I didn’t really understand what the Left’s lax attitude towards crime meant until I was in Berkeley in California last summer. In a branch of Target, anything which cost more than about 20 dollars could not simply be taken off the rack. It was locked onto it in order to prevent theft. You had to ask the shop assistant to remove it for you. This is because petty theft is effectively legal in California. The police are unlikely to investigate any theft of less than about 950 dollars.

I’d never been to California before, and once I realised this, it became clear why prices, such as in restaurants, were sky high compared to other parts of the US: the prices were an insurance policy against theft. Berkeley is a wealthy town, yet the moment I stepped outside my hotel, the stench of human urine and excrement was obvious. Vagrants lined the streets and played loud music in the public library, with nobody attempting to stop them. A fair few lived in tents on the campus of the University of California. Obviously high or drunk and almost certainly schizophrenic, they shouted at or otherwise intimidated passing students. In the Finnish town where I live, theft is practically unheard of and will be prosecuted, vagrancy in non-existent and people who are high in public will be arrested.

Why do the Woke permit criminality to flourish? Do they, somehow, enjoy intimidation on campus, the stench of human excreta and ludicrous prices in restaurants?

As I have discussed before, as pack animals, we have five Moral Foundations.  Conservatives are more group-oriented than liberals. They are more concerned with the moral foundations of in-group loyalty, obedience to authority and sanctity, in contrast to disgust. The latter causes people to react with disgust to that which impacts the group or themselves in a negative manner, including an invasion of outsiders, but also to disease.

People who are left-wing are concerned with the individually-oriented moral foundations of harm avoidance and equality. These allow you, as an individual, to ascend the hierarchy of the group, which was once necessary in order to pass on your genes. By being concerned about harm, you can avoid harm to yourself. By being concerned about equality, you ensure that you get proportionately more of the resources in a species that is highly cooperative.

It is useful to be particularly concerned about these issues if you are at the bottom of the hierarchy and, also, if you are physically weak. They are a means of covertly playing for status. Signalling your concern with them allows you to seem kind and morally good and is, thus, a means, in a pro-social species, of covertly ascending the hierarchy. Overall, conservatives are also concerned with these individually-oriented foundations but liberals are not concerned with the group-oriented foundations. Unsurprisingly, virtue-signalling and signalling your victimhood are associated with being a selfish individualist, with being high in Narcissism and Machiavellianism, for example.

Once you are in a context where individualist foundations are the key Moral Foundations, then power-hungry types—leftists—will competitively signal their interest in these foundations. Runaway concern with harm avoidance means that we have to be concerned about the feelings of the criminal. His criminality is not his fault; it is surely the fault of harm done to him by an unfair and uncaring society (or the fault of his genes), so why should he be punished? In the case of property crime, this is, surely, at least partly the fault of “systemic inequality” against which the looter’s “crime” is a noble form of protest.

According to transwoman American author Vicky, formerly Willie, Osterweil “rioting and looting are our most powerful tools for dismantling white supremacy.” He argues in his book In Defense of Looting: A Riotous History of Uncivil Action that the actions of looters are morally right, presumably until they threaten Osterweil’s property or safety, as it is mostly those of low socioeconomic status who are the victims of such crimes. Thus, for the power hungry leftist, the problems I discussed earlier are a small price to pay for the high social status which such competitive Woke signalling may achieve.

And, for most of them, it is only a small price. Being pro-crime is what Rob Henderson has called a “luxury belief.” It is a belief via which you can signal your Woke credentials while not having to deal with the consequences of your belief. It is also a means of signalling your confidence and wealth: you will experience no difficulties as there is no crime in your area. As Henderson wrote in the New York Post: “In other words, upper-class whites gain status by talking about their high status. When laws are enacted to combat white privilege, it won’t be the privileged whites who are harmed. Poor whites will bear the brunt.”

Even littering and vandalising public property, such as with graffiti—made respectable in among elites by Leftist writer Norman Mailer in the 1970s—are means via which a criminal has been able to express his legitimate grievances. Accordingly, society should not be protected from “traditional criminals” and they should receive only the lightest of sentences, if they must be prosecuted at all. By contrast, people stating that “you cannot become a woman” are challenging “equality” and harming people’s feelings. These people are attacking the dogmas that hold society together and, thus, they must be severely punished.

It is possible that there is a vicarious dimension to why leftists support such criminality. The pleasure of breaking the law is, for some people, a matter of feeling “empowered,” of experiencing a “power rush.” However, the bourgeoisie leftists aren’t really interested in a new television or in daubing graffiti. They are, however, interested in power rushes and fantasies of revolution, specifically “anti-hierarchical aggression,” as research on them has demonstrated. They will identify with criminals and enjoy their criminality vicariously, despite not being criminal in nature themselves, because they want power, they want to overthrow the current power. However, being high in anxiety, as Leftists tend to be, few of them can bring themselves to actually personally break the law.

As I have explored in depth in my book Breeding the Human Herd: Eugenics, Dysgenics and the Future of the Species, anxiety is part of a broader personality trait known as Neuroticism. Being high on this trait means you have strong negative feelings. This means they are resentful, jealous and power-hungry, because they wish to control a world which induces anxiety in them. They hate that which has power; the current “unequal” hierarchy. They deal with their negative feelings via Narcissism; by telling themselves that they are morally superior due to their leftism. But being high in anxiety, they fear a fair fight, so they play for status covertly — in the way that females do — by virtue-signalling about equality and harm avoidance.

The eventual result takes you beyond anything you might experience in Berkeley. It takes you down the road, to Hyde Street in San Francisco, where drugged-up zombies rock back and forth and dance, where people openly take and deal drugs in broad daylight, where people live in the street in tents, and where the street must be hosed down every morning. This runaway individualism will continue until it actually seriously impacts wealthy Woke people and so ceases to be a “luxury belief.”

Mutato nomine, de te fabula narratur. That’s a Latin saying that applies to a trio of once-great Western nations: Britain, America, France. The saying means “With a change of name, the tale is told of thee.” So let’s tell the tale. It goes like this:

A young and charismatic politician dazzles the electorate with promises of change and national renewal. He rides a tide of popular acclaim into the highest office in the land. Now he has the power he sought, but national renewal is slow to arrive. Critics begin to charge him with narcissism and deceit. Rumors circulate about his sexuality. He seems to be happily married, but his wife is peculiar and there are persistent whispers that he’s secretly gay or bisexual. Whatever the truth of that, one thing is certain: he’s deeply in love with the sound of his own voice. Luckily for him, he still has the media with him and he wins big again when he stands for re-election. Alas, his second term proves no more effective than his first. His promises have definitely lost their shine. When he leaves office, the voters he once dazzled are now deeply disillusioned.

Meet Blobamacron: the three narcissistic shabbos goyim Blair, Obama and Macron (images from Wikipedia)

That is, of course, the tale of Tony Blair in Britain. But it’s also the tale of Barack Obama in America. And the tale of Emmanuel Macron in France. These three politicians are so similar that you could give them a single name: Blobamacron. It’s as though Clown World has applied the same script three times in three different countries and found three almost identical actors to play the leading role. A deceitful narcissist rumored to be secretly gay first dazzles, then disillusions. After that, he leaves office and becomes very rich. The script isn’t quite finished in France, because Macron hasn’t left office, but he’s already deep into the stage of disillusion. The voters he once dazzled now understood that they were deceived.

Tony Blair performs the goy-grovel overseen by Jewish supremacist and alleged child-rapist Greville Janner (image © PA Wire/Press Association Images)

That’s why Whites in France may react to Clown World’s script in the same way as Whites in America did: by next electing someone that Clown World hates. In America Barack Obama promised racial healing and an end to national division. He delivered the opposite. So Whites elected Donald Trump. In France, Macron promised the same as Obama and, like Obama, has delivered the opposite. Like Blacks in America, Muslims and other non-Whites in France are preying on Whites worse than ever. So disillusioned French Whites may next elect the “far right” Marine Le Pen (born 1968) as president. I hope they do, but I fear that Marine could prove as disappointing in office as Meloni has in Italy. That’s Giorgia Meloni, the “far right” leader who entered power loudly promising to reverse the tide of non-White migration and has instead allowed it to rise even higher. She was called a fascist tiger; she’s proving to be Clown World’s lapdog.

The world’s most important question

Will Marine Le Pen prove the same? We shall see. One thing is certain: she’s done her best to distance herself from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen (born 1928). He was a tough ex-paratrooper who spoke his mind when he was leader of the Front National. That’s what destroyed his chances of becoming president, because one of the things he spoke his mind about was the Holocaust. He said that it was a “detail of history.” Demonized as an antisemite, Jean-Marie was destroyed as a politician. His daughter got the message loud and clear. She knows that she has to appease Jews to have any chance of power. That’s why she’s been so determined to prove that her presidency will answer the world’s most important question in the affirmative.

And what is the world’s most important question? Simple. It runs like this: “Is it good for Jews?” Marine Le Pen wants Jews in France to look at her renamed party and say “Oui!” In other words, she’s been performing the goy-grovel:

When more than 100,000 people marched in Paris against antisemitism on 12 November [2023], one participant attracted particular notice: Marine Le Pen, leader of the far-Right Rasssemblement National (“National Rally”). As many recall, the party’s founder, and her father Jean-Marie, was himself a notorious antisemite, and counted veterans of the Waffen SS among his early cadres. Was it possible that Marine’s party had showed up for the wrong march?

In fact, the RN leader has been denouncing a “new antisemitism” for many years, and trying to build Jewish support for the party. She instigated the party’s greatest rupture with its own past in 2015 when she expelled Jean-Marie from it, and has increasingly sold herself as French Jews’ “shield against Islamist ideology”, in the words of her co-leader, Jordan Bardella. But for much of France, the far-Right is still built upon and tainted by antisemitism. Le Pen’s change of position is certainly strategic; whether it is a genuine change of heart is a different question. (“Will Marine Le Pen defend French Jews?,” Unherd, 23rd November, 2023)

There has been a “march against antisemitism” in Paris for the same reason as there has been a “march against antisemitism” in London. As I pointed out in “Israel über Alles,” Jews imported Muslims and other non-Whites as “natural allies” in the Jewish war against the White Christian West. Since October 7 and the Hamas attacks on Israel, Jews have realized with dismay that their “natural allies” are in fact their natural enemies. Antisemitism has risen to horrifying levels all over the West and the political elite in Britain, America, and France have been denouncing it more loudly than ever. Because Marine Le Pen wants to join the political elite, she’s been denouncing it too.

“The first Jewish president”

She learnt the necessity of appeasing Jews from what happened to her father. But she could also have learnt it from Blobamacron. Tony Blair, Barack Obama, and Emmanuel Macron all won high office by serving Jewish interests and performing the goy-grovel eagerly and often. Blair’s thuggish and Machiavellian press-secretary Alastair Campbell once told the Jewish Chronicle that Blair “was conscious of the need to have very, very good relations” with “the Jewish community.” Blair was surrounded with Jews both before and after he won high office, just like Obama in America:

Writer Toni Morrison famously dubbed [the eminently blackmailable — because of his close association with Jeffrey Epstein] Bill Clinton “the first black president” — a title he fervently embraced. [A theme here is that Blobamacron are eminently blackmailable by the Mossad; the same goes for Clinton because of his close association with Jeffrey Epstein and Joe Biden because of his financial corruption with the Chinese.] Abner Mikva, the Chicago Democratic Party stalwart and former Clinton White House counsel, offers a variation on that theme. “If Clinton was our first black president, then Barack Obama is our first Jewish president,” says Mikva, who was among the first to spot the potential of the skinny young law school graduate with the odd name.

“I use a Yiddish expression, yiddishe neshuma, to describe him,” explains Mikva. “It means a Jewish soul. It’s an expression my mother used. It means a sensitive, sympathetic personality, someone who understands where you are coming from.” … “As Jews got to know him, they recognized a kindred spirit, not someone who came down from Mars,” Mikva said. Rabbi Arnold Wolf, of KAM Isaiah Israel synagogue across the street from Obama’s Chicago home, was another early backer. Like Mikva, he sees what he called Obama’s “Jewish side.”

“Obama is from nowhere and everywhere — just like the Jews. He’s black, he’s white, he’s American, he’s Asian, he’s African — and so are we,” Wolf said.

Certainly, Obama is comfortable with Jews, especially Jews from Chicago. Axelrod will remain at his side as senior adviser, and Rep. Rahm Emanuel will be White House chief of staff. Billionaire Penny Pritzker, who has known Obama since the mid-1990s and served as his campaign finance chairwoman, was said to be under consideration for commerce secretary until she took herself out of the running. (Barack Obama: The first Jewish president? Chicago circle nurtured him all the way to the top, The Chicago Tribune, 12^th December 2008)

And as Obama schmoozed Jews in America, Macron was doing the same in France: in 2008, he became an investment banker at Rothschild & Cie Banque. He performed the goy-grovel and was rewarded with the presidency. He’s never stopped grovelling. Indeed, he grovelled so hard in December 2023 that even some Jews were embarrassed by it. In blatant disregard of the long French tradition of secularism, Macron stood beside the chief rabbi of France as the rabbi lit a Hanukkah candle in a ceremony at the Elysée Palace, home of the French president and supposed heart of French democracy. Yonathan Arfi, the president of the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions (CRIF), joined the storm of protest that followed. Arfi said that Macron had committed an “error” and that “It’s not the place, within the Elysée, to light a Hanukkah candle, because the republican DNA is to stay away from anything religious.”

Mossad and Macron

In other words, Arfi was worried that Macron was making his subservience to Jews too obvious. Yiddish has a phrase for it: shande far di goyim, “shame in front of the gentiles.” It means that something harmful or embarrassing for Jews has been revealed to gentiles. But Jewish control of Macron may reside precisely in their ability to shame him before the world. As I pointed out above, one of the similarities between Blair, Obama, and Macron is that all three are rumored to be secretly gay or bisexual. That similarity may be essential, not incidental, because being secretly gay would make the three goyim highly susceptible to blackmail. Macron’s wife Brigitte is 24 years older than him and a documentary on BFM, “France’s most popular TV news channel,” has said that she once “received an anonymous telephone call alleging that her president husband Emmanuel Macron was with a gay lover.” Whether or not the allegation was true, Israeli intelligence has almost certainly done the same in France as it has done using Jeffrey Epstein in America. Epstein gathered blackmail material on the American elite for Israel. That’s part of why Jewish control of American politics and media is so complete.

Secularism shmecularism: Emmanuel Macron looks shifty as France’s chief rabbi lights a Hanukkah candle at the  Elysée Palace (image from BBC and Mendel Samama)

Does Mossad have videos and recordings of Macron travelling on the Hershey Highway? If it does, that would certainly explain his slavish dedication to serving Jewish interests. Mutato nomine, “with a change of name,” the same would be true of the rumored-to-be-secretly-gay Blair and Obama. Spying and blackmail are Jewish specialities. That’s part of why so many people are suspicious about the “surprise attack” by Hamas on Israel. Before the attack, the Gaza Strip was one of the most closely surveilled and monitored territories on earth. Israeli spying agencies like Unit 8200 have routinely spied on homosexual Palestinians and blackmailed them into working against their own people. Has Israel applied the same blackmail techniques to Blobamacron? I suspect so. I also suspect that Israel applied those techniques to one of Tony Blair’s predecessors as British prime minister and leader of the Labour party. During the Jewish hysteria about Jeremy Corbyn’s “antisemitism,” a Jewish historian called Robert Philpot published an article in the Times of Israel that looked back to a happier era:

Harold Wilson may be less well-known internationally than Margaret Thatcher or Tony Blair, but he dominated British politics for much of the 1960s and 1970s — and remains the only modern-day prime minister to win four general elections. … Famously pragmatic — critics claimed unprincipled — the former prime minister’s name became for a time synonymous with the wheeler-dealing and political game-playing in which he undoubtedly reveled. As one contemporary newspaper columnist suggested, Wilson’s image was “a dark serpentine crawling trimmer, shifty and shuffling, devious, untrustworthy, constant only in the pursuit of self-preservation and narrow party advantage.” For the historian Dominic Sandbrook, Wilson was “a brilliant opportunist.”

There was, however, a limit to Wilson’s alleged opportunism. As the left wing and veteran Zionist Labour MP, Ian Mikardo, once argued: “I don’t think Harold … [had] any doctrinal beliefs at all. Except for one, which I find utterly incomprehensible, which is his devotion to the cause of Israel.” Wilson’s leadership arguably marked the high point of the relationship between Labour and British Jews, a bond which has today been strained by Jeremy Corbyn’s strident anti-Zionism and the allegations of anti-Semitism which continue to rock the party. (“When the UK’s left-wing prime minister was one of Israel’s closest friends,” The Times of Israel, 30th March 2019)

Harold Wilson, “devious,” “untrustworthy,” and a staunch Friend of Israel (image from Labour Friends of Israel)

Why did the “veteran Zionist” Ian Mikardo think that Wilson’s “devotion” to Israel was “utterly incomprehensible”? Mikardo was himself Jewish and presumably realized that Wilson wasn’t a natural philosemite. But perhaps that unshakeable Zionism was only “incomprehensible” to those without the full facts. But if Israel was blackmailing the “devious” and “untrustworthy” Wilson, his devotion becomes perfectly comprehensible. Tony Blair is also “devious,” “untrustworthy,” and a staunch Friend of Israel. And like Blair, Wilson had a close Jewish associate who became involved in a financial scandal. Blair’s associate Lord Levy was investigated, but not prosecuted and jailed, for allegedly selling honors to rich Jews who made secret donations to the Labour party. Wilson’s associate Lord Kagan actually was jailed for fraud when he was “forced to return to England” after seeking refuge (can you guess where?) in Israel.

The parallels between Blair and Wilson don’t end there. Both of them became leader of the Labour party only after the unexpected and premature death of the previous leader. As Wikipedia puts it: “The shock of [Hugh] Gaitskell’s death [in 1963] was comparable to that of the sudden death of the later Labour Party leader John Smith, in May 1994, when he too seemed to be on the threshold of [becoming prime minister].” Fancy that! Those staunch Friends of Israel Wilson and Blair both reached the highest office in the land thanks to a lucky accident. Of course, it wasn’t lucky for Hugh Gaitskell or John Smith. But it was lucky for Wilson and Blair. And even luckier for Israel, which had warm friends in power instead of the more distant Gaitskell and Smith.

Labour’s toxic transformation

So did Israel assassinate Gaitskell and Smith to clear the path to power for its shabbos goyim Wilson and Blair? Well, I started this article with some Latin, so I’ll end it and answer the question with some Italian: se no è vero, è ben trovato. That roughly means: “If it’s not true, it should be.” History clearly proves that Wilson and Blair displayed slavish “devotion to the cause of Israel.” But it also proves that neither displayed any devotion at all to the cause of the White working-class. Under Harold Wilson, the Labour party, founded to champion the White working-class, began to turn into a dedicated enemy of the White working-class.

By the time Tony Blair entered Downing Street, that transformation from champion to enemy was complete. The transformation was overseen by Jews and carried out by shabbos goyim. That’s why it would make a perfect story if Israel did indeed assassinate Gaitskell and Smith to put Wilson and Blair into office. Jews hate Whites and their shabbos goyim know that they have to harm Whites once they get into power. Harming Whites is precisely what Harold Wilson and Blobamacron have done.

What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Filip Dewinter, a Member of the Flemish Parliament in Belgium.

James Edwards: You were first elected to office in 1987, when you were just 25 years old. Since 1995 you have held a seat as a Member of the Flemish Parliament. What are your signature issues?

Filip Dewinter: I think it’s the duty of a politician to be controversial if they truly want to make a difference. Topics like immigration, the rise of crime, and the deterioration of the welfare state are issues that have always been the closest to my heart. And yes, it’s not always easy to speak out about these sensitive topics because once you do, the left-liberal media immediately brands you as racist, fascist, or whatever ad hominem attack that’s in vogue at the time. Whoever talks about politically incorrect topics is immediately branded as the bad guy. Regardless of what they call me, however, I continue to speak up about what topics I view to be most important.

Edwards: You are a very well-known and unabashed advocate for the historic European majority in your country, and you cruise to reelection whenever you are challenged. How have you been able to turn your unapologetic pro-European positions into a political asset?

Dewinter: We oppose mass immigration and the ideology that makes mass immigration possible: multiculturalism. As the opposition politicians, we are the stick, the watchdog of democracy. We have put many issues on the political agenda: political corruption, asylum and migration, and fighting crime. Of course, you never get credit for that, but often other parties copy your views and run with your success. My generation and I were the icebreakers who had to build the path with a pick and shovel. That meant that sometimes we had to hit hard, provoke, and take quite radical positions.

Edwards: Vlaams Belang, the political party you have long been associated with, is currently the most popular party in Flanders, correct?

Dewinter: Yes, right now Vlaams Belang is currently polling in first place, between 25% and 30%. That said, we still have some months to go until the election. It is obvious, however, that our ideas are becoming mainstream. Our opponents, the old, mainstream parties, along with mainstream media, say that our ideas are extreme, provocative, and so on. Maybe it is they who’ve become extreme, and we are the mainstream now! After all, how can a party be considered extreme or radical when, out of all the other parties, it enjoys the most public support? It’s worth noting that this phenomenon isn’t only happening in Flanders but in many other countries across Europe.

Edwards: Can you address the liberal-left concept of multiculturalism in Europe? What are the essential values of the various European nations and how can Europeans be protected in the future?

Dewinter: For many decades, the progressive left has been trying to force multiculturalism upon us. Through an open-borders policy that facilitates mass immigration, they want to realize the “Great Replacement.” This means that the native European people are replaced by a melting pot of all kinds of cultures.

In practice, European cultures are disappearing and being replaced by Islamic culture. That cannot and must not be the intention.

Essential to our European identity is the diversity of the European people and their specific cultures. There is a lot of diversity in Europe. Not the so-called multicultural diversity in which non-European civilizations are forced upon us, but the real diversity of “The Europe of 100 flags,” each representing a unique nation and people.

We can only preserve our diverse European culture, which is Christian and Western and is based on human rights and the values of the Enlightenment (free speech, democracy, equality between men and women, separation between church and state), if we also respect the cultures of the ethnic minorities in Europe.

Edwards: What are the main threats to European identities and cultures?

Dewinter: The main threat to our European culture and certainly the smaller cultures is, of course, the mass immigration forced upon us by the EU and the globalist elite. The “Great Replacement” is imminent. The native European people are in danger of being replaced by Third World people. And whoever brings in the Third World becomes the Third World.

Everything that has to do with identity and cultural uniqueness must apparently be destroyed. Racism has become a pretext to undo our European identity and cultural uniqueness and replace it with multiculturalism and the melting pot society. As always when socialism strives for equality, this means a downward leveling. This cultural genocide must end.

Edwards: You have a new book out titled Repopulation: The Great Replacement. Our opponents allege that it is a “myth” or a “conspiracy theory” to point out that the European populations are being replaced in their homelands by others. What say you?

Dewinter: This is yet another attempt to stifle debate. Stick the label “racist,” “fascist,” “anti-Semite,” or “conspiracy theorist” on your opponent and the debate is closed. Anyone who has eyes in their head and is not multiculturally blind will find that repopulation is not a conspiracy theory, but a simple empirical observation that everyone makes when you walk around any metropolis in Western Europe. You then see the repopulation around you, full stop.

Edwards: Why did you feel it necessary to write about the Great Replacement?

Dewinter: I thought it was necessary to write this book because I don’t think the greatest danger to our democracy and to our civilization is tyranny — it’s mass immigration. If you really look at the situation at hand, the quality of life, the overburden on our welfare state, the rise of crime, and the quality of our education system, these issues are inextricably linked to immigration. Therefore, I think that mass immigration, and of course also the ideology that pushes for mass immigration, is the greatest threat.

If mass immigration continues at its current levels for much longer it will be the end of our European civilization. Demographically, Europeans will cease to be politically, culturally, and economically relevant.

Edwards: In what ways is Islam incompatible with Western civilization?

Dewinter: It is clear that Islamic ideology and Islamic culture are not compatible with our Western way of life and our European culture and civilization. We stand for the values of European civilization—freedom of speech, the separation of state and church, the equality between men and women, and democracy. We clearly need a revitalization of those values. In that regard, the rise of Muslim extremism has had one positive consequence: these fanatics have made us stop taking our traditions and cultural mores for granted.

As a result, Europe is nearly ready to start a civilizational moral offensive, based on the foundations of our greatness: Rome, Greece, Christianity, humanism, and the Enlightenment. These are the common European values that need to be promoted rather than the warped tenets of multiculturalism or the crude, dusty dogmas of Islamism.

Edwards: You wrote a previous book Inch’Allah? The Islamization of Europe, which was translated into English. What is this book all about?

Dewinter: Inch’Allah? is an account of radical Islam’s inroads into Europe. The book reveals the true nature of Islam which, unlike other faiths, also comprises a dangerous totalitarian ideology, contrary to European freedoms, values, and standards. While Europeans are being lulled by multicultural indoctrination and propaganda, mass immigration serves as a Trojan horse of Islam.

By means of a cunning ghetto strategy, based on the deliberate formation of Muslim enclaves in our cities, Islam seeks to establish bridgeheads from which the only true belief can be promulgated. Radical Islam has chosen the path of conversion, infiltration, agitation, intimidation, and, if necessary, violence. Left unchecked, the demographic, cultural, and military jihad will totally transform Europe into Eurabia.

The third Muslim invasion is in full swing, but the tide can still be turned. It is not too late to bring an end to the Islamic colonization of Europe. Therefore, instead of embracing Islam and multiculturalism, Europe must pull itself together and stop the influx of ever more immigrants, halt the silent advance of Islam, and instead celebrate and propagate its own priceless cultural identity.

Edwards: Racism, xenophobia, Islamophobia — the accusations are always the same. Those who are critical of immigration are immediately accused of being a racist. What is your comment on that?

Dewinter: First and foremost, do not forget that in Western Europe and almost all major cities the population transition is already a fact. In Brussels, Paris, Amsterdam, London, and so many other large cities, the original native population has been replaced by a mixture of Third World people. The elected politicians in these cities and countries are therefore indebted to these new voters with all the consequences that entails. They are saying what these imported voters want to hear and try to outdo each other as the best and the most radical anti-racist.

Anti-racism and anti-discrimination are the new politically correct buzzwords for witch-hunting and exorcism. In the past, alleged heretics and witches were burned at the stake. Today, the same is done with so-called racists and patriots. As a politician, it is enough to be critical of immigration to be boycotted in the media, bombarded with lawsuits and legal proceedings, and treated as a political pariah. In the Middle Ages, this also happened to anyone who claimed that the Earth was not flat but round.

Edwards: What’s next for Filip Dewinter?

Dewinter: Continue my work as a politician on what is important for the Western people, namely protecting our values and standards for our own people first.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS!