressive ou quoi que ce soit, mais dans le sens de à quel point notre travail est important, et la perspective unique que j’ai en tant que dirigeant de la jeunesse depuis plus de six ans maintenant, et le fait d’être un mari, d’être le chef de ma famille, avoir eu un fils, c’est... je suis béni.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Ward: Yann, du bist seit einigen Jahren der Anführer des Jugendflügels der National Party. Als junger Vater, wie vereinbarst du dein intensives Aktivistenleben mit deinem Familienleben, und beeinflusst die Geburt deines Kindes die Dinge, die du tust, in irgendeiner Weise?

Yann: Das ist eine gute Frage, und eine sehr ähnliche Frage wurde mir in einem früheren Interview gestellt, das ich mit Philip Dwyer geführt habe. Und vieles davon ist einfach Balance, sicherzustellen, dass es eine gesunde Balance mit dem Familienleben gibt. Ich versuche, so gut es geht, dafür zu sorgen, dass die Politik nicht aggressiv ins Familienleben eindringt, und umgekehrt.

Was das Haben eines Kindes angeht, tatsächlich finde ich... ich erinnere mich, mein Vater hat mir vor Jahren gesagt, er sagte, oh, du wirst sehen Yann, eines Tages, wenn du einen eigenen Sohn hast oder ein eigenes Kind, wirst du nicht mehr so radikal in der Politik sein, oder du wirst diese radikalen Ansichten nicht mehr haben. Nun, tatsächlich, ich bin radikaler geworden. Und weil, ganz wörtlich, mit der Masseneinwanderung, mit der Richtung, in die das Land gegangen ist, kannst du deinen letzten Dollar darauf verwetten, dass ich für unsere Rasse kämpfen will. Du kannst deinen letzten Dollar darauf verwetten, dass ich für eine Zukunft für ihn kämpfen will.

Und ich denke, es gibt viele Eltern, besonders in Irland, besonders in Dublin, die dieser riesigen Masseneinwanderungskrise gegenüberstehen und, ja, sie... es hat klick gemacht. Und ich habe in einem der Panels und Gespräche erwähnt, dass viele der Frauen, zum Beispiel, viele Mütter, es gibt so etwas wie eine Umkehrung der Propaganda. Frauen waren das Ziel dieser Propaganda durch... durch internationale Medienunternehmen, und und das kehrt sich in Irland um. Man hat jetzt diese Frauen, die Mütter sind, die sagen, statt oh nein, kümmern wir uns um all diese armen Flüchtlinge, ist es eher warte mal, kümmern wir uns um unsere Kinder.

Und so, ja, das hat mich vielleicht noch weiter radikalisiert, und nicht auf aggressive Weise oder so, sondern im Sinne davon, wie wichtig unsere Arbeit tatsächlich ist, und die einzigartige Perspektive, die ich als Jugendleiter seit über sechs Jahren jetzt habe, und dass ich Ehemann bin, Oberhaupt meiner Familie, einen Sohn bekommen habe, es ist... ich bin gesegnet.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Support by Einprozent

Ward : So, Keith, as an Irishman, how do you see the cooperation between nationalist movements in Europe?

Keith Woods : There’s an important place for it. I think we’ve seen over the last few years, especially, the movements across Europe have professionalized a lot more. I think, Zoomers that come into nationalism understand a lot in terms of optics, presentation, kind of a unified metapolitical message that’s developed across Europe, learning from best practice from other countries, kind of collaborative learning process. So I think it’s important in that regard, on the the metapolitical front, these conferences that happen across Europe, the networking, and I think it’s been really beneficial. I think some things have been picked up, even that you see within Irish nationalism, in terms of organizing, may be picked up from the continent, that have been very successful strategies. So it’s good also, I think, you know, we need to put forward a an alternative vision of what our rule of Europe could look like. You know, this is something I’ve argued for before, in terms of not just kind of a blanket rejection of what, you know, we’ll all leave this European block and go our own ways, but actually people need a a realistic vision of what a Europe run by nationalists would look like. And so there has to be some level of collaboration there, that we’re not going back to some kind of, you know, the bad old nationalism where we’re perpetually in conflict and the things that the European Bloc was developed to stop come back, namely international conflict between our nations. And so collaboration is very good in that front, and it’s moralizing for young members as well.

Ward : You’ve been a nationalist influencer of a kind and a writer for a few years now, and you even have your own media company, I think, since a year. Are there any big future projects and work?

Keith Woods : Well, I’m working on a book right now. Details forthcoming, but it’s mostly on decentralization, localism, the value of small states in the modern age. As you know, some of the things that made big empires and global national blocks possible, I argue that those are declining. Also working on a social media project that will be an attempt to make it a lot easier for some of the things we’ve discussed, for nationalist groups to network. I just, for good discussion to happen outside of the kind of slop cycle that social media is providing right now, a place, you know, like the old forum culture that we can recreate and have good important discussions, and an interesting place for research. So yeah, there’s a lot of interesting projects happening right now. Of course, censorship is something, hurdle I constantly have to face. I recently faced more financial deplatforming, but all the time the audience is growing, there’s more interest in our ideas. So it’s a very exciting time to be starting these new projects.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Ward : Alors Keith, en tant qu’Irlandais, comment voyez-vous la coopération entre les mouvements nationalistes en Europe ?

Keith Woods : Il y a une place importante pour ça. Je pense qu’on a vu, ces dernières années, en particulier, les mouvements à travers l’Europe se professionnaliser beaucoup plus. Je pense que les Zoomers qui rejoignent le nationalisme comprennent beaucoup de choses en termes d’image, de présentation, une sorte de message métapolitique unifié qui s’est développé à travers l’Europe, en apprenant des meilleures pratiques d’autres pays, une sorte de processus d’apprentissage collaboratif. Donc je pense que c’est important à cet égard, sur le le front métapolitique, ces conférences qui se tiennent à travers l’Europe, le réseautage, et je pense que ça a été vraiment bénéfique. Je pense que certaines choses ont été reprises, même ce qu’on voit au sein du nationalisme irlandais, en termes d’organisation, peut-être reprises du continent, qui ont été des stratégies très réussies. Donc c’est bien aussi, je pense, vous savez, on doit proposer une une vision alternative de ce à quoi pourrait ressembler notre gouvernance de l’Europe. Vous savez, c’est quelque chose que j’ai déjà défendu, dans le sens où il ne s’agit pas seulement d’une sorte de rejet total où, vous savez, on quitterait tous ce bloc européen pour aller chacun de notre côté, mais en fait les gens ont besoin d’une d’une vision réaliste de ce à quoi ressemblerait une Europe dirigée par des nationalistes. Et donc il doit y avoir un certain niveau de collaboration là-dedans, pour qu’on ne retombe pas dans une sorte de, vous savez, mauvais vieux nationalisme où on est perpétuellement en conflit et où reviennent les choses que le bloc européen a été conçu pour empêcher, à savoir le conflit international entre nos nations. Donc la collaboration est très bonne sur ce plan-là, et c’est aussi moralisateur pour les jeunes membres.

Ward : Vous êtes une sorte d’influenceur nationaliste et un écrivain depuis quelques années maintenant, et vous avez même votre propre média, je pense, depuis un an. Y a-t-il de grands projets à venir ?

Keith Woods : Eh bien, je travaille sur un livre en ce moment. Les détails suivront, mais il porte surtout sur la décentralisation, le localisme, la valeur des petits États à l’époque moderne. Comme vous le savez, je soutiens que certaines des choses qui ont rendu possibles les grands empires et les blocs nationaux mondiaux sont en déclin. Je travaille aussi sur un projet de réseau social qui sera une tentative de faciliter, pour certaines des choses dont on a parlé, le réseautage des groupes nationalistes. Je veux juste que de bonnes discussions puissent avoir lieu en dehors de cette sorte de cycle de contenu médiocre que proposent les réseaux sociaux en ce moment, un endroit, vous savez, comme l’ancienne culture des forums, qu’on pourrait recréer et avoir de bonnes discussions importantes, et un endroit intéressant pour la recherche. Donc voilà, il y a beaucoup de projets intéressants en ce moment. Bien sûr, la censure est quelque chose, un obstacle auquel je fais constamment face. J’ai récemment fait face à davantage de déplateformisation financière, mais tout le temps, l’audience grandit, il y a plus d’intérêt pour nos idées. Donc c’est une période très excitante pour lancer ces nouveaux projets.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Ward : Also Keith, wie sehen Sie als Ire die Zusammenarbeit zwischen den nationalistischen Bewegungen in Europa?

Keith Woods : Da gibt es einen wichtigen Platz dafür. Ich denke, wir haben in den letzten Jahren gesehen, besonders, dass sich die Bewegungen in ganz Europa viel stärker professionalisiert haben. Ich denke, Zoomer, die zum Nationalismus kommen, verstehen viel in Bezug auf Optik, Präsentation, eine Art einheitliche metapolitische Botschaft, die sich über Europa entwickelt hat, indem man von Best Practices aus anderen Ländern lernt, eine Art kollaborativer Lernprozess. Also denke ich, dass es in dieser Hinsicht wichtig ist, auf der der metapolitischen Front, diese Konferenzen, die in ganz Europa stattfinden, die Vernetzung, und ich denke, das war wirklich von Vorteil. Ich denke, einige Dinge wurden übernommen, sogar das, was man innerhalb des irischen Nationalismus sieht, in Bezug auf Organisation, vielleicht vom Kontinent übernommen, die sehr erfolgreiche Strategien waren. Also ist das auch gut, ich denke, wissen Sie, wir müssen eine eine alternative Vision davon vorlegen, wie unsere Herrschaft über Europa aussehen könnte. Wissen Sie, das ist etwas, wofür ich schon zuvor argumentiert habe, im Sinne von nicht nur einer Art pauschaler Ablehnung, bei der wir, wissen Sie, dieses europäische Bündnis alle verlassen und unsere eigenen Wege gehen, sondern die Menschen brauchen tatsächlich eine eine realistische Vision davon, wie ein von Nationalisten regiertes Europa aussehen würde. Und deshalb muss es dort ein gewisses Maß an Zusammenarbeit geben, damit wir nicht wieder in eine Art, wissen Sie, den schlechten alten Nationalismus zurückfallen, in dem wir ständig im Konflikt stehen und die Dinge, die der europäische Block verhindern sollte, zurückkehren, nämlich internationale Konflikte zwischen unseren Nationen. Also ist Zusammenarbeit auf dieser Front sehr gut, und es ist auch moralisierend für junge Mitglieder.

Ward : Sie sind seit einigen Jahren eine Art nationalistischer Influencer und Autor, und Sie haben sogar Ihr eigenes Medienunternehmen, ich glaube, seit einem Jahr. Gibt es irgendwelche großen zukünftigen Projekte und Arbeiten?

Keith Woods : Nun, ich arbeite gerade an einem Buch. Details folgen, aber es geht hauptsächlich um Dezentralisierung, Lokalismus, den Wert kleiner Staaten im modernen Zeitalter. Wie Sie wissen, argumentiere ich, dass einige der Dinge, die große Imperien und globale nationale Blöcke möglich gemacht haben, im Niedergang begriffen sind. Ich arbeite auch an einem Social-Media-Projekt, das ein Versuch sein wird, einige der Dinge, über die wir gesprochen haben, zu erleichtern, damit sich nationalistische Gruppen vernetzen können. Ich möchte einfach, dass gute Diskussionen stattfinden können, außerhalb dieser Art von Slop-Zyklus, den soziale Medien gerade bieten, ein Ort, wissen Sie, wie die alte Forenkultur, den wir wiederherstellen und gute, wichtige Diskussionen führen können, und ein interessanter Ort für Recherche. Also ja, es gibt gerade viele interessante Projekte. Natürlich ist Zensur etwas, eine Hürde, der ich ständig gegenüberstehe. Ich bin kürzlich stärkerer finanzieller Deplatformierung ausgesetzt gewesen, aber die ganze Zeit wächst das Publikum, es gibt mehr Interesse an unseren Ideen. Also ist es eine sehr aufregende Zeit, um diese neuen Projekte zu starten.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Support by Einprozent

Ward: Martin, with the official launch of the Save Europe Act, things seem to be shifting in the European right. How do you see the chances of the European Commission actually taking the plea for remigration seriously?

Martin Sellner: I think we’ll force them to, because even if they reject it, it’s not the end. This gave us a very negative email, but the process is ongoing. We did... I think we compiled a very good answer. We are massing signatures over signatures. We have about 500,000 right now, I think, by the end of the month. He might have even achieved 800,000. So we will use this army of volunteers, because every fourth signer also wants to become a volunteer, to force the issue, so we don’t even give them a chance to ignore it. And even if they end up not accepting the ECI, we have a perfect backup plan to keep them occupied and busy.

Ward: Are there any alternatives, according to you, to the political solution we are fighting for today, and how would such an alternative look like?

Martin Sellner: I think remigration is the only peaceful solution, the legal solution to our issue. Without remigration, we have civil war, we have a post-democratic ethnic gangland, and in the end, we will face the same fate as the Christians in Egypt, as the whites in South Africa. And it’s not a fate I want for you or my children, and that’s why I’m fully focused on remigration, and without it, we become minorities at our own home. So I think we need to, now, put all our resources together, every European, every patriot needs to work together for remigration, but I think we can still make it.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Ward: Martin, avec le lancement officiel du Save Europe Act, les choses semblent bouger au sein de la droite européenne. Comment évaluez-vous les chances que la Commission européenne prenne réellement au sérieux la demande de remigration ?

Martin Sellner: Je pense que nous allons les y forcer, parce que même s’ils la rejettent, ce n’est pas la fin. Cela nous a valu un email très négatif, mais le processus est en cours. Nous avons... je pense que nous avons rédigé une très bonne réponse. Nous rassemblons signature après signature. Nous en sommes à environ 500 000 en ce moment, je pense, d’ici la fin du mois. Il aurait même pu atteindre 800 000. Nous allons donc utiliser cette armée de volontaires, parce qu’un signataire sur quatre veut aussi devenir volontaire, pour forcer la question, pour ne même pas leur laisser la possibilité de l’ignorer. Et même s’ils finissent par ne pas accepter l’ECI, nous avons un excellent plan de secours pour les occuper et les tenir en haleine.

Ward: Voyez-vous des alternatives à la solution politique pour laquelle nous nous battons aujourd’hui, et à quoi ressemblerait une telle alternative ?

Martin Sellner: Je pense que la remigration est la seule solution pacifique, la solution légale à notre problème. Sans la remigration, nous avons la guerre civile, nous avons un gangland ethnique post-démocratique, et au final, nous connaîtrons le même sort que les chrétiens en Égypte, que les Blancs en Afrique du Sud. Et ce n’est pas un sort que je souhaite pour vous ou pour mes enfants, et c’est pourquoi je me consacre entièrement à la remigration, et sans elle, nous devenons minoritaires chez nous. Donc je pense que nous devons, maintenant, rassembler toutes nos ressources, chaque Européen, chaque patriote doit travailler ensemble pour la remigration, mais je pense que nous pouvons encore y arriver.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Ward: Martin, mit dem offiziellen Start des Save Europe Act scheint sich innerhalb der europäischen Rechten etwas zu verschieben. Wie schätzen Sie die Chancen ein, dass die Europäische Kommission die Forderung nach Remigration tatsächlich ernst nimmt?

Martin Sellner: Ich glaube, wir werden sie dazu zwingen, denn selbst wenn sie es ablehnen, ist das nicht das Ende. Das hat uns eine sehr negative E-Mail eingebracht, aber der Prozess läuft weiter. Wir haben... ich glaube, wir haben eine sehr gute Antwort verfasst. Wir sammeln Unterschrift um Unterschrift. Wir liegen gerade bei etwa 500.000, ich glaube, bis Ende des Monats. Er könnte sogar 800.000 erreicht haben. Wir werden also diese Armee von Freiwilligen nutzen, denn jeder vierte Unterzeichner will auch Freiwilliger werden, um die Sache zu erzwingen, damit wir ihnen nicht einmal die Chance geben, es zu ignorieren. Und selbst wenn sie die ECI am Ende nicht annehmen, haben wir einen perfekten Rückfallplan, um sie beschäftigt zu halten.

Ward: Sehen Sie Alternativen zu der politischen Lösung, für die wir heute kämpfen, und wie würde eine solche Alternative aussehen?

Martin Sellner: Ich denke, Remigration ist die einzige friedliche Lösung, die rechtliche Lösung für unser Problem. Ohne Remigration haben wir Bürgerkrieg, wir haben ein postdemokratisches ethnisches Gangland, und am Ende werden wir das gleiche Schicksal erleiden wie die Christen in Ägypten, wie die Weißen in Südafrika. Und das ist kein Schicksal, das ich für Sie oder meine Kinder will, und deshalb konzentriere ich mich voll und ganz auf die Remigration, und ohne sie werden wir zu Minderheiten im eigenen Land. Ich denke also, wir müssen jetzt all unsere Ressourcen bündeln, jeder Europäer, jeder Patriot muss für die Remigration zusammenarbeiten, aber ich glaube, wir können es noch schaffen.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Support by Einprozent

Your political commitment began at 18, within Generation Identity. What led you to take the step into activism at that age, and what did you hope to accomplish at the time?

I believe my commitment was born from both a family inheritance and a personal shock.

I grew up in a French, Catholic, right-wing family of noble descent. I was raised with a visceral love of France, lulled by stories of illustrious ancestors who took part in our history. I felt a personal bond with her; attachment to our landscapes, our culture, our civilization has always been part of me. It was simply self-evident, and a deep source of pride, to belong to this great people.

But I understood that this self-evidence was under threat when I enrolled at Mirail University in Toulouse. I found myself at a university heavily marked by the left, situated at the heart of a neighborhood that had already been replaced, known as one of the hubs for jihadist departures from France.

My ideas there were, quite obviously, a small minority. This strange mix made it impossible to express my convictions without immediately being targeted by the antifascist activists who were very present on campus.

I therefore confronted, in concrete terms, our country’s demographic transformation, finding myself, on several occasions, the only young white Frenchwoman in the metro carriage. That inevitably produced something in me. I understood that my very existence, and what it represented, could no longer be taken for granted. I felt as though I had become a foreigner in my own country.

At 18, I decided to join Generation Identity because I found young people there who resembled me: they had ideals, courage, and above all they refused to watch France disappear without doing anything.

Very quickly, I became one of the most committed female activists. I discovered the direct actions, the flyposting actions, police custody, in short, the adventure! I felt I belonged to a generation that refused resignation. Generation Identity gave me the momentum to move from observation to action.

The dissolution of Generation Identity by government decree in 2021 marked a turning point. How did you experience that decision, and what did it teach you about the limits of the right to association in France? (Also briefly explain why, at the outset)

Personally, the dissolution of Generation Identity was a real shock that deeply affected my morale at the time.

When you dissolve a movement, you tear apart a community, one that represented a second family for me. I had devoted a great deal of my time and energy to Generation Identity, and I had taken significant risks by putting my face and my name on it. From that point on, you publicly own ideas that will follow you for years. I was barely 21, and I had already experienced very heavy media exposure, since I had become Generation Identity’s spokesperson just as the movement reached the peak of its visibility. I began very early to live with censorship, frozen bank accounts, hostile television appearances, harassment, threats, and intimidation from antifascist activists. That is young, 21, to become a kind of pariah.

On the substance, this decision shows that freedom of association and freedom of expression exist only as long as you keep to the dominant pro-immigration and antiracist discourse. Generation Identity was a youth movement, militant and spectacular, certainly, but our actions were always peaceful. And yet we were presented as a quasi-paramilitary threat on the grounds that some activists practiced combat sports or wore matching colors during public actions. That is absurd. By that standard, any sports club or scouting movement could be dissolved.

It was an eminently political decision. The state decided to dissolve us because we were too effective.

But I did not want to give up. After the dissolution, I launched my YouTube channel to keep carrying the voice of everyone who had supported us, and to use the media exposure I had gained to keep spreading our ideas to as many people as possible.

You cannot dissolve convictions.

In France, statements made during a symbolic action in the Pyrenees first earned you a conviction, before an acquittal on appeal. In Germany, Martin Sellner has been banned from the territory for uttering the word “remigration” during a private meeting. Do you perceive a European coordination behind this repression?

I don’t know whether there is a formal coordination, but there is very clearly an ideological convergence among European elites.

Across Western Europe, you find the same reflexes: blaming indigenous peoples, a culture of shame, refusal to defend our borders, the sacralization of immigration, an inability to name demographic replacement, and a desire to pathologize any identitarian reaction. Those who say “we want to remain ourselves” are immediately presented as dangerous.

It’s a form of deterrence. They want identitarian activists to understand that their commitment can cost them their reputation, their job, their bank accounts, their freedom, and their future.

They are afraid that Europeans will wake up and understand that they share the same destiny. If we unite, the balance of power could shift very quickly. And that is a very good sign.

The European Digital Services Act, in force since 2024, places platforms under a moderation obligation, on pain of massive fines. Some of your successive bans predate this legal framework, but it has now institutionalized it. Do you think the digital repression you experienced individually is, with the DSA, becoming a permanent infrastructure for controlling speech in Europe? How do you face it?

Even before the Digital Services Act, I had already experienced this digital repression: Twitter, TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook accounts suspended. Every time, you have to start over completely, and win back your audience while hoping not to be banned once again.

With the DSA, this logic is no longer just the result of platforms’ internal decisions; this censorship takes on an institutional form at the European scale. Platforms are pushed, under threat of massive fines, to over-moderate anything that could be considered “risky.” And naturally, identitarian, anti-immigration, or pro-remigration speech is among the first targeted.

How do you face it? First, by building our own media; we cannot go on depending forever on platforms that can erase us in a matter of seconds.

Then, you have to learn to play with the rules of the field and use cunning. Humor, in that respect, is a formidable weapon for working with insinuation.

But fortunately there are reasons for hope. Elon Musk’s takeover of Twitter changed something: I can see very clearly that censorship is far less stifling than it used to be. The others were forced to align at least partly with the competition and ease the pressure.

And finally, there is strength in numbers. The more of us there are speaking, the less they can silence all of us.

Identitarian figures across Europe face travel bans, legal proceedings, and frozen bank accounts. Does solidarity between movements truly exist when it comes to defending those who fall, or does it remain mostly rhetorical?

Yes, that solidarity exists. And I can say so all the more sincerely because, for a time, I had almost stopped believing in it.

I myself have been the target of these intimidation attempts: bank accounts closed, unable to get a loan, repeated legal proceedings, and so on. You can maintain a combative discourse, but after several years, that accumulation still wears you down. To be honest, there were several times I became discouraged.

Recently, before the verdict in yet another trial, I publicly shared my weariness. And in response, I received incredible support, from identitarians and patriots all over the world, from Europe to the United States, through Australia, all the way to Japan. Many people shared my story, wrote to me, and helped me financially. That moved me deeply.

So yes, real solidarity exists, and for my part it gave me a new breath of life.

You alone bear the financial cost of these proceedings. That raises a strategic question: can a movement of ideas that leaves its leading figures to face legal prosecution alone hope to endure?

It’s true that I’m alone in bearing the cost of these proceedings, but when I called for help, hundreds of strangers answered, and that means more to me than the support of any political structure.

Let’s be frank about it: in France, few of us hold a discourse as radical as mine. Even within the right, the cordon sanitaire the left imposes on us is too often reproduced. People grow wary of being seen with this or that person, and by trying so hard to remain acceptable in the eyes of our enemies, we sometimes end up losing sight of who our real allies are.

That’s a major strategic problem, because it abandons those taking the blows on the front line, and condemns us to discouraging the most courageous.

But I felt that real solidarity still existed, from influencers as well as from anonymous people, so too bad for the politicians. For me, that’s enough to give me the strength to keep going.

Looking at your trajectory over the past six years (the movement’s dissolution, convictions, digital censorship, an aborted attempt in radio), has the French system managed to silence you, or has it produced the opposite effect?

It has produced the opposite effect.

I won’t pretend that none of this affected me. There were moments when I felt demotivated. But the recent support I received during my latest trial made me even more determined. I understood that if so much effort was being put into making me disappear, it was because my voice carried weight.

They wanted to erase me from the landscape; I will be an even bigger stone in their shoe.

You were one of the first to carry an identitarian voice on social media in France. What is your view of the emergence of an alternative European media space (outlets like Voxeuropa, capable of relaying these voices without going through national gatekeepers)?

I obviously view this emergence very positively, and for me this kind of initiative is essential, because it allows us to reclaim our voice without waiting for permission from the mainstream media. Above all, it allows voices from different countries to support one another, because we share the same civilizational struggle.

These initiatives need to multiply, professionalize, and be supported. I believe the future of the identitarian struggle will largely pass through this: through our capacity to build our own networks of solidarity.

So, well done to you, and thank you for taking part in this European media reconstruction that we absolutely need.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Support by Einprozent

From the closure of his German restaurant in Vancouver to this unexpected success, the German director’s journey illustrates a broader shift: that of socially conscious cinema finally finding, outside traditional channels, the audience that had previously been denied to it. Following Run, an unflinching portrait of clandestine crossings of the Mediterranean, Citizen Vigilante confirms that a filmmaker can still tackle head-on the subjects the industry avoids, and be rewarded for it

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Today, Uwe Boll is making one of the most spectacular comebacks in European independent cinema. Citizen Vigilante, his latest feature film, has climbed to number one on Amazon’s sales charts in the United States, without a Hollywood studio, without a traditional distributor, driven almost entirely by social media and alternative media.

From the closure of his German restaurant in Vancouver to this unexpected success, the German director’s journey illustrates a broader shift: that of socially conscious cinema finally finding, outside traditional channels, the audience that had previously been denied to it. Following Run, an unflinching portrait of clandestine crossings of the Mediterranean, Citizen Vigilante confirms that a filmmaker can still tackle head-on the subjects the industry avoids, and be rewarded for it

1. In 2015 you opened the Bauhaus restaurant in Vancouver and stepped away from filmmaking. What brought you back to making movies?

When Blockbuster Video died, around 2014, I thought I would never make money making movies again. I missed German food in Vancouver, so I opened the high-end restaurant Bauhaus. Around 2020 I got bored and my drive to make films again started. Then Covid came and we had to close the restaurant, that was the sign for me to start making movies again.

2. Across films like Auschwitz, Hanau, Rampage and Assault on Wall Street, what is the real project behind your work?

All my personal, self-written films are about real situations, and they are political: Auschwitz, Hanau, Barschel: Mord in Genf, Rampage, Postal, Darfur, Assault on Wall Street, Stoic, Heart of America, Tunnel Rats, Run, Citizen Vigilante. My project is to be what Oliver Stone was thirty-five years ago.

3. Run follows African migrants crossing the Mediterranean to Italy. What was your intention with that film?

Run has great actors, Amanda Plummer, Ulrich Thomsen, James Russo, and it shows that boat migration via smugglers turns into a lose-lose situation for everybody involved. In the film I focus on various people, like a montage, over one day on the island, leading to a bloodbath.

4. How does Citizen Vigilante relate to Run?

People who watch Citizen Vigilante should watch Run as well, because they are different views of the same subject, different stories. Run shows the arrival into a country, Citizen Vigilante shows what happens when migration doesn’t work.

5. Citizen Vigilante was denied a rating by the FSK. How did that process unfold?

The FSK has around 200 people on file who come in to rate movies, mostly from government organisations, churches, unions, and so on. Eighteen people watch a film and then rate it. Only in Germany can you get “KK,” no rating, which means the film isn’t banned, but nobody will list it or stream it. We’re now making a third and final attempt, and we’ll screen it again.

6. What led you from the 2016 Hamburg case to making this film?

The Stadtpark case was only one among many I saw, watched, and followed over the years. I studied crime statistics, and at one point I felt I needed to make a film showing that if we don’t get a grip on this, everything will go to shit.

7. The film was shared for free on X by Elon Musk. Was that distribution planned, or a response to the ban?

A response. A PR action, to give people the chance to see it.

8. You’ve made a film about Auschwitz. How do you respond to being called a Nazi for your political positions?

I made a movie about Auschwitz. I wrote even on university stuff about the Nazis and everything. So to say if somebody says I don’t want Islamistic crazy people in the country, or people that suck out the social welfare system, if you’re in a Nazi, that’s crazy. By the way only, you have to protect the Jews in the country, and you’re not doing that and letting too many Islamistic people into a country.

9. Where do you draw the line on showing violence on screen?

I always evaluate, look, I like drama movies, Taxi Driver, whatever, I like violent films, existential films, so the violence, I’m not like sceptical about showing violence. I debate what is the story I wanna tell and how I do this, and a lot of my movies, Tower Heist, Rampage, Assault of Wall Street, they are about violent subject matters, wars, etc, and I tried to show it how it is. We say you eat what you like, if you don’t like movies like this, you don’t watch it. If I don’t like Supergirl, and I don’t like Supergirl, I don’t watch it. So if you only want fairy tale movies, you watch only fairy tale movies. But you cannot disallow movies, they heart hitting political.

10. You cast Armie Hammer right after he’d been cancelled. Why?

No, I mean, I said like Armie Hammer was available, didn’t cost a few million bucks anymore, because he was cancelled, and so I hired him, got him cheap, great actor, performed, now he will be a star again. I mean, it’s in a way very simple.

11. Your films span school shootings, financial corruption, the Holocaust and the migration crisis. What ties them together?

I did a lot of movies about corruption, or people taking the law in their own hands, or abusing situations, tunnel rats of Vietnam War, stoic prison, problems, Auschwitz about the Holocaust, heart of America was Elizabeth Moss about school violence, my first, one of my first was Barschel murder in Geneva about a dead prime minister in Germany, Hanau about the shooting here in Frankfurt, close where I live. So I do subject matters that are interesting for me, and for me movies need to go about life and death.

12. How important are independent media like Voxeuropa Herald for distributing work that mainstream channels won’t touch?

I think that movie is only visible and a success because of social media, social media and other alternative, more online news outlets. They’re reflecting that the people are not willing anymore to just believe only the old media, the main TV channels, or the main magazines in Germany or worldwide. And so I think this more independent media, or individual media, or social media, or podcast online, bringing an extra element to the table, an important element to the table. And we are as of today the No. 1 movie on Amazon in the US, and that without any marketing budget, just because of social media.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Renaud Camus, born in 1946 in Chamalières, is one of the most singular intellectual figures in contemporary France. Trained under Roland Barthes, recipient of the Prix Fénéon in 1977 and the Prix Amic of the Académie française in 1996, he was first recognized as one of the great stylists of his generation, the author of a considerable body of work blending the personal diary, elegies, novels, writings on art, and philosophical essays. It was in 2011 that his name crossed the boundaries of the literary world to assert itself in global political debate, with the publication of Le Grand Remplacement, a concept he conceives not as a conspiracy theory but as a demographic observation: the substitution, accelerating in pace, of European peoples on their own soil. Founder of the Parti de l’In-nocence (2002) and the Conseil National de la Résistance Européenne (2017), settled for thirty years at the Château de Plieux in the Gers, Renaud Camus continues to write, publish, and speak out, including in the face of travel bans, such as the one served upon him by the United Kingdom in April 2025, which prevented him from delivering his speech on remigration at the Big Remigration Conference. Voxeuropa gives him the floor to lay out, in their entirety, the theses and vision of a writer whom the age has rendered unavoidable.

You were trained under Roland Barthes, you received the Prix Amic of the Académie française, you organized art exhibitions: you are, first and foremost, a man of letters and art. How do you explain the transition from that world to the political and conceptual engagement for which you have been known since the 2000s? Was there a decisive moment, a tipping point?

No, there was no decisive moment, no tipping point. I have always been obsessed with the question of truth, and I have always thought that the writer’s mission was to make his way to the blind spots of a society, those which, despite their obviousness, eluded public expression, which were the object of a concealment, whether deliberate or mechanical. The change of people and of civilization was at once the largest and most glaring of these blind spots: an enormous, gigantic phenomenon, the most significant in European history in centuries, and one that everyone affected not to notice.

The word “people” is at the heart of your thinking. Yet it is a word whose definitions proliferate and contradict one another: civic people, ethnic people, cultural people, historical people. What precisely is the definition you give it, and what, in your view, grounds the legitimacy of a people on a territory?

I am somewhat surprised by your assertion. I had not noticed that the word “people” was so important to me, but you may be right. It is with that word as it is with all essential terms, those most deeply inscribed in the history of a language: definitions chase after them in vain without managing to pin them down. The more things and concepts simply are, the harder they are to define: take race, identity, nation, and so on. I believe in history, in myths, in etymology, in the depth of time. It is history, it is time, it is works and myths that give peoples and races rights over which even democracy cannot prevail. When the Chinese change the population of Tibet, which is one of the most perfect paradigms of the Grand Remplacement, they do not abolish, even if they trample upon it, the right of the Tibetans to be masters of their own fate and their own country.

Jean Raspail said he was “disappointed to have been right.” You have seen close friends distance themselves from you, you have been convicted, associated against your will with acts you condemn, and yet the facts you were describing continue to impose themselves on public debate, even from the mouths of heads of state. How does one live in this singular position: that of a man whose theses are gaining ground while he himself remains persona non grata?

Oh, I have had time to get used to it, and my temperament perhaps means I suffer from it less than others would. No, what is despairing is not that. What is despairing is that the Grand Remplacement as observation spreads far more slowly than the Grand Remplacement as fact, as the dreadful fact, the genocide by substitution, the destruction of the Europeans of Europe and their civilization. By the time Europeans realize what is happening to them, they are already in the dustbin of history, like the Medes, the Mayas, the Picts, or the Moriori of the Chatham Islands, whose foundational law, the Nunuku, forbade them from defending themselves against an invasion, on account of which they welcomed the Maori with open arms, who then slaughtered them or reduced them to slavery.

You distinguish the Grand Remplacement as demographic phenomenon from an ideology you call “global replacism,” a convergence of economic, media, and political interests that organize or tolerate this replacement. Can you describe the actors and mechanisms of global replacism as you conceive it?

The Grand Remplacement, however gigantic it may be, is only a very small part, yet it is the culmination, the crowning achievement, the summit, of what I have indeed called global replacism. Men and peoples are replaced, but that is merely the sinister completion of a mechanical enterprise immeasurably vaster still, within which everything is replaced by everything. The Grand Remplacement is not a theory; it is a name for a phenomenon, a name for an era and for its defining phenomenon, a chrononyme (a name that designates an era by its dominant event); and at the same time it is a crime, obviously, the crime against humanity of the twenty-first century (and that crime is committed by those who call it a “theory”). Global replacism, far broader, is at once a theory, a totalitarian ideology, and a power structure whose politico-economic form is davocracy, the managerial governance of the human park by Davos, the multinationals, the banks, the hedge funds, Big Tech, and the Big State; their armed wing is the Genocidal Bloc, an ensemble of judges, journalists, organic intellectuals, and elected officials who owe everything to replacist davocracy and who without it would be nothing.

The theory of global replacism rests on the observation that replacement is the central, essential gesture of industrial and post-industrial societies (though they remain industrial, and are more so than ever when they are entirely digital). Everything in them is replaced by everything: original materials by their cheap imitation, literature by journalism, culture by subculture, music by noise, names by first names, workers by machines, men by women, men and women by robots, Europeans by Africans, the economy by finance, finance by digital management, intelligence by artificial intelligence, and so on. Plastic is the sovereign material of global replacism, and it pollutes not only the oceans and our lungs. The societies of global replacism are a universe of the copy, the double, the ersatz, the imitation, the counterfeit, the simulacrum, the facsimile, the substitute, the assimilation. It follows, moreover, that the false is consubstantial with them. This is what I have called the faussel, the false real, the fake real, an imaginary world in which what happens does not happen, a sort of generalized Truman Show in which information is a filter and a death philter, in which even grief, suffering, and pain, which once passed for the ultimate proof of the true, are assimilated to “recuperation”: if you weep over the crimes of global replacism, you are merely “recuperating” them.

The concept of Undifferentiated Human Material (MHI) is one of your most original contributions to the debate, the idea that the global economic system treats human beings as interchangeable units, without rootedness, without belonging. Does this concept appear to you as a legacy of classical liberal tradition pushed to its conclusion, or as something more specific to our era?

Both: Undifferentiated Human Material, interchangeable at will, is the result of a very long process that can be dated to the Industrial Revolution, or even to the crisis of European consciousness, to use Paul Hazard’s phrase, or even to that great revolution in Western consciousness that took place in Europe at the beginning of the seventeenth century with a Descartes, a Huygens, or a Galileo. Man, especially from the Second Industrial Revolution onward, the American one, Taylorism, Fordism, the aptly named assembly line (inspired by the Chicago slaughterhouses), finds himself progressively stripped of all his belongings: family, province, nation, culture, class, race. He is liquefied, like the society around him, as magnificently attested by the work of Zygmunt Bauman. Dispossession and liquefaction are the prelude to liquidation, whether it manifests through genocides and de facto eradications, or through a genocide by substitution, by replacement, like everything else. In the societies of global replacism, even genocides are by substitution.

You have devoted several books to what you call “decivilization” and the “great deculturation,” and in particular to the collapse of language as the primary symptom of that decivilization. As a writer deeply attached to the ample sentence and to style, how do you assess the state of the French language today? Are there still places where it holds its ground?

Oh, I have no doubt there are places and individuals where it holds its ground as best it can, often valiantly, sometimes brilliantly. But on the whole, and since we were speaking of liquefaction, it has been very gravely affected. Before our eyes, as if under the effect of a permanent heat wave, entire sections of its structure are melting: tenses no longer exist, moods have disappeared, a thousand concordances are no longer made. At every moment one must double the subject (”La France, elle…,” “le problème il est là…”), as though one feared that, too weak, too ill, it might not hold out until the verb. People understand each other less and less, between themselves and within themselves. That said, I do not believe this is specific to the French language. The contemporaries and victims of global replacism increasingly outsource their thinking to machines.

To extend the question to what you call “decivilization” and the “great deculturation,” seeing in the collapse of language the primary symptom of a broader collapse: yet this severing between a people and its language does not affect French alone; German, Dutch, the Scandinavian languages are undergoing comparable mutations. As a writer deeply attached to the ample sentence and to style, do you think we are witnessing a properly European phenomenon, the simultaneous dissolution of all the great civilizational languages of the continent?

I think we are witnessing a worldwide phenomenon, a sort of infantilization of the species to which music and sound amplification, dance and trance, drugs, show business as the spectacle of the world, football as the opium of the people, fan culture, mass stupefaction, the education of forgetting, the collège unique, and the eradication of the cultivated class have greatly contributed, curiously concurrent with the eradication of the peasantry.

Since 1992, you have lived at and animated the Château de Plieux in the Gers, where you have organized colloquia, contemporary art exhibitions, where you paint and write your diary. Is Plieux, for you, a form of concrete resistance to decivilization? A laboratory of what a rooted life might be?

Yes, undoubtedly, to a certain degree, although I have not organized public activities there for a long time now, neither colloquia nor exhibitions. I believe very strongly in a politics of sanctuaries, quite similar to that of the monasteries in the early Middle Ages, in the time of the Great Invasions. We need sanctuaries for beauty, sanctuaries for culture, sanctuaries for the life of the mind, sanctuaries for music, sanctuaries for silence, sanctuaries for solitude. It was to allow for solitude that civilization was invented, paranoia, the pact of in-nocence (etymologically: the state of causing no harm), the less for the more. We need strongholds for resistance, where what can be preserved may be preserved for future generations, and which can serve as bases for a most desirable reconquest, indigenist and decolonial.

Remigration is defended by politicians, activists, and demographers. But you are a writer, and you defend it with words no one else uses: beauty, landscape, the sentence, mourning. What does literature bring to this debate that politics cannot?

A trembling of meaning, perhaps, as Chateaubriand speaks of an “admirable trembling of time,” for the hand of painters of genius in their old age. An unrealism, an incompetence, a contempt for paralyzing contingencies. Specialists do not see things, they are too close. Experts blind themselves and blind us, because they take into account too great a number of data points, which conceal from them the obvious. Nine-tenths of sociology over the past fifty years has been nothing but an enormous enterprise of concealment, a garrulous negationism in the service of genocidal global replacism.

In April 2025, you were denied entry to the United Kingdom to deliver a speech on remigration, the British state deeming that your presence was “not conducive to the public interest.” That speech was ultimately published under the title The Bourne Speech. How do you interpret these travel bans that are multiplying against European intellectuals and activists?

The Genocidal Bloc is impatient to bring the genocide by substitution to its conclusion. It sees the finish line; it tells itself it is nearly there, that soon the liquefaction of the species will be total and the Dummy World beyond return and without escape since it will be universal. At the same time, the proximity of absolute victory makes it nervous; it lives in fear that a spark of truth might set everything ablaze at the last moment. This heartening nervousness lays it bare in its totalitarian reality. Bans multiply, convictions rain down, ruinous fines fall from every direction. I have just again been summoned to the gendarmerie for “incitement to racial hatred” because I referred in a tweet, regarding Saint-Denis, to the négropole des rois (literally: the necropolis of kings, a traditional epithet for the royal basilica of Saint-Denis, here repurposed by Camus as a demographic observation). Hatred is the name the Genocidal Bloc gives to any objection to its crime. Nothing less than this relentless repressive lead blanket is needed to sustain, against the possible infiltrations of truth, the neo-negationism of the state, that faussel we have just seen to be consubstantial with genocidal global replacism.

You think, write, and fight first in French, but your reach has become resolutely European and even worldwide. What does it mean, to you, to be European in the contemporary context? And do you think that French identity and European identity are complementary or in tension?

Oh, perfectly complementary. I feel as European as I am French. A cultivated Frenchman of former times was entirely steeped in European culture. The Romanesque art of Saxony or Old Castile was as familiar to him at first glance as that of Burgundy and Auvergne. Shakespeare held as much place in his reverie as Corneille or Racine. He was perfectly willing to acknowledge Turner as the greatest European painter. It could very well happen that Leopardi was more precious to him than Lamartine, and Gustav Mahler than Fauré. A Sartre or even a Camus counted for little beside a Heidegger. He found Norway even more beautiful than Scotland, and Scotland more overwhelming than the Artense or the Cézallier (two high plateau regions of the Massif Central, bywords in Camus’s writing for the deep, unhurried heartland of European landscape). Away with colonial countries, he said with Barnabooth, that have for them only the wonders of nature, and have not even managed to procure themselves a Theocritus. And with Rimbaud: I long for Europe with its ancient parapets. Alas, today the colonial countries, and in any case the colonized ones, are ours.

Our readers are European, French, German, British, American, Norwegian, united by the feeling that something essential is in the process of being lost. What message do you address to them?

Revolt! Come out of your closets! Leave anonymity behind! Take to the streets! Break nothing! Steal nothing! Be in-nocent (cause no harm)! Do not kill, do not wound, do not be malicious, it makes one base. Be bathmological: distinguish, segregate, discriminate. Degrow and discriminate. Between equality and truth, make your choice; you cannot love both. Deepen inequalities, read a book! Make yourself unequal to yourself. Do not hate, it does too much honor: despise, if need be, then despise your own contempt. Love races, skin colors, nuances of soul, cultures, civilizations, Arab architecture, African art, Belgian music, César Franck, Guillaume Lekeu, the marvelous diversity of the world, which replacement diversity smothers. Do not be xenophobic; defend the foreignness of the Earth and of beings, which global replacism is assassinating. Rid yourselves of music, or on the contrary return to music, which was the soul of Europe, and which Europe is dying of having trampled in favor of Afro-industrial trance, that drumbeat of luminous, blinking pipes in the pre-posthumous resuscitation wards. Trance is the consort of all the trans: class defectors, race defectors, sex defectors, defectors from truth, itself a defector from the camp of the victors, to paraphrase Simone Weil. Care nothing for your retirement savings; it is through them that the davocratic Machination holds you. Throw away your calculators! Be ignorant of the price of things; concern yourself only with their value and the joy they give you. Numbers are what has lied to you most. Remember that the only indigenous people in Europe is you! The only legitimate decolonials, too. Decolonization and remigration are synonymous. Return the colonial occupant imposed upon us to his homelands, and the occupier to his sordid calculations.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

🇬🇧 ENGLISH

Kobe Declercq: You had a court case in recent weeks. What was the case about? How can you still believe in justice in Belgium when right-leaning individuals end up in court straight away?

Dries: Well, I stopped believing in justice a while ago, justice in Belgium, that is. Ghent, at the Court of Appeal. Yes, it’s been clear for some time that there’s no real justice or fairness to speak of in Belgium. The court in Leuven, where we saw that you can be convicted for simply stating facts, for presenting a set of statistics on educational standards as a result of mass migration. Belgium. That is how they criminalise anyone who so much as raises a single question about mass migration. Sadly.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Kobe Declercq: Vous avez eu une affaire judiciaire ces dernières semaines. De quoi s’agissait-il ? Comment peut-on encore croire en la justice en Belgique quand les personnes de droite se retrouvent immédiatement devant un tribunal ?

Dries: Eh bien, j’ai arrêté de croire en la justice il y a un moment, en la justice belge, s’entend. Gand, à la cour d’appel. Oui, cela fait un certain temps qu’il est clair qu’il n’y a pas de vraie justice ni d’équité en Belgique. Le tribunal de Louvain, où l’on a vu que l’on peut être condamné pour avoir simplement énoncé des faits, pour avoir présenté un ensemble de statistiques sur les niveaux scolaires liés à la migration de masse. Belgique. C’est ainsi qu’ils criminalisent quiconque ose seulement poser une question sur la migration de masse. Tristement.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Kobe Declercq: Sie hatten in den letzten Wochen einen Gerichtsprozess. Worum ging es dabei? Wie kann man in Belgien noch an Gerechtigkeit glauben, wenn Personen mit rechten Ansichten sofort vor Gericht landen?

Dries: Nun, ich habe vor einer Weile aufgehört, an die Gerechtigkeit zu glauben, an die belgische Gerechtigkeit, wohlgemerkt. Gent, am Berufungsgericht. Ja, es ist seit einiger Zeit klar, dass es in Belgien keine wirkliche Gerechtigkeit oder Fairness gibt. Das Gericht in Löwen, wo wir gesehen haben, dass man verurteilt werden kann, weil man schlicht Fakten genannt hat, weil man eine Reihe von Statistiken über Bildungsstandards infolge von Massenmigration vorgelegt hat. Belgien. So kriminalisieren sie jeden, der auch nur eine einzige Frage zur Massenmigration aufwirft. Leider.

Video by Filmkunstkollektiv

🇬🇧 ENGLISH

What can the AfD still learn from the FPÖ? I mean, the FPÖ has already been in government, which the AfD hasn’t yet. What can the AfD still learn from that?

Alice Weidel: Well, I think, above all, the aspect — I also mentioned it in my speech today — of going through, the lows and the highs, above all going through the difficult times and still standing together, simply carrying on even when you take a knock, always getting back up, always getting back up no matter what happens.

And, I think Kickl, Herbert Kickl today, put it very, very well, and it is also my own creed: when things aren’t going so well, we must stand together, we simply have to keep going for our country, for the people, for our voters, because they deserve it.

Because we as a party, we have to fall in behind, behind the people, fall in behind them. And that is also my firm conviction: to finally make good policy for our country, for Germany, again, because that is what the people deserve.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Qu’est-ce que l’AfD peut encore apprendre du FPÖ ? Je veux dire, le FPÖ a déjà été au gouvernement, ce que l’AfD n’a pas encore été. Qu’est-ce que l’AfD peut encore apprendre de ça ?

Alice Weidel: Eh bien, je pense, avant tout, l’aspect — je l’ai également mentionné dans mon discours aujourd’hui — de traverser, les bas et les hauts, avant tout de traverser les moments difficiles et de rester unis malgré tout, de simplement continuer même quand on prend un coup, de toujours se relever, de toujours se relever quoi qu’il arrive.

Et, je pense que Kickl, Herbert Kickl aujourd’hui, l’a très, très bien formulé, et c’est aussi ma propre conviction : quand les choses ne vont pas si bien, nous devons rester unis, nous devons simplement continuer pour notre pays, pour le peuple, pour nos électeurs, parce qu’ils le méritent.

Parce que nous en tant que parti, nous devons nous mettre derrière, derrière le peuple, nous mettre derrière lui. Et c’est aussi ma ferme conviction : faire enfin une bonne politique pour notre pays, pour l’Allemagne, à nouveau, parce que c’est ce que le peuple mérite.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Interviewer: Today we are celebrating the 70th anniversary of the FPÖ. The FPÖ has already been in government. Now in Germany a historic election is approaching in Saxony-Anhalt. Do you have any advice for your colleagues in Germany?

Petra Steigger: First of all, we’re keeping our fingers crossed. I always say change — if you want to change Europe, it must begin in Germany. And this is a very important first step. So we’re also keeping our lead candidate, Siegmund Ulrich, truly in our thoughts. Both thumbs up. And we wish him not only a resounding victory but also hopefully an absolute majority. I can’t offer much more than: stay true to yourself and carry out the will of the voters. He is close to the people, so I don’t think anything stands in the way.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Interviewer : Nous célébrons aujourd’hui le 70e anniversaire du FPÖ. Le FPÖ a déjà participé au gouvernement. Maintenant, en Allemagne, une élection historique approche en Saxe-Anhalt. Avez-vous des conseils pour vos collègues en Allemagne ?

Petra Steigger : Avant tout, nous croisons les doigts. Je dis toujours que le changement — si l’on veut changer l’Europe, il faut que ça commence en Allemagne. Et c’est une première étape très importante. Nous pensons donc aussi très fort à notre tête de liste, Siegmund Ulrich. On lui souhaite tout le meilleur. Et nous lui souhaitons non seulement une victoire retentissante, mais aussi, avec un peu de chance, une majorité absolue. Je ne peux pas lui offrir grand-chose de plus que : restez fidèle à vous-même et exécutez la volonté des électeurs. Il est proche des gens, donc je ne pense pas que quoi que ce soit se mette en travers de son chemin.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

What is your message to the European people?
Don’t give it up. Those politicians who are fighting for the people — they try to silence them, but don’t give it up. Stay strong, stay united, and keep fighting.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

At CPAC Budapest in 2024, you declared that the Grand Replacement was no longer a theory but a reality. Two years on, what concrete developments support that assessment, and what has changed since that speech?

When I spoke at CPAC Budapest in 2024, I said the Grand Replacement was no longer theory but reality. It was still very controversial at that time. I knew I was taking a big risk talking about it, but the truth is the truth and had to be said. Especially on a stage like that. Now, two years later, sadly the numbers speak louder than ever. Major European cities have continued their rapid demographic transformation. Native European populations are declining while non-European inflows, legal and illegal, are replacing them. Crime statistics across Sweden, Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK show persistent overrepresentation of certain non-European groups in violent and sexual offenses. Parallel societies have expanded, not contracted. Rape gang scandals continue to surface with the same patterns. Welfare systems strain under the weight of populations that arrived as net consumers rather than contributors. Political elites still mouth platitudes about “diversity” while ordinary Europeans watch their neighborhoods, schools, and public spaces change beyond recognition. The trajectory I warned about has only steepened, but the upside is that finally it is being openly discussed. However, the situation is so urgent that I wanted to go beyond the “talking stage.” That is why the Save Europe Act exists: to take tangible action and give people an instrument to force Brussels into taking position.

The Save Europe Act is a European Citizens’ Initiative: if you reach one million signatures across seven member states, the Commission is legally required to respond. You crossed 100,000 in forty-eight hours. How do you envision scaling up to the million-signature threshold, and in which countries is resistance the strongest?

We crossed 100,000 signatures in less than forty-eight hours because the message resonates. People are tired of being gaslit. To reach one million across seven member states, we will use relentless grassroots work: national campaigns tailored to each country’s language and concerns, alliances with patriotic parties and movements already in parliament, viral content as well as physical events. We are already well past the early milestones and climbing fast.

The Commission may choose not to act, even after one million signatures. Have you planned a fallback, or does the mobilization itself carry political value independent of the institutional response?

The Commission may indeed drag its feet or refuse meaningful action even after one million signatures. That is why the mobilization itself carries enormous political value. Every signature is an act of civic defiance. Every share, every conversation, every local group formed around this initiative shifts the Overton window and builds patriotic people power. It forces the issue into the open. It also gives cover and legitimacy to national governments to start remigration politically. Even a formal negative response from Brussels would not be a loss: it would expose a deep anti-democratic sentiment and mobilize even more people. We do not place our ultimate hope in the Commission. We place it in the awakening of the European peoples. If they shut it down, we will go to Brussels and shut their censorship down.

The text calls for a moratorium on non-European immigration, a remigration framework harmonized at the EU level, and the elimination of welfare provisions that function as pull factors. What treaty modifications would be required to make these measures enforceable, and what do you see as the principal legal barrier to be removed?

The concrete measures in the Save Europe Act, a moratorium on non-European immigration, harmonized remigration framework, removal of welfare pull factors, require real changes in how the EU operates. Actually a total overhaul. The principal legal barrier is not any single treaty article but the accumulated superstructure of human rights law, especially the European Convention on Human Rights and the rulings of the Strasbourg Court that are continually used to violate the human rights of the indigenous peoples in Europe. They block the deportation of serious criminals and leave nations defenseless. The EU’s own migration and asylum rules, built on non-refoulement, must be fundamentally rewritten. Treaty modification or, where necessary, sovereign reassertion of the kind we see in Hungary would be required. Article 4(2) TEU already recognizes the right of Member States to protect their national identities; we intend to make that clause mean something again.

The Save Europe Act was launched with Martin Sellner and five other initiators, and receives the backing of Viktor Orbán. How do you bring such different political sensibilities together around a common text without diluting it?

We unite around a non-negotiable core: Europe belongs to the European peoples, our civilization has a right to continuity, and the current replacement must be reversed. Orbán brings the experience of a statesman who has actually governed against the current and protected his nation’s demographic character. Sellner and the network around the Remigration Summit bring activist energy. The text stays sharp because it refuses to dilute the essentials, borders, returns, ending incentives, into vague integration talk. It is the consensus of all European patriots in its purest form and therefore manages to bridge national, cultural, and social differences.

Remigration: who goes back, according to what criterion, by what means, within what legal framework? Can you describe concretely what you are calling for?

Remigration, concretely, begins with those who have no right to be here. All illegal entrants, visa overstayers, and rejected asylum seekers must be removed. All foreign nationals convicted of serious crimes must be deported. We then build a harmonized EU-wide framework for broader remigration: pressuring groups who have formed parallel societies, who reject our values, and whose presence actively undermines social cohesion and safety. Means include diplomatic agreements with countries of origin, voluntary return incentives, and, where necessary, compulsory removal with full legal process. This is not extreme; it is the minimum required to restore lawful order and preserve the possibility of a future European civilization. We start with the obvious cases and expand the framework methodically and legally.

You have built part of your audience around the link between mass immigration and the physical safety of women, an angle that certain feminists refuse to address. Why, in your view, is this silence so persistent, and what does it reveal about the state of contemporary feminism?

The silence of so many feminists on the link between mass non-European immigration and the safety of European women is one of the most revealing failures of this ideology. Contemporary feminism has decided that certain men must be protected from “racist” scrutiny even when the victims are native women and girls. What we have seen in Cologne, Rotherham, Telford, and countless other places are gut-wrenching examples of that reality. Yet the response is often deflection, minimization, or outright censorship, attacking the women who speak out. This reveals that much of modern feminism is no longer primarily about women; it is a vehicle for anti-Western, anti-white ideology that treats European peoples and their safety as a secondary concern. Real concern for women should not shy away from admitting which populations are driving the explosion in sexual offenses.

In January 2026, the British government banned you from entering the United Kingdom, with no right of appeal, on the grounds that your presence was “not conducive to the public good.” What does this decision reveal about the state of civil liberties in Western Europe?

The British government’s decision in January 2026 to ban me from the United Kingdom, with no right of appeal, on the grounds that my presence was “not conducive to the public good,” tells us everything about the state of civil liberties in Western Europe. A Dutch woman without a criminal record can be barred from an entire country for speaking uncomfortable truths about immigration, crime, and demographic change, while migrants without papers are welcomed in and given free healthcare and housing. I am not conducive to the public good, but according to Starmer, the Sudanese migrant who tried decapitating a man in Belfast was. That is what this comes down to. But I think the British people have had enough and Starmer’s rule will soon end. I am rooting for Rupert Lowe, a true patriot.

You define yourself as Catholic and see the defense of European identity as a moral struggle, not merely a political one. How does faith concretely transform the way you conduct this fight, and what it allows you to endure?

I am Catholic. I converted a little over three years ago. It was a deeply personal choice, not a political one in nature, but I can say that my faith is not ornamental to this struggle, it is its foundation. The defense of European identity is, for me, a moral duty rooted in our Christian roots. To stand by while that inheritance is demographically and culturally destroyed would be a failure of love. The love of your neighbor, love of the generations yet to come, love of the heritage entrusted to us. Faith gives you endurance because we know in the end it is in God’s hands. When I feel afraid sometimes I think about the words of my Patron Saint, St. Joan of Arc: “I am not afraid, for God is with us! I was born to do this.” I am not worthy to even stand in her shadow, but her courage is an endless source of inspiration for me.

Voxeuropa Herald is convinced that the battle for Europe is also won in the media and metapolitical space. What role do you concretely assign to European identitarian media in the success of the Save Europe Act?

European identitarian media outlets like Voxeuropa Herald and the broader network of independent voices are indispensable to the success of the Save Europe Act. The mainstream completely ignores us, or actively attacks us, so we need outlets like yours more than ever. The battle is won first in the realm of ideas, images, and language. Legacy media will not report the demographic facts, the crime patterns honestly. You do. You document the replacement in real time, give voice to victims, expose the hypocrisy of elites, and talk to patriots like us. Without the sphere of alternative media and platforms like X, they would be able to silence us. Thanks to you, they are not able to stop us.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

Kobe Declercq: Germany has 84 million inhabitants. How many of them, in your view, realistically shouldn’t be here?

Lena Kotre: That’s also a very good question, and of course one would need to calculate that very precisely. The fact is that we need to deport millions of people. We already have nearly a million Syrians who’ve come here, and they no longer have the right to remain. Syria is no longer at war — the country is at peace, and these people must go back and rebuild their country. And the same applies, of course, to all those who were granted asylum here. Asylum is always a temporary right. And when that time has run out, people must return. When we are in government, we will carry out clear and precise calculations, and then we shall see exactly how many there actually are. But one can say that the figure stands at a minimum of 4 million people.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Kobe Declercq: L’Allemagne compte 84 millions d’habitants. Combien d’entre eux, selon vous, ne devraient réalistement pas se trouver ici ?

Lena Kotre: C’est aussi une très bonne question, et il faudrait bien sûr calculer cela très précisément. Le fait est que nous devons expulser des millions de personnes. Nous avons déjà près d’un million de Syriens qui sont venus ici, et ils n’ont plus le droit de rester. La Syrie n’est plus en guerre — le pays est en paix, et ces personnes doivent rentrer et reconstruire leur pays. Et il en va bien sûr de même pour tous ceux qui ont obtenu l’asile ici. L’asile est toujours un droit temporaire. Et lorsque ce délai est écoulé, les personnes doivent rentrer. Lorsque nous serons au gouvernement, nous effectuerons des calculs clairs et précis, et nous verrons alors exactement combien il y en a réellement. Mais on peut dire que le chiffre s’élève à un minimum de 4 millions de personnes.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Kobe Declercq: Deutschland hat 84 Millionen Einwohner. Wie viele davon sollten Ihrer Meinung nach realistischerweise nicht hier sein?

Lena Kotre: Das ist auch eine sehr gute Frage, und natürlich müsste man das sehr genau berechnen. Tatsache ist, dass wir Millionen von Menschen abschieben müssen. Wir haben bereits fast eine Million Syrer, die hierher gekommen sind, und sie haben kein Recht mehr zu bleiben. Syrien befindet sich nicht mehr im Krieg — das Land ist in Frieden, und diese Menschen müssen zurückgehen und ihr Land wiederaufbauen. Und dasselbe gilt natürlich für alle, denen hier Asyl gewährt wurde. Asyl ist immer ein vorübergehendes Recht. Und wenn diese Zeit abgelaufen ist, müssen die Menschen zurückkehren. Wenn wir in der Regierung sind, werden wir klare und genaue Berechnungen durchführen, und dann werden wir genau sehen, wie viele es tatsächlich sind. Aber man kann sagen, dass die Zahl bei mindestens 4 Millionen Menschen liegt.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

The situation: industrial-scale crimes across Britain

The first documented case dates to 1955, when four Bradford-based Pakistanis were charged with raping a 15-year-old girl from Middlesbrough. The British Newspaper Archive attests to it. What begins as an isolated incident becomes, over the following decades, a system.

The Rape Gang Inquiry Report, published in June 2026 following an independent inquiry chaired by Rupert Lowe MP and funded by over 20,000 British patriots, states it plainly: Britain did not experience dozens of local scandals. It suffered a single national scandal that the state allowed to grow for decades.

The figures are staggering. Based on an estimate derived from the official reports of Rotherham, Telford, and Oxford, cited in parliament as early as May 2019 by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, at least 250,000 young white girls have been raped, in most cases repeatedly, over several years. Lord Pearson himself added that this number “is probably an underestimate.” In a single recorded year, almost 19,000 children were identified as sexual exploitation victims in England alone, according to a report by The Independent. The crimes are documented in at least 149 local authority districts, close to 40% of all such districts across the United Kingdom.

The profile of the perpetrators is consistent. Approximately 87% of those convicted bore distinctively Muslim names, according to researcher Peter McLoughlin’s comprehensive analysis in Easy Meat (2016), confirmed by subsequent studies. Dr. Taj Hargey, an imam with the Oxford Islamic Congregation, believes the true proportion of gang members who are Muslims to be around 95%. These men are predominantly of Pakistani heritage, though Somali, Iranian, Turkish, Algerian, and Kurdish networks were also involved in several cities. This figure represents a massive overrepresentation relative to the Muslim share of the British population, which stands at approximately 6%.

The complication: an industrial modus operandi, blind institutions

The modus operandi is identical everywhere. Young girls, some as young as 11, were initially befriended by a young Muslim man who would start providing them with alcohol, cigarettes, and cannabis. A few weeks later, they were collected from school gates, care homes, and streets by taxi drivers. Taken to houses, flats, restaurants, and hotels, they were raped by groups of men, filmed for blackmail, trafficked between cities, and told they were “white trash” or “kuffar” who deserved punishment.

Girls were made pregnant while still minors. Some were subjected to eight forced abortions, one of them five months into pregnancy. Others gave birth under conditions of abuse, children giving birth to children, before the state removed their babies and placed them in the same failing care homes where the predation continued. Some girls were even trafficked to the Middle East and forced into Islamic marriage. Survivors described daily rapes and institutional disbelief that compounded their suffering. One survivor, Dr. Ella Hill, a physician who pursued her training after years of exploitation in Rotherham, describes having been raped over a hundred times, strangled, tortured, with her primary abuser attempting to murder her on five separate occasions after tracking down her hiding place and breaking into her home. On at least five occasions she approached the police, presenting medical evidence of her injuries, yet each time she was told there was nothing they could do and her evidence was not accepted.

Consider what hospitals were seeing: 13-year-old minors simultaneously presenting with chlamydia in the throat and vagina, gonorrhea, genital warts, and pelvic inflammatory disease. No referrals to authorities. No protective measures. Doctors treated these children and sent them back to their abusers. Schools watched adult men collect girls from their gates. They excluded victims for truancy. Social services, informed of repeated rapes, took girls to sexual health clinic appointments and talked to them about contraception. Chloe, whose testimony appears in the report, was found at age 12 in a car with one of her abusers by police officers, who let the gang members go without so much as questioning them, and classified the girl as a consenting prostitute.

Taxi networks formed the logistical backbone of the gangs. Licensing authorities continued to renew permits for drivers known to be involved. In London alone, the Metropolitan Police recorded an average of 1,125 sexual assaults per year involving unlicensed taxi drivers.

The question: why?

With the harsh reality of the report, the question arises: how could a developed state, equipped with a police force, social services, a health system, a press, and a parliament, allow this disaster to go on for seventy years? The report provides an answer that is not one of incompetence, but one of calculated complicity.

The answer: a political crime as well as a sexual one

Three interlocking mechanisms explain the duration and scale of the impunity.

First mechanism: the racial taboo elevated to institutional doctrine. In every affected town, including Rotherham, Rochdale, Oxford, Telford, Huddersfield, and dozens of others, police officers, social workers and local officials were explicitly trained not to act when identifying the perpetrators because they risked appearing racist. Judges and defence counsel cited “cultural sensitivity” to avoid “empowering the far right” or damaging “community cohesion,” the very phrase used in the Casey Review to explain why cases were shelved pre-2012. Officers in the field described senior colleagues ordering them not to record the ethnicity of suspects. In 2017, in a Bristol case documented by the Quilliam Foundation, a judge heard a defendant argue that forcing a girl to have sex with his friends was simply “Somali culture and tradition,” without the argument being dismissed outright.

Second mechanism: the electoral calculations of the Labour Party. The report is unambiguous. Labour bears, according to the inquiry, “primary responsibility for the longest and most deliberate cover-up.” Labour-dominated local councils received reports on the gangs and retaliated against whistleblowers. Elected representatives refused local inquiries to avoid alienating Pakistani electoral communities. In January 2025, Labour MPs voted en masse against a Conservative amendment calling for a national statutory inquiry into grooming gangs. The amendment was defeated by 364 votes to 111. Sir Keir Starmer and his front bench abstained or opposed the measure, dismissing public concern as “far-right” agitation. Plans for five separate local reviews were quietly dropped, according to The Daily Telegraph, ‘to avoid offending Pakistanis.’

The report documents Labour members directly implicated as perpetrators: Lord Nazir Ahmed, a former Labour councillor in Rotherham and Labour peer, convicted in 2022 of child sex offences including the rape of a 13-year-old girl, elevated to the peerage by Tony Blair; former councillor Liron Velleman, who pleaded guilty to sex offences against a child; former MP Ivor Caplin, arrested for grooming a 15-year-old in 2025. These cases are not presented as accidents. They are the logical product of a political apparatus that treated Pakistani Muslim communities as untouchable electoral blocs. Keir Starmer himself, when he was Director of Public Prosecutions, reportedly allowed 13,000 suspected rape gang members and paedophiles to be let off with warning letters. The Daily Express revealed this in February 2026.

Third mechanism: the pressure brought to bear on whistleblowers. Those who attempted to break the silence were systematically crushed. The report documents this precisely. The state did not merely ignore whistleblowers; it punished them to protect the gangs and its own reputation. Social care professionals who raised concerns faced suspension, defamation proceedings, dawn raids, asset freezes, fabricated charges, and career-ending isolation. Tommy Robinson is cited in the report as an activist who drew public attention to the gangs long before official institutions were willing to act, and who was arrested, imprisoned, and subjected to repeated legal proceedings while the networks he denounced continued to operate.

Meanwhile, in London, Mayor Sadiq Khan was publicly telling the London Assembly that there were no grooming gangs in the capital, even as the Metropolitan Police held reports documenting exactly these patterns of offending. A Daily Express investigation revealed that Khan had direct access to the very documents detailing the patterns he denied. Khan read these files yet continued to deny the existence of grooming gangs in public.

The scale of a taboo: Islam, honour, and the ideology of rape

The report devotes an entire chapter to the cultural and theological causes. It draws on the analysis of Dr. Mark Durie, a specialist, and on the testimony of survivors who report having heard systematic religious justifications from their abusers.

Eight theological aspects are identified as having provided a framework of justification: the doctrine of Muslim superiority drawn from Quranic verses, the principle of al-walā’ wa-l-barā’ (loyalty towards Muslims, enmity towards non-believers), male dominance over women, the absence of any minimum age of consent in classical Islamic law, the perception of female sexuality as inherently dangerous, the legitimation of sexual relations with non-Muslim captives, and a religious social hierarchy that degrades conquered non-Muslims.

Dr. Ella Hill described it before the 2022 Jay Inquiry in terms that warrant being repeated. In her submission incorporated into Associate Professor Lisa Oakley’s evidence, she stated: “I was told white girls are trash. They are all whores. They are lower than shit under your shoe. They don’t obey Allah, so they deserve to be punished... They should be raped as punishment for not obeying Allah. Kaffir [non-Muslim] girls are worthless. Sex with a kaffir girl doesn’t count as adultery (only sex with a Muslim woman counts as adultery)... They were taught that witches in Pakistan are blonde, so blondes are more evil, and they deserve worse punishment.” She and other survivors were subjected to a sexual practice known as mufākhadhah, described in certain Islamic legal sources, which the abusers justified on religious grounds. They recited verses before beating her. Every aspect of the sexual abuse she experienced was, she testified, linked to spiritual or religious abuse.

The report also notes that the same networks had targeted Sikh girls. When similar gangs targeted Sikh girls, the Sikh community mobilised men to confront and deter the perpetrators effectively. White British girls, by contrast, lacked equivalent collective protection, whether communal or institutional.

The situation in 2026: an ongoing impunity

In October 2025, the Metropolitan Police announced a review of 9,000 child sexual exploitation cases. The National Crime Agency launched Operation Beaconport to examine thousands more files nationwide. National investigations are now open, but the report denounces the fact that their terms of reference were deliberately drafted to exclude systematic examination of ethnic, cultural, and religious factors. The ‘Labour Government’s’ so-called “Independent Inquiry into Grooming Gangs”, announced in December 2025 and chaired by Baroness Anne Longfield, is described by the report as a “containment exercise,” structured so that it cannot possibly confront the most politically uncomfortable truths.

Sentences handed down remain light. In gang cases, those convicted frequently receive sentences of 4 to 12 years for raping dozens of children over several years, of which they serve a third to a half. The racial and religious aggravating factors provided for under British law have never been invoked against these gangs, according to available judicial records. They were, however, applied without hesitation against Darren Osborne, who murdered a crowd of Muslims with his van in 2017 and was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum tariff of 43 years, the judge citing “a murder done for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause” as an aggravating factor. Foreign nationals convicted of these crimes have rarely been deported despite the legal powers available. They were housed, fed, and released back into the same communities.

What this report means for Europe

Britain is not alone. It is simply further along in documenting what it refused to see. The pattern — mass immigration, culturally insular communities, political elites dependent on ethnoreligious electoral blocs, institutions paralysed by the fear of racism, media practising self-censorship, whistleblowers silenced — is not unique to the British Isles.

The Rape Gang Inquiry Report is a 219-page document that gives the victims the dignity of finally being heard. It establishes what many knew and what the state refused to commit to writing: that the fear of the word “racism” weighed heavier than the safety of hundreds of thousands of children. It will be recorded in history that it was ordinary citizens, 20,000 donors, who funded what successive governments refused to do.

Subscribe now

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

🇬🇧 ENGLISH

Paul Kentwell: You say that legal immigration is a far bigger problem than illegal immigration. Tell us about this.

Lucy White: So essentially, the mainstream media will only cover issues on illegal migration. We might see every single week there are more and more small boats crossing the Channel from France into the UK. We know that the numbers might be around 40,000 or 50,000 illegal migrants a year. But what the bigger issue is, in terms of gross migration, we’re having over one million migrants a year. In 2023, we had 1.3 million, I believe, and in 2024, 1.2 million migrants. And of those migrants, around 85% those are all from the third world, and predominantly they come from a few main countries. The main country they are coming from is India on a massive scale, followed by Pakistan, Nigeria, then you have some other third world countries such as Bangladesh, Ghana, Zimbabwe. We do get migration from China, but they tend to go home, whereas the others will stay. So it’s not just that we’re getting a lot of migrants, they’re coming not just from the non-EU countries, but they’re coming from what I would call the third world countries. And this is changing the shape of our country and making it unrecognizable.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Paul Kentwell: Vous affirmez que l’immigration légale constitue un problème bien plus important que l’immigration illégale. Parlez-nous de cela.

Lucy White: Essentiellement, les médias mainstream ne couvrent que les questions liées à l’immigration illégale. Chaque semaine, nous voyons de plus en plus de petits bateaux traverser la Manche depuis la France vers le Royaume-Uni. Nous savons que les chiffres tournent autour de 40 000 à 50 000 migrants illégaux par an. Mais le véritable problème, en termes de migration brute, c’est que nous accueillons plus d’un million de migrants par an. En 2023, nous avons eu 1,3 million, je crois, et en 2024, 1,2 million de migrants. Et parmi ces migrants, environ 85 % proviennent du tiers-monde, et ils viennent principalement de quelques pays majeurs. Le principal pays d’origine est l’Inde, à une échelle massive, suivi du Pakistan, du Nigeria, puis d’autres pays du tiers-monde comme le Bangladesh, le Ghana, le Zimbabwe. Nous avons bien sûr de la migration en provenance de Chine, mais ceux-ci ont tendance à rentrer chez eux, alors que les autres restent. Il ne s’agit donc pas seulement du fait que nous recevons beaucoup de migrants : ils ne viennent pas seulement des pays hors Union européenne, mais de ce que j’appellerais les pays du tiers-monde. Et cela change la forme de notre pays et le rend méconnaissable.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Paul Kentwell: Sie sagen, dass die legale Einwanderung ein viel größeres Problem darstellt als die illegale Einwanderung. Erzählen Sie uns davon.

Lucy White: Im Wesentlichen decken die Mainstream-Medien nur Themen der illegalen Migration ab. Wir sehen jede einzelne Woche, dass immer mehr kleine Boote den Ärmelkanal von Frankreich ins Vereinigte Königreich überqueren. Wir wissen, dass die Zahlen bei etwa 40.000 oder 50.000 illegalen Migranten pro Jahr liegen. Aber das eigentliche größere Problem ist, was die Bruttomigration betrifft, dass wir über eine Million Migranten pro Jahr haben. Im Jahr 2023 hatten wir, glaube ich, 1,3 Millionen und 2024 1,2 Millionen Migranten. Und von diesen Migranten stammen etwa 85 % aus der Dritten Welt, und sie kommen überwiegend aus einigen wenigen Hauptländern. Das Hauptland, aus dem sie kommen, ist Indien in massivem Umfang, gefolgt von Pakistan, Nigeria, dann haben Sie einige andere Dritte-Welt-Länder wie Bangladesch, Ghana, Simbabwe. Wir haben zwar auch Migration aus China, aber diese tendieren dazu, nach Hause zurückzukehren, während die anderen bleiben. Es geht also nicht nur darum, dass wir viele Migranten bekommen – sie kommen nicht nur aus den Nicht-EU-Ländern, sondern aus dem, was ich die Dritte-Welt-Länder nennen würde. Und das verändert die Gestalt unseres Landes und macht es unkenntlich.

Video by Filmkunstkollektiv

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

🇬🇧 ENGLISH

Maddie: So you talked before about immigration figures in terms of illegal immigration in America and the official number is 14 million, but you said that there might be 100 million illegal immigrants in America. Could you make the case for that?

Gregory Bovino: Sure, Maddie. You said the official figure is 14 million. Well that’s the — maybe the official wrong figure. I think we could — we could call it the official wrong figure. So, the real figure is 100 million and I stand by that. That’s looking at both research, it’s looking at on the ground perception that I’ve seen and then what I’ve seen on the border and then also some additional studies that we conducted ad hoc on the ground while we were in those cities across the United States. So back in say 1975 the figure was 14 million. Are you telling me that between 1975 and now that figure’s still 14 million? You’ve got to be absolutely crazy. Whoever says that whether it’s Pew or any of the other quote research organizations, which I’m wondering what kind of research they do. 14 million for 50 years, when we watched millions stream across that border every year not just during the Biden years but every single year. There have been some — some fairly decent studies, still not accurate — Bear Stearns back in 2000, approximately 2006, had it at 20 to 30 million which was a landmark study, that was a financial institution that did that study. They weren’t looking at it from the sociopolitical aspect, which is what most studies look at it from, is politics and political correctness. So they already had it up in 2006 between 20 and 30 million. Look at what happened between 2006 and now. Millions more streamed, especially under Biden. Under Biden we don’t know what came in the country. How many millions came in the country. And then on the ground observations prior to 2000, there were many areas of the United States people didn’t know what an illegal alien was. After 2000 very rapidly just about every space in the United States now has illegal aliens, it filled very rapidly with millions. So when you take that into context, take a look at commuting times in Charlotte, North Carolina, a hundred and fifty three thousand commuters in Charlotte. Except when the Mean Green team showed up in Charlotte, all of a sudden the commute times went to superlative. And for a commute time to go to superlative you have to take about 30 to 40% of the commuters out of the commute, we did that. What is 30% of 153,000? You’re starting to mirror that 100 million. Because I’m saying there’s about 340 million American residents, another hundred million illegal aliens. Same thing with school absenteeism. 30% of Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools — 30% of the students, 30+ percent of the students were absent from school. That suspiciously mirrors that 100 million figure. So you take all the research, all the on ground observations from Border Patrol agents and border security professionals, plus those past studies, you put those all together and use this thing called common sense. Maddie, a little bit of common sense and the hundred million figure seems very very accurate and plausible. And you know, if some other folks wanna — wanna throw another figure out there and dispute it, I would really like to hear it.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Maddie: Vous avez évoqué tout à l’heure les chiffres de l’immigration, s’agissant de l’immigration illégale en Amérique, et le chiffre officiel est de 14 millions, mais vous avez dit qu’il pourrait y avoir 100 millions d’immigrés illégaux en Amérique. Pouvez-vous étayer cette thèse?

Gregory Bovino: Bien sûr, Maddie. Vous dites que le chiffre officiel est de 14 millions. Eh bien c’est le — peut-être le chiffre officiellement faux. Je crois qu’on pourrait — on pourrait l’appeler le chiffre officiellement faux. Donc, le vrai chiffre est 100 millions et je le maintiens. C’est en regardant à la fois la recherche, en regardant les perceptions sur le terrain que j’ai observées, puis ce que j’ai vu à la frontière, et puis aussi certaines études supplémentaires que nous avons menées ad hoc sur le terrain pendant que nous étions dans ces villes à travers les États-Unis. Donc revenons disons à 1975, le chiffre était de 14 millions. Vous êtes en train de me dire qu’entre 1975 et aujourd’hui ce chiffre est toujours de 14 millions? Il faut être complètement fou. Quiconque dit ça, que ce soit Pew ou n’importe quelle autre soi-disant organisation de recherche, ce qui me fait me demander quel genre de recherche ils font. 14 millions pendant 50 ans, alors que nous avons vu des millions passer cette frontière chaque année, pas seulement pendant les années Biden, mais chaque année sans exception. Il y a eu quelques — quelques études assez sérieuses, toujours pas exactes — Bear Stearns vers 2000, approximativement 2006, l’avaient estimé à 20 à 30 millions, ce qui était une étude de référence, c’était une institution financière qui avait réalisé cette étude. Ils ne l’examinaient pas sous l’angle sociopolitique, ce que font la plupart des études, c’est-à-dire la politique et la rectitude politique. Donc ils l’avaient déjà placé en 2006 entre 20 et 30 millions. Regardez ce qui s’est passé entre 2006 et aujourd’hui. Des millions de plus ont afflué, surtout sous Biden. Sous Biden on ne sait pas ce qui est entré dans le pays. Combien de millions sont entrés dans le pays. Et puis les observations sur le terrain avant 2000 — il y avait de nombreuses régions des États-Unis où les gens ne savaient pas ce qu’était un immigré illégal. Après 2000, très rapidement, presque chaque espace aux États-Unis a désormais des immigrés illégaux, ça s’est rempli très rapidement avec des millions. Donc quand on remet ça en contexte, regardez les temps de trajet à Charlotte, Caroline du Nord, cent cinquante-trois mille navetteurs à Charlotte. Sauf que lorsque la Mean Green team a débarqué à Charlotte, tout d’un coup les temps de trajet sont montés au superlatif. Et pour qu’un temps de trajet monte au superlatif il faut retirer environ 30 à 40% des navetteurs du trajet, nous avons fait ce calcul. Qu’est-ce que 30% de 153 000? Vous commencez à refléter ces 100 millions. Parce que ce que je dis c’est qu’il y a environ 340 millions de résidents américains, plus encore cent millions d’immigrés illégaux. Même chose avec l’absentéisme scolaire. 30% des écoles de Charlotte-Mecklenburg — 30% des élèves, plus de 30% des élèves étaient absents de l’école. Ce qui correspond de façon suspecte à ce chiffre de 100 millions. Donc vous prenez toute la recherche, toutes les observations sur le terrain des agents de la Border Patrol et des professionnels de la sécurité frontalière, plus ces études passées, vous mettez tout ça ensemble et vous utilisez cette chose qu’on appelle le bon sens. Maddie, un peu de bon sens et le chiffre de cent millions semble très très précis et plausible. Et vous savez, si d’autres personnes veulent — veulent avancer un autre chiffre et le contester, je serais vraiment curieux de l’entendre.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Maddie: Sie haben vorhin über Einwanderungszahlen gesprochen, konkret über illegale Einwanderung in Amerika, und die offizielle Zahl beträgt 14 Millionen, aber Sie sagten, es könnten 100 Millionen illegale Einwanderer in Amerika sein. Können Sie das begründen?

Gregory Bovino: Sicher, Maddie. Sie sagen, die offizielle Zahl sei 14 Millionen. Nun, das ist die — vielleicht die offiziell falsche Zahl. Ich glaube, wir könnten — wir könnten sie die offiziell falsche Zahl nennen. Also, die echte Zahl ist 100 Millionen und dabei bleibe ich. Das basiert sowohl auf Forschung als auch auf den Beobachtungen vor Ort, die ich gemacht habe, auf dem, was ich an der Grenze gesehen habe, und dann auch auf einigen zusätzlichen Studien, die wir ad hoc vor Ort durchgeführt haben, während wir in diesen Städten quer durch die Vereinigten Staaten waren. Also zurück, sagen wir, zu 1975, da lag die Zahl bei 14 Millionen. Wollen Sie mir sagen, dass zwischen 1975 und jetzt diese Zahl immer noch 14 Millionen beträgt? Man muss absolut verrückt sein. Wer das behauptet, ob es Pew ist oder irgendeine andere sogenannte Forschungsorganisation, bei der ich mich frage, was für Forschung die eigentlich betreiben. 14 Millionen seit 50 Jahren, während wir Millionen über diese Grenze strömen sahen, jedes Jahr, nicht nur während der Biden-Jahre, sondern jedes einzelne Jahr. Es gab einige — einige ziemlich solide Studien, immer noch nicht korrekt — Bear Stearns um 2000, ungefähr 2006, hatten es bei 20 bis 30 Millionen, was eine bahnbrechende Studie war, das war eine Finanzinstitution, die diese Studie durchgeführt hat. Sie betrachteten es nicht aus dem soziopolitischen Blickwinkel, aus dem die meisten Studien es betrachten, nämlich Politik und politische Korrektheit. Also hatten sie es 2006 bereits zwischen 20 und 30 Millionen. Schauen Sie, was zwischen 2006 und jetzt passiert ist. Millionen mehr strömten herein, besonders unter Biden. Unter Biden wissen wir nicht, was ins Land gekommen ist. Wie viele Millionen ins Land gekommen sind. Und dann die Beobachtungen vor Ort vor 2000 — es gab viele Gegenden in den Vereinigten Staaten, wo die Leute nicht wussten, was ein illegaler Ausländer ist. Nach 2000 sehr schnell hatte so gut wie jede Gegend in den Vereinigten Staaten nun illegale Ausländer, es füllte sich sehr schnell mit Millionen. Wenn man das also in diesen Zusammenhang setzt, schauen Sie sich die Pendelzeiten in Charlotte, North Carolina an, hundertzwanzigtausend — hundertdreiundfünfzigtausend Pendler in Charlotte. Außer als das Mean Green team in Charlotte auftauchte, stiegen die Pendelzeiten plötzlich auf ein Superlativniveau. Und damit eine Pendelzeit auf ein Superlativniveau steigt, müssen etwa 30 bis 40% der Pendler aus dem Verkehr gezogen werden, das haben wir berechnet. Was sind 30% von 153.000? Sie beginnen, diese 100 Millionen widerzuspiegeln. Denn ich sage, es gibt etwa 340 Millionen amerikanische Einwohner, dazu noch hundert Millionen illegale Ausländer. Dasselbe gilt für Schulfehlzeiten. 30% der Charlotte-Mecklenburg-Schulen — 30% der Schüler, mehr als 30% der Schüler fehlten in der Schule. Das spiegelt auf verdächtige Weise diese 100-Millionen-Zahl wider. Also nehmen Sie die gesamte Forschung, alle Beobachtungen vor Ort von Grenzschutzbeamten und Grenzschutzfachleuten, plus diese früheren Studien, stecken Sie das alles zusammen und verwenden Sie dieses Ding namens gesunder Menschenverstand. Maddie, ein bisschen gesunder Menschenverstand und die Hundert-Millionen-Zahl erscheint sehr sehr präzise und plausibel. Und wissen Sie, wenn andere Leute wollen — einen anderen Wert nennen und ihn bestreiten wollen, würde ich das wirklich gerne hören.

Video by Filmkunstkollektiv

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

🇬🇧 ENGLISH

Kobe Declercq: The AfD put the Identitarian Movement on its incompatibility list. What’s your answer to that?

Maximilian Märkl: Yeah, that happened a long time ago, but nobody had the will to change this false decision. It was just a copy and paste from the secret service of the state, and a mistake happened, and I think it’s high time to correct this mistake.

Kobe Declercq: What can a movement do that a party simply cannot? Why does the IB exist alongside the AfD rather than inside of it?

Maximilian Märkl: We don’t have to think about the next election necessarily. We can provoke, we can say stuff where you might not get elected next month because it seems to be too provocative. We try to shift the Overton window so the AfD can follow and build the real political power inside the parliament, so we try to work together as good as possible.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Kobe Declercq: L’AfD a inscrit le Mouvement Identitaire sur sa liste d’incompatibilité. Quelle est votre réponse à cela ?

Maximilian Märkl: Oui, c’est arrivé il y a longtemps, mais personne n’a eu la volonté de revenir sur cette mauvaise décision. C’était simplement un copier-coller des services secrets de l’État, une erreur s’est produite, et je pense qu’il est grand temps de corriger cette erreur.

Kobe Declercq: Que peut faire un mouvement qu’un parti ne peut tout simplement pas faire ? Pourquoi l’IB existe-t-elle aux côtés de l’AfD plutôt qu’en son sein ?

Maximilian Märkl: Nous n’avons pas nécessairement à penser à la prochaine élection. Nous pouvons provoquer, nous pouvons dire des choses avec lesquelles vous ne seriez peut-être pas élu le mois prochain parce que ça semble trop provocateur. Nous essayons de déplacer la fenêtre d’Overton pour que l’AfD puisse suivre et construire le vrai pouvoir politique au parlement, donc nous essayons de travailler ensemble du mieux possible.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Kobe Declercq: Die AfD hat die Identitäre Bewegung auf ihre Unvereinbarkeitsliste gesetzt. Was ist Ihre Antwort darauf?

Maximilian Märkl: Ja, das ist schon lange her, aber niemand hatte den Willen, diese falsche Entscheidung zu korrigieren. Es war einfach ein Copy-and-paste vom Verfassungsschutz, ein Fehler ist passiert, und ich denke, es ist längst an der Zeit, diesen Fehler zu korrigieren.

Kobe Declercq: Was kann eine Bewegung tun, was eine Partei schlicht nicht kann? Warum existiert die IB neben der AfD und nicht innerhalb von ihr?

Maximilian Märkl: Wir müssen nicht unbedingt an die nächste Wahl denken. Wir können provozieren, wir können Dinge sagen, mit denen man vielleicht nächsten Monat nicht gewählt wird, weil es zu provokativ wirkt. Wir versuchen, das Overton-Fenster zu verschieben, damit die AfD folgen und echte politische Macht im Parlament aufbauen kann, also versuchen wir, so gut wie möglich zusammenzuarbeiten.

Video by Filmkunstkollektiv

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.

16 Likes∙

Maddie: And I’d like to ask about the UK as well. So we have a new party, Restore Britain and the leader Rupert Lowe, the MP, we’re curious to know what you think of them, Mr Lowe and Restore Britain.

Gregory Bovino: FANTASTIC. You know they remind me of the AfD and some of the other parties in some of the other countries. But I believe you’re second or third most members of that, so you’re growing, you’re growing rapidly again. This is the movement, this is the movement we’re talking about. So Restore Britain is a movement that I think that they can’t ignore it now. But you’re gonna be in control soon enough. And I hope they realize that.

Maddie: And do you think a lot of Americans share your view?

Gregory Bovino: Absolutely, you bet they do. Because the situation and the problems are the same in the United States as they are here, they see the same problems here. You see the same problems in the United States. So you’ve got a lot of compatriots there in the United States that wish the very best for you. Actually you’ve got a lot of people at this Remigration Summit from the United States because they support you.

🇫🇷 FRANÇAIS

Maddie: J’aimerais aussi aborder le Royaume-Uni. Nous avons un nouveau parti, Restore Britain, et son leader Rupert Lowe, le député. Nous sommes curieux de savoir ce que vous en pensez, de M. Lowe et de Restore Britain.

Gregory Bovino: FANTASTIQUE. Vous savez, ils me font penser à l’AfD et à certains autres partis dans d’autres pays. Mais je crois que vous êtes le deuxième ou troisième parti en nombre d’adhérents, donc vous progressez, vous progressez rapidement là encore. C’est le mouvement, c’est bien le mouvement dont on parle. Donc Restore Britain est un mouvement que je pense qu’ils ne peuvent plus ignorer maintenant. Mais vous allez prendre le contrôle assez vite. Et j’espère qu’ils en prennent conscience.

Maddie: Et pensez-vous que beaucoup d’Américains partagent votre point de vue ?

Gregory Bovino: Absolument, sans aucun doute. Parce que la situation et les problèmes sont les mêmes aux États-Unis qu’ici, ils voient les mêmes problèmes ici. Vous voyez les mêmes problèmes aux États-Unis. Donc vous avez beaucoup de compatriotes là-bas aux États-Unis qui vous souhaitent tout le meilleur. En fait vous avez beaucoup de gens à ce Sommet de la Rémigration qui viennent des États-Unis parce qu’ils vous soutiennent.

🇩🇪 DEUTSCH

Maddie: Ich würde auch gerne über das Vereinigte Königreich sprechen. Wir haben eine neue Partei, Restore Britain, und ihren Vorsitzenden Rupert Lowe, den Abgeordneten. Wir würden gerne wissen, was Sie von ihnen halten, von Mr. Lowe und Restore Britain.

Gregory Bovino: FANTASTISCH. Wissen Sie, sie erinnern mich an die AfD und einige andere Parteien in anderen Ländern. Aber ich glaube, Sie sind die zweit- oder drittgrößte Partei nach Mitgliederzahl, also wachsen Sie, Sie wachsen wieder rasant. Das ist die Bewegung, das ist die Bewegung, über die wir sprechen. Also ist Restore Britain eine Bewegung, von der ich denke, dass sie sie jetzt nicht mehr ignorieren können. Aber Sie werden bald die Kontrolle übernehmen. Und ich hoffe, dass sie das erkennen.

Maddie: Und glauben Sie, dass viele Amerikaner Ihre Ansicht teilen?

Gregory Bovino: Absolut, das können Sie wetten. Weil die Situation und die Probleme in den Vereinigten Staaten dieselben sind wie hier, sie sehen dieselben Probleme hier. Sie sehen dieselben Probleme in den Vereinigten Staaten. Also haben Sie viele Gleichgesinnte dort in den Vereinigten Staaten, die Ihnen alles Gute wünschen. Tatsächlich haben Sie viele Menschen auf diesem Remigrationsgipfel aus den Vereinigten Staaten, weil sie Sie unterstützen.

Video by Filmkunstkollektiv

🔹 Follow Voxeuropa on : X | Instagram | Telegram |

🔹 To support us - Paypal

🔹 Share, comment, and debate — ideas gain power when they circulate.