Other articles and essays by Richard Parker are available at his publication, The Raven’s Call: A Reactionary Perspective, found at theravenscall.substack.com. Please consider subscribing on a free or paid basis, and to like and share as warranted. Readers can also find him on twitter, under the handle @astheravencalls. Readers of this essay may be particularly interested in reading “Against Democracy: The Five Fatal Flaws of Universal Suffrage.”

                            Every revolution begins at a café
                                                                        -Tadeusz Kantor

                            Every revolution was first a thought in one man’s mind, and when the 
                            same thought occurs to another man, it is the key to that era.
                                                                       - Ralph Waldo Emerson

A number of recent events in the European “democracies” as well as the United States are instructive as to the unsuitability of liberal democracy, and how these liberal democracies are not only incapable of implementing essential policies and measures but facilitate civilizational ruin and racial suicide. These events include the widespread riots originating in France, which have now spread elsewhere, continued waves of landings of black and brown imposters on the shores of different nations, from Greece, to Spain, to the United Kingdom, as well as the failure, heretofore, to address these dire concerns in any meaningful way. In America, both the Trump Administration and the G.O.P. have been utterly discredited through a series of missteps from the conflict with Iran, the inability to follow through on tough immigration policy, to the G.O.P. doing nothing with control of the House and Senate since Trump was re-elected.

These and other events confirm doubts whether those existential threats facing Europe and European posterity can be addressed, in any meaningful way, through the systems in place. This includes not just the existing legal systems but more particularly the form of government that governs and administers them, but is also, somewhat strangely, constrained and limited by those very legal systems. For many, this calls into question whether participating in the democratic system has any value, just as some even conclude that the death of Europe and European posterity is a foregone conclusion: that nothing can now be done to avert this grim fate of dispossession and eventual extinction.

Notwithstanding such objections, a closer examination and analysis of the political landscape reveals that the chief benefit of supporting political parties and movements that oppose third world mass migration and other fits of civilizational ruin may lie in one single, solitary benefit; it buys time for the opposition to such ruin before the left consolidates power beyond the point of no return. This understanding, in turn, reveals that the prime directive—or at least a primary directive—of opposition to the left must be to formulate and advance a discourse that both discredits liberal democracy and that seeks to cultivate opposition to liberal democracy and sitting governments until such opposition reaches a critical mass whereby such form of government can be jettisoned by any means both efficacious and available. Any delay of the left’s consolidation of power must be envisaged and contemplated with this purpose in mind.

As stated, a number of recent events places even greater doubt as to whether a political solution can be achieved through the existent political system. Despite any number of current events which should dissuade any sane voter from supporting anything other than a far-right, ethno-nationalist platform, the centre-left block won the most recent election in Sweden. Some of these parties ran on a platform on granting asylum to third world invaders, granting amnesty and even citizenship to those already present, so on and so forth. This, like so many other examples before, reveals one persistent, unwavering problem with liberal democracy in the modern age: eventually, no party, other than the left, will remain in power long enough to implement long-term, meaningful policy to achieve essential ends. That dynamic is different for the left for any number of reasons. Aside from capture of most if not all institutions of culture—namely the universities and most mass media conglomerates—the left has also engaged in what can only be described as a long-term ballot stuffing scheme by way of importing waves of racial imposters from the third world. One key, principle reason the left advocates for mass, limitless third world immigration is because these policies are tantamount to the wholesale import of Democrat1 larvae into the populace and therefore the voting constituency of the very-near future and even the present, as California and now Texas readily demonstrates. Such “dirty pool” alone justifies a negation of the underlying social contract that the democrat system presupposes and, if the option arises to do so, a moral and practical imperative to take such left-wing parties and their organs in society and culture “off the market,” forever.

As Kevin MacDonald exposed in Culture of Critique, various figures of influence have expressly, explicitly stated this intention. Many of them have a distinct, unpleasant Kosher flavor that leaves a distinct aftertaste that is seemingly as indelible as it noxious. One such prominent figure (of oh so many) is Earl Raab, who wrote in 1992:

We have tipped beyond the point where a Nazi-Aryan party will be able to prevail in this country. … the heterogeneous nature of our population tends to make it irreversible—and makes our constitutional constraints against bigotry more practical than ever.

The nefarious objections of this planned, deliberate demographic transformation—The Great Replacement—extend far beyond a mere prophylactic measure to prevent a modern successor of the NSDAP from taking power. A rootless, fragmented, polyglottic population is far easier to control, is (as more or less stated in this quote) incapable of embracing nationalism or a common racial identity and, devoid of higher meaning provided through common identity and heritage. Such a horrid menagerie of those genetic curiosities of a much darker hue is only capable of consuming and producing as working tax chattel as the once great nations of Europe are reduced to open-air tax farms and non-descript economic zones. Even more chilling, with grim demographic projections such as these as well as cold, hard realities about democracy and the nature of much of the voting constituency, such pronouncements seem to be tantamount to “game, set, and match” for the mortal enemies of the Occident and her rightful posterity: a fait accompli for the enemies of European peoples.

Such gloating notwithstanding, this insidious plan to relegate the peoples of Europe to a disenfranchised, dying minority in Europe and the greater Occident is only effective insofar as the liberal democracies are in power and only insofar as a critical mass of whites believe in the inviolability of democracy. Conversely, if a critical mass of whites disabuses themselves of the inviolability of democracy and procures the means to jettison this system and muster the conviction and will to do so, the stated “irreversibility” and inevitability of this grim future is no longer quite so certain. Critically, just as a large, substantial minority is capable of rejecting and nullifying the mandate of a seeming majority, history is replete with instances where a strong, devoted minority of the population has been able to secure power.

Many who argue that certain existential threats can be ameliorated through the electoral process cite the growing popularity of the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD). The recent electoral results in several Länder of the former German Democratic Republic (or GDR, better known as East Germany) are the latest example of such electoral success. Saxony-Anhalt is particularly notable, where the AfD won just under 50 percent of the vote is the latest success by these optimists. And yet the upstart populist party did not secure even 50 percent in these provinces that do lean so heavily to the right. Thus, the AfD cannot govern even in these provinces, at least not unless the leadership of the Christian Democrats (CDU) reconsiders the decision to refuse any coalition with the AfD. To demonstrate opposition to the supposed anti-democratic values espoused by the AfD, the CDU has formed a tenuous coalition with the likes of not only the leftist Social Democratic Party (SPD), but the Grünen (Greens) as well, a party even further to the left than the SPD. The CDU clings to this coalition of opposition to the AfD even as this decision has caused the party to hemorrhage votes to the populist upstart. One imagines these cretins would even form a coalition with the far-left die Linke rather than come to their senses and work with the AfD to save the Fatherland.

Some pundits note strong growth for the AfD, with the hopes that the AfD can somehow achieve an absolute majority in national German elections. There are two problems with this rose-colored view of modern German politics. First, in the history of the Bundesrepublik, an absolute majority was achieved once, in the immediate aftermath of the war and formation of the western puppet state. In 1957, the CDU under Konrad Adenauer won 50.2 percent of the popular vote, securing 270 of 497 seats (54.3%) in the Bundestag. That majority did not last. In the next election in 1961, the CDU lost an absolute majority and had to once again form a coalition. Indeed, Germany’s parliamentary system, like most parliamentary systems, is designed with significant structural features in place to prevent any party from achieving an absolute party, let alone an anti-establishment, right-wing party like the AfD.

Beyond that, such an assessment fails to consider just how deeply traumatized the German national conscience is, above and beyond other countries where so-called “far-right” movements are deeply stigmatized. This reflexive opposition, much like a Pavlovian response, is well enough ingrained in the European consciousness overall. It explains why both Jean Marie Le Pen and his rather disappointing daughter never had a chance to win any of French national elections that they have run in, despite growing popularity and despite the open and obvious dangers of the demographic crisis that has been apparent for decades. That anxiety, that strong aversion to supposed “far-right” politics is no more deeply ingrained in European or anglophone nations than post-war Germany.

This is evidenced by, among many other things, the effort to ban the AfD for simply calling for responsible immigration policy and enforcement that would remove Germany from the trajectory of national and racial suicide.2 While meaningful opposition to the Democrat party and the left more broadly is thwarted by a Republican party rendered utterly ineffectual and even counterproductive due to a confluence of both incompetence and malignance, meaningful opposition to the left in Europe and above all Germany is disadvantaged and even crippled by decades of programming and indoctrination about the supposed evils of fascism, racism, and so on. Indeed, a guilt complex and a sort of collective ethnomasochism known as the Kriegschuldkult has sadly become part of the German national character. This partly explains why Alice Weidel and not Björn Höcke is the national leader of the party. Propping up a lesbian woman in an interracial relationship with a Sri Lankan woman provides just enough plausible deniability with which to deflect accusations of neo-Nazism and the like to avoid being banned as “verfassungsfeindlich”3 and to persuade some unknown contingent of on-the-fence voters to abandon the CDU and support the AfD.

A second problem with this pollyannish prognosis is even more distressing than the first. Even if the AfD (or a counterpart in another European country) can either win an outright majority or persuade the CDU to abandon its absurd position of refusing to form a coalition with the AfD, it is highly doubtful such a coalition could implement those policies necessary to avert demographic and migratory ruin. Indeed, the history of liberal democracies demonstrates time and time again any such mandate would be fleeting. So-called swing voters are notoriously fickle. In the context of American politics, Ann Coulter once decried the swing voter as having the “IQ of a toaster,” questioning how any reasonably intelligent and minimally informed voter could possibly oscillate between the Democrats and Republicans. Such oscillation explains why every president suffers significant losses in the following mid-term, rendering implementation of that Administration’s policy agenda nigh impossible. This of course is another indictment of liberal democracy itself and the mad folly of universal suffrage.

And yet, lamentably, such persons do vote, in America, Germany, and all the liberal democracies. This means, among many other things, that the very instant unpleasant images or videos depicting the hard realities of having and enforcing borders is disseminated in mass media and social media, a critical mass of these useful idiots will invariably withdraw their support from the AfD (or any such counterpart in the other European countries). Ultimately, it is almost a foregone conclusion that even if the AfD does come to power, either as an absolute majority or as a coalition with the CDU, it will not retain power long enough to reverse the disaster unleashed by Angela Merkel, Ursula von der Leyen, and others precisely because a critical mass of the electorate is just scatterbrained, fickle, and—when faced with unpleasant realities and images—so very squeamish.

Similar problems exist in countries like the United Kingdom and Italy. Reform and Restore present different alternatives to the growing discontent with Keir Starmer and his predecessor and what has become of life in Britain, characterized by unopposed mass migration of black and brown hordes and a police state that has become far more censorious and oppressive than even Russia. Reform is far too milquetoast, replete with civic nationalist jargon that racial imposters born in Britain are just as British as actual Britons as these terms are properly understood. It will be a tall enough order for Reform to poach enough votes from Restore to become the bona fide opposition to the insidious designs of the left in the United Kingdom. But even if it does succeed in that first, necessary task, the same problems arise. Particularly given the fickle nature of swing voters, to mention nothing of the abject stupidity that Coulter and others have attributed to this portion of the electorate, how could a Restore government retain power long enough to reverse the effects of decades of invasion by third world blackies and brownos who have no right to set foot on the British Isles or the European continent, let alone reside there or enjoy citizenship? Absent a military coup or some other mechanism to take leftist parties and other leftist elements from various institutions of power and culture “off the market” permanently, any such electoral victory would inevitably prove fleeting. Eventually, and probably sooner rather than later, the swing voters and other sorts would buckle, and the left would regain power, reversing any progress on the matter of third world migration and other existential threats. Even worse, should they enjoy the political mandate to do so, any such return to power would also involve a further consolidation of power, including crackdowns on so-called hate speech and other measures which make it likely that the left, unlike the right, enjoys power if not in perpetuity than at least for the foreseeable future, and certainly long enough to render The Great Replacement and other designs of the left truly irreversible.

The arbitrary, capricious whims of the swing voter is compounded in turn by overt obstructionism in the judiciary, a most pernicious phenomenon that has been observed on both sides of the Atlantic. In the United States, rogue, activist judges in lower federal courts have routinely obstructed even modest immigration and deportation policies by the Trump administration. In Europe, the problem has been even worse. In the United Kingdom, obstructionist courts have prevented the government from preventing boats of migrant invaders from landing on British shores; a shocking consideration indeed as the default response throughout the annals of history has been to sink foreign ships that come ashore without authorization, not take them in. Courts have also enjoined the government repatriating refuges back to Rwanda, as just one example. Crucially, none of the liberal democracies have a mechanism whereby a right-wing government with a very fleeting majority could dispense with these obstructionist elements in the judiciary.

Compare and contrast with how Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele was only able to consolidate both power and instill social order that flows through such power by removing the magistrates in the Supreme Court and the sitting attorney general. Bukele admittedly did this through the assembly with a super majority. Insofar as such a super majority is flatly impossible in the United States, the United Kingdom. and most nations at issue, such liquidation of the judiciary must be achieved by other means. Judicial obstructionism, combined with the fickle nature of a critical mass of the electorate proves even further that eventually, somehow, some way, any salvation of Europe and its posterity will require a jettisoning of these corrupt and unworkable systems and the form of government that has installed them and perpetuates them.

Toward a More Radical but Necessary Discourse

These and other considerations call into question why anyone should even bother supporting entities like the AfD, Restore U.K., or even Donald Trump and his likely successor, J.D Vance. “There is no political solution” has become a mantra of sorts for such objections. And it is a mantra with greater relevance than ever before in the wake of the disastrous 2026 mid-term elections, as those results discredit the G.O.P. even for the purposes of obstruction and delay.

It is noteworthy such a dire view which eschews supporting these opposition parties often cite the history of Spain and the Reconquista before 1000 A.D. As many know, Islam had conquered much of the Iberian Peninsula in the centuries before. A congregation of monks met in the Pyrenees mountains and resolved to reverse this. And over the next few centuries, the Reconquista unfolded, eventually expelling the Islamic invaders through violence and bloodshed driven by unshakeable will and conviction. The suggestion seems to be that whites can recede into minority status both in the States and in Britain and Europe and somehow, some way 10-15 percent of the overall population will reconquer lost nations ousting, expelling, or otherwise eliminating imposters who have settled there generations ago.

There are several problems with such historical references, each demonstrating this episode in history is not exactly apposite to the number of existential threats to Europe and European posterity in the modern age. First, the Reconquista was, quite obviously, not executed and perfected under the auspices of liberal democracy, but was planned, implemented, and prosecuted through a religious authoritarian order. Nor did it have to contend with hostile, subversive mass media conglomerates with unimaginable, hypnotic power over the masses, endowed with many hundreds of billions in wealth. The Reconquista also involved unimaginable violence and a willingness and even desire to carry out such violence in the furtherance of the highest, most essential ends. In modern terms, the violence of the Reconquista and other events in history would be decried as “ethnic cleansing.” It would even be decried as genocide even though the colonization and invasion of the Occident by racial imposters is nothing less than a slow-burn genocide of Europeans, with some parallels to the fate of Native Americans in face of European colonization, settlement, and expansion in North America.

For these and other reasons besides, any such effort could only be achieved by overthrowing or otherwise jettisoning any liberal democracy in power in order to install an authoritarian regime that could implement drastic measures with immunity from the whims and vagaries of the swing voter, obstructionism of the judiciary, and other absurdities of democracy. Stated in the simplest terms, any measures capable of ameliorating those existential threats besetting Europe and the West require a mercilessness in heart and resolution of will that the democracies are incapable of implementing let alone sustaining, just as those measures must be implemented over a period of time that exceeds short election cycles.

Comparisons to the Reconquista and other, similar events in history reveals another problem. The longer the Great Replacement continues, the more fighting age Europeans become a minority in their own lands. This in turn means unimaginable and even unfathomable violence would be necessary to fully reverse the effects of what the left has planned and implemented over the past few decades and certainly plans for the future. Imagine, for example, a scenario in the not-so-distant future in which actual Britons are a minority of the populace residing in the United Kingdom. Some estimates posit that by 2075, actual Britons will be 44% of the population and just 33.75% of the population by 2100. In an overall population of 71–72 million, that pits 31–32 million Britons against 40–41 million imposters in 2075 and 23–24 million against some 45–48 million—two thirds of the overall population.

Readers can well imagine the sort of violence required for, say 31 million to oust or otherwise remove 41 million imposters for the 2075 estimate and for 23 million to subjugate, expel, or otherwise eliminate a hostile, alien biomass of some 48 million in the projected 2100 scenario. Particularly once they achieve majority status, many if not most of the imposters would be unlikely to leave voluntarily, at least not until the effort to secure these sacred lands had already reached a certain tipping point through widespread, organized violence to achieve vital political and ideological ends. A loss of 10- 20 percent of numbers might be a rough benchmark to persuade the rest to leave while they still can, or between five and ten million of the 48 million in the 2100 scenario. Those numbers are in addition to the causalities the revolutionary defenders of European posterity would suffer. If one extrapolates those sorts of numbers to a broader mass revolt of Europeans in France, Germany, and elsewhere, the scale of unimaginable violence required to preserve European posterity would easily surpass the mass murder of Joseph Stalin and perhaps even Mao, if not both combined.

Of far greater import, there is grave reason to doubt whether any such revolts could even succeed, regardless of the scale of violence implemented for these essential ends, simply because of the numerical disadvantages involved. Any such scenario would almost certainly fail without backing from some dissident elements of law enforcement, the military, and other organs of the state. Moreover, such a scenario would almost certainly involve a fifth column of “race-traitor whites” joining the ranks of the reverse colonizers of a much darker hue. Rather than 31 million Britons against 41 imposters, a much more likely scenario would entail 21–25 million pitted against 41 million imposters plus that fifth column. Accordingly, any such revolt would have to prevail despite an even greater numerical disadvantage. Enoch Powell foresaw such grim scenarios such as these. He warned of what the future might hold in the wake of such ruinous policies with this harrowing prophecy:

As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding; like the Roman, I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood’.

Projections like these in turn implore how time is of the essence. The longer this state of affairs continues, the grimmer the prospects are for successfully securing the future of European posterity and doing so in a way that either avoids unfathomable horror, bloodshed, and mass murder or retains a reasonable prospect for success in the wake of such unimaginable, wholesale violence in the projected scenarios described above. Lest there be any confusion on the matter, ultimate success, regardless of the cost, regardless of the bloodshed, is the one consideration that actually matters. However, as already explained at length above, the liberal democracies seem to preclude any possibility of success. For even if a right-wing party does come to power, sooner rather than later they will likely be voted out of power, to say nothing of a corrupt and irredeemable judiciary that will block any and all measures implemented to reverse mass migration and other evils.

This then reinforces not only the position that there is no political solution, but that all is lost—that the nations and peoples of Europe are already lost, that European posterity is doomed. This is reinforced in turn by the naked intention both stated and exhibited by the left where it is clear they will stop at nothing to consolidate power once elected: consolidate power so that any given liberal democracy is in effect a one-party state (or a collection of left-wing parties that are more or less in agreement). This in turn raises certain hard, unpleasant questions: what is the point of any participation in politics, whether voting or simply expressing any position or viewpoint on matters of politics or ideology in the public sphere? There is no democratic or political solution, at least not within the confines of any sitting government and legal and political system, and once Europeans do become a minority in their own lands, only unspeakable violence can restore the future of European posterity.

Images such as these only faintly portend not only the grim future that awaits but what would be required to overcome it.

This conundrum has led to a thesis that reveals perhaps the one and only strategy of saving European posterity before the nations of Europe truly cross the point of no return. That strategy is to form and cultivate a discourse that utterly and unequivocally discredits and denounces the liberal democracies without apology or equivocation and calls for the jettisoning of the liberal democracies if the means to do should become both efficacious and available. This expressly includes revolution and overthrowing of liberal democracies and their governments IF the means to do so become both efficacious and available at some point in the future. This discourse is to be facilitated and fostered in hopes that it persuades and convinces a sufficient threshold of society and more importantly certain elite figures in society on the necessity of ending democracy and jettisoning liberal democracy as a form of government before it is too late (if it is not already too late).

To many this may seem preposterous, and perhaps it is. But consider how any number of formerly taboo topics have become part of quasi-mainstream discourse in just the past couple of years, especially after Elon Musk acquired Twitter, now increasingly referred to simply as X.4 Musk himself, Tucker Carlson, Matt Walsh and others now openly talk of the Great Replacement, and do so quite often. However much Tucker Carlson is inclined to his infamous two step, whereby he takes one or two steps forward and then one-step back, Carlson, among others, have even called into question whether Britain was on the right side of World War II, and whether this brothers’ war with Germany was ultimately worth it. With the lone exception of perhaps Pat Buchanan’s excellent Hitler, Churchill, and the Unnecessary War, such discourse was unthinkable not long ago. Indeed, such musings by the great Pat Buchanan rendered him anathema in many quarters of mainstream conservatism. Other corners of more mainstream discourse openly discuss Black fatigue and other formerly taboo subjects.

These more mainstream figures did not coin such concepts on their own. Rather, these ideas were first discovered and articulated by the avant-garde of the radical right, the reactionary vanguard, which were later picked up and adopted by more mainstream figures. Some might even suggest these ideas were infused or implanted by these thinkers into the minds of more mainstream thinkers as such discourse, at first radical began to spread and grow organically. It is those luminaries and visionaries who formulated these concepts, even if they were taboo and fringe for polite society at the time. They innovated and devised this very discourse which has since grown and blossomed, having pierced the confines of mainstream discourse. Such discourse on matters like The Great Replacement or recalibrating a more sensible view of the origins, causes, and consequences of World War II began on the fringes, among those luminaries and visionaries who could pierce through the taboos and prohibitions of conventional wisdom. At first incompatible with polite society, eventually the appeal and reach of such radical ideas grew and changed the parameters of such discourse. As difficult as it may be to imagine at this moment, the same progression on discourse both denouncing liberal democracy and explaining why the jettisoning of this form of government can—and must—blossom and grow in the very same way. And this discourse must captivate any opposition to the left and the great replacement before it is too late.

This prime directive is in opposition to both the statements and actions of the left, demonstrating there can be no doubt of their intentions to consolidate power beyond the point of no return. This, as explained above and in many other tracts besides, is achieved through a multifaceted strategy, including a long-term ballot stuffing scheme that changes the demographics of host nations through the importation of unending hordes of black and brown people and more importantly their offspring that is nothing more than “democrat larvae” that will grow into the future constituency for the DNC, Labor, SPD, and so on; indeed, as California and now Texas in 2026 prove, this ballot-stuffing scheme has likely rendered it impossible for the GOP to win another presidency going forward. This combined with the promulgation and enforcement of so-called hate speech laws5, the effort to ban AfD and similar parties are also part of the left’s strategy in consolidating power beyond the point of no return.

This opposition in turn reveals what is likely a very short window for Europe and the West to save itself, an effort that may hinge on whether the discourse described above can be formulated and fostered until it reaches a critical mass where the idea can then blossom and flower into action: a discourse that denounces and discredits liberal democracy itself and that calls for its jettisoning if and when the means to do so become both efficacious and available. The success of this effort to form this discourse will depend on whether it reaches a certain contingent of elites who do dissent, to some varying degree, from the post-war consensus; figures not only like Musk, and Carlson (if they can be made somewhat more radical by the persuasive faculties of this discourse) but also persons with leadership positions in law enforcement, the military, and the like: the captains, colonels, and perhaps even a couple generals.

Those that scoff at such a suggestion should be reminded that most revolutions succeed because the authorities, whether law enforcement or the military, either stood down and let the revolt unfold or joined the revolt outright. Indeed, opposition to the left that has been most successful when operating under this paradigm. Franco’s effort in the Spanish Civil war is perhaps the most notable example. Similarly, Augusto Pinochet’s glorious and sensible junta in Chile did not enjoy a mandate of what would be an outright majority of the electorate. These and other efforts in history only succeeded because such key figures in leadership positions were convinced to support such causes before such conviction blossomed into unrelenting, unwavering action. It was from such action that these efforts then gained wider support. Franco’s Nationalists began as a minority military faction in 1936. Victory came through superior organization, German and Italian material support, and the progressive collapse of Republican cohesion, not through an initial popular majority. Similarly, Pinochet’s junta was made possible by a relatively small number of officers who controlled the armed forces and rightly executed the military coup regardless of what the polls stated was the majority view at the time. Such success was made possible not because it enjoyed a majority of support from every day Chileans at the time, but because the Allende government had lost the confidence of key military and civilian elites and because the opposition was well organized and ideologically driven.

Indeed, history is replete with a number of instances where a highly organized and ideologically driven faction was able to prevail and secure power despite not being an absolute majority. In the oft-touted and even revered example of the American revolutionaries (paradoxically referred to as patriots as they were committing treason against the Crown) are estimated to have enjoyed about 30 percent of the American population at large, with a comparable third or so as loyalists and the rest being indifferent.

In the Bolshevik revolution of 1917, the communists were a small, disciplined cadre that seized the state apparatus during a dual-power crisis after the February Revolution. The broader population was not Bolshevik; the Bolsheviks were nonetheless able to exploit the disintegration of the Provisional Government and the wavering loyalty of the army and police. This of course is not an endorsement of Bolshevism, but is merely a reminder that Bolshevism, as a political movement, could achieve both power and success despite not having a majority mandate.

Conceptualizing Opposition to Democracy Itself

What, then, should characterize this new discourse denouncing and repudiating liberal democracy? Several assertions and repudiations come to mind that should characterize different iterations of this new discourse. First and foremost, this discourse must emphasize that democracy could never be absolute. Remarkably, this proposition is even accepted in more mainstream, milquetoast elements of mainstream conservatism and is even taught in high school civics class. This is evidenced by how modern democracies are indirect democracies rather than direct democracies,6 and that indirect democracies limit, in fairly substantial ways, what constituencies and their elected representatives can vote on. This is exhibited most immediately in the rights enumerated in the Constitution, although it must be disclaimed that the manner in which these rights are interpreted and administered by the legal profession and the ruling class demonstrates that both the Constitution and this form of government should (and must) be jettisoned if the means to do so become both efficacious and available. Such disclaimers notwithstanding, instruments like the Constitution nonetheless demonstrate the general principle that democracy cannot be absolute. 51 one percent of the populace cannot vote to murder, enslave, or rob the other 49 percent (or so the theory goes). Otherwise, democracy would be nothing less than mob rule.

Particularly as the briefest survey of the history of civilization reveals that Anglo-American tradition discerns as inalienable rights are in fact a peculiar aberration in the annals of history, the nature and scope of these limits—as presently formatted and understood by current convention and the ruling order—is subject to criticism and rebuke. And whereas a survey of human history proves that common race, blood, language, and even religion are important and even necessary cohesive agents for any collective polity to flourish and succeed, such discourse correctly discerns that first right of race, blood, and soil as the one, for lack of a better term, inalienable right that stands above all others. The sons and daughters of Britannia have an inalienable right to enjoy a Britain that is and remains British and European, the sons of daughters of Germany have a right to enjoy a Germany that remains German and European, and so on and so forth. This first right of race, blood, and soil is attended by a sacred duty and unbreakable obligation to ensure that their nations and people remain British, remain German, remain European for all time, no matter the cost, no matter the toll in bloodshed.^[7]

From this premise it follows that just as no sane opposition would ever allow deluded masses to vote on insane ideas that would destroy civilization in short order, so must left-wing lunatics and most especially indoctrinated contingents of single, ideologically driven women as well as other contingents of leftist politics be removed from having any political authority or agency to open the floodgates to teeming hordes of black and brown invaders that—if allowed to settle and take residence on the sacred abode of Mother Europe—will further extinguish her very progeny. These leftist pet projects, which go well beyond open borders lunacy,7 are not only racial suicide but civilizational ruin. This assessment becomes even more apparent given how leftist chatter is characterized more and more by calls to imprison political adversaries as well as increased calls for violence against political opponents that sometimes even transgress the boundaries set forth in Brandenburg v. Ohio. Many millions of leftists celebrated Charlie Kirk’s assassination, as many still do today.

Ultimately, leftist swine are no different, in any meaningful sense, from a hypothetical constituency that favors compulsory consumption of Jamestown Kool-Aid for the imagined spiritual betterment of both the cult’s willing adherents and unwilling victims alike or even something akin to the suicide pact of the Heaven’s Gate cult under Marshall Applewhite. This comparison is especially poignant given how more and more leftist rhetoric is characterized by demands for political violence against any any opposition, gloating over Charlie’Kirk’s in the wake of his assassination, as well as increasing chatter envisaging the imprisonment and other similar sanctions against their political and ideological adversaries.Some may question how such a deranged cult could obtain mass appeal on a national basis. But while any such skeptic should be warned against the dangers of mass hysteria and social contagion, that such a cult could gain popular support at a city or regional level is no less instructive than a more hyperbolic or exaggerated example positing a death cult enjoying a national mandate. Just as opponents of such delirium would have a mandate to resist the mad ravings of a suicidal cult reminiscent of Martin Applewhite at a city or even regional level, so do the mandate of racial and civilizational preservation and indeed the very instinct of self-preservation require the rejection of such delirium at any level (local, regional or national) and do so regardless of whether such insane ideas enjoy majority support or not.

As articulated at length in “Against Democracy,” “The mad delirium of open borders and other pet projects of the left will destroy European civilization and murder its posterity and will do so with absolute, mathematical certitude.” Although the “ruinous, disastrous nature of such policies may be somewhat more attenuated and gradual” than the suicide and murder implemented by Jonestown Kool-Aid or Heaven’s Gate nuttery, “the end result” of leftist policy on third world immigration and open borders “is no less inevitable or certain.” Indeed, “that the disastrous consequences” of absurdly obvious derangement like the Jonestown cult “compared to the somewhat slower, more subtle consequences of multi-culti delirium are of no import.” If anything, “the latter implore a particularly acute sort of intolerance and action of much greater urgency precisely because the ruin and death they cause are more gradual, more attenuated.” As further articulated in “Against Democracy:”

Vigilance and action are even more warranted against a poison that kills slowly over time versus a shot of Jonestown Kool-Aid or unending rounds of Russian Roulette with several chambers loaded, when the lethal dangers are open and obvious to even the profoundly stupid and utterly deranged.

That “Such mad delirium will lead to such ruin unless counteracted by whatever necessary and effective means should those means become available” proves both the morality and necessity of such measures. The question is not of morality in any way, shape, or form, but whether the opportunity will present itself to implement this necessary response with success.

In addition to reformulating the limits of democracy and how supposed “inalienable rights” are envisaged and discerned, this new discourse must also therefore repudiate the notion of universal suffrage. As Robert A Heinlein articulates through Colonel DuBois as a mouthpiece in Starship Troopers, granting the vote is to grant political authority over others:

When you vote, you are exercising political authority, you’re using force. And force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authorities are derived.

Political authority is, at a bare minimum, the exertion of state violence, if even in a dormant state as its default setting. It is both absurd and reckless to grant such authority merely because an individual happens to have been born in a country, is 18 years of age, and has not been convicted of a felony. This absurdity runs the gamut from a number of considerations that should be disqualifying, including subpar or defective intellect to harboring truly harmful, civilization-destroying ideas. Interestingly, some edges of mainstream conservatism are toying with this idea in the abstract, with murmurings about repealing the 19th Amendment or limiting the vote to land owners. These murmurings fly in the face of the utter impossibility of such proposals in the context of the current political system to mention nothing of stupidly conflating wealth with individual merit.8 These and other shortcomings notwithstanding, such murmurings do demonstrate that criticizing and rebuking universal suffrage is not quite as taboo as many might suppose.

Those that harp about repealing the 19th Amendment are very simplistic, insofar as they endorse remedies that are impossible under the current framework. Beyond that, they oversimplify matters as this sort of derangement is not limited to women and is actually traced to programming and indoctrination infused into their soft, pliable minds by mass media conglomerates and other institutions of culture and power. These caveats notwithstanding, why on Earth should those not subject to such civilization-destroying madness sit back and let them continue to exercise political authority that will, with mathematical certitude, lead to our doom?

A related objection concerns the improper enfranchisement and empowerment of racial imposters who were imported as part of the long-haul ballot stuffing scheme described above. They were granted residence and citizenship—and the political authority that follows—as part of a naked ruse to make the DNC and its various counterparts across the pond a perennial majority party that cannot readily be elected out of power. That this insane policy was implemented through legal means at the time does not mean it was just or moral. It certainly does not mean the ill-gotten privileges bestowed by such policy such be allowed to stand if such civilization destroying madness can be defeated in earnest. Just because something was implemented legally by an unjust or malignant government does not mean it is legitimate, just as immoral or unjust laws are not made tenable or acceptable simply because they are the law.

Finally, at least in the United States, this new discourse must attack the fetishization of the Constitution that typifies much of mainstream conservatism. Such radical discourse begins with an unflinching assessment of how the Constitution has proven incapable of addressing and ameliorating various existential threats to society. This is especially apparent after the disastrous Trump v. Barbara decision on birthright citizenship, which, although sound from a strictly textualist perspective, displayed a rigid unwillingness to contend with the practical ramifications of such a disastrous decision. It should be obvious that, as with Citizens United, which exacerbated the importance of wealth in American elections, and well as other untenable decisions and even problems extending beyond the judiciary, the notion of correcting this within the confines of the Constitution, namely a constitutional amendment, are flatly absurd. Indeed, particularly as the country becomes more and more balkanized and fragmented, it is unlikely another amendment will be passed and ratified for the duration of the republic.

Repudiation of the Constitution should also note the document is ultimately a legal document. Mystification of the document, as if it were the divine word of God is preposterous, particularly given other failures of the document.9 Indeed, there is a further irony at hand, insofar as the Constitution and more particularly the Declaration of Independence and the short-lived Articles of Confederation were themselves revolutionary documents—revolutionary against what was then a centuries long order by way of the Crown and the Magna Carta. Those institutions were determined by the American revolutionaries to no longer fulfill the social contract existing between a political order on one hand and both society and the individual on the other. A sober determination that the Constitution no longer possesses a basic fitness for purpose may seem blasphemous to many of a more mainstream persuasion, but is in fact part of the tradition of the American Revolution in a more abstract, philosophical sense.

Looking to the Future through the Past and Present

Any discussion on this matter must include a frank, sober assessment on the ultimate odds of jettisoning liberal democracy and any sitting government. In the United States, the prospect for success seems all but impossible for the foreseeable future. In addition to the massive land size spanning the middle of the North American continent, the United States government is not just a lethal instrument but possesses any number of lethal instruments at its disposal. Rhetoric about how there is a rifle for every blade of grass may seem comforting, but does not square with the reality of modern weaponry and tactics, including drones, tactical nuclear weapons, or the tactical combat abilities of the United States armed forces in urban and other settings. If a government with the ever-radicalizing Democrat party comes to power, and provided such a ruling party has the political capital and mandate to do so, the use of these and other lethal instruments would make short work of any insurgency, absent a standing down or collaboration by sympathetic elements in the armed forces, law enforcement, and so on. This is fortified by a massive surveillance apparatus that even die Stasi could not dream of. Even worse, propaganda concerning American exceptionalism and the inviolability of democracy are deeply ingrained in the American consciousness, and this is no truer than the sort who attends West Point or even those inclined to serve in the armed forces or enter a career in law enforcement.

These and other considerations notwithstanding, the directive of propagating these ideas so that they penetrate the confines of mainstream discourse is still of paramount importance. Falling short of forming a critical mass of persons in key positions to stand against liberal democracy and this form of government, cultivating a broader discourse and sentiment that discredits and rejects the ruling order and democracy itself would preserve the possibility for eventual action while also limiting the political mandate and power of the ruling Democrat party, among other advantages. Such advantages should be apparent if for no other reason than such a critical mass of persons raises the political and practical costs for the implementation of those eventual policies that the left envisages in the long-term, including criminalizing so-called hate speech, government censorship of dissent against the madness of multiracialism, and so on. Such measures of course have already been implemented in much of Europe and certain sections of the Anglosphere, notably Canada and Australia. It is far more difficult to implement such policy if liberal democracy is discredited in between one third to over half of the existing White population than if such ideas remain truly fringe. If this sensible viewpoint is adopted by a critical mass of the White populace, irreconcilable differences between a majority of the remaining white population and other enclaves could possibly lead to balkanization, fostering at least the potential for a breakup of the country not entirely dissimilar to the dissolution of the former Soviet Union.10

Nowhere is there a better glimpse of what awaits in the not-too-distant future than the United Kingdom. Under Keir Starmer’s rule and continued with Andy Burnham’s tenure, the British government has arrested some 62,199 arrests for “communications offences” between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2025. These measures were directed at British citizens—actual Britons as the term is properly understood—simply for denouncing the reverse colonization of the British Isles and the Great Replacement of the British people as it is unfolding in real time. This resulted in approximately 18,520 charges and approximately of 12,292 convictions in England and Wales, although that figure is under-inclusive as it does not include Scotland. The British government, in a further expression of absolute contempt and disdain for its own people, even granted early release to convicted rapists, murderers, and other violent criminals to open space in prisons for these political prisoners.

Notwithstanding this unpleasant reality, and despite the fact that British citizens do not possess a right to bear arms, rendering revolt and revolution far more difficult, several factors indicate that Britain maybe the best candidate for revolt and overthrow of the sitting government. The United Kingdom is, quite obviously, an island nation with one point at the farthest end just within a day’s driving distance to the furthest point on the opposite end of the island. Britain, like most European nations, is also more immediately defined and associated with an overtly racial identity, despite a concerted effort in mass media to deconstruct that racial identity. Particularly due to the history of using African slaves and then making the mistake of not resettling the slave populations to Liberia or another similar colony at the conclusion of the American Civil War, the United States has a more longstanding history of, if not multiracialism, than biracialism composed of a White super-majority and minority Black populace. That history makes it more difficult for some White Americans to endorse more radical, far-reaching solutions to the evils of multiracialism and the Great Replacement. Finally, despite intense efforts by the Crown to screen applicants for supposed radical views, the prospect of large contingents in law enforcement, the British Army, and other segments of the state are almost certain to contain considerable numbers of individuals who understand what is happening and are willing to take action if the opportunity presents itself. As the Spanish Civil War and other successful revolts have proven, this is critical for any opposition to succeed if and when the time comes. If any action is backed by elements of law enforcement and the military, and if action is synchronized, initiated in concert in multiple spots at once, success is at least plausible.

Similar considerations apply to most European nations, which are similarly limited in geographic size, retain the same homogeneous racial legacy and other considerations which provide prospect of eventual success for the nations and peoples of Europe than their new world counterparts in the Anglosphere. Alas, unfortunate Germany faces uniquely difficult challenges unlike any other European nation or people and so remains the outlier among nations as she has been through much of her history. Now a century removed from the First World War and 80 plus years from the even more disastrous result of the Second World War, Germany faces far greater challenges than perhaps any other European or Western nation. The degree to which the Kriegschuldkult has been deeply imbued and ingrained in the German national character can hardly be overstated. There are of course millions of upstanding Germans who see through the lies, see through the abject hypocrisy of the Allies. There are others who rightly dismiss the absurd notion that transgressions (real, exaggerated, or embellished) in the Second World War somehow mandate the German people to undergo nationale and völkische Abschaffung. Still, there is a critical mass of deluded Germans of the opposite view, and the effectiveness of Allied propaganda and decades of school curriculum that has been drummed into the minds of every German generation since 1945 cannot be overstated. Allied and most especially American occupation is another problem. How could the jettisoning of the Bundesrepublik, achieved by whatever means should become efficacious and available, succeed with a garrison of the United States military occupying Germany in any number of American bases on German soil? To her credit, Alice Weidel and others have called for American occupation to end, but this runs into the problem of how the AfD is to achieve outright majority status. And if it did achieve a majority government it would be difficult to expend such limited, precious political capital to achieve this, which would require overcoming opposition from Washington, the European Union, and other entities. Indeed, Jewish interest groups in America and internationally would be apoplectic, as evinced by strong opposition to German reunification by many of these same groups and individuals.

One reason for optimism in Germany, not entirely unlike the United Kingdom, is that the Bundesrepublik has obligated itself to constantly scour the ranks of its armed forces and the Bundeswehr for supposed extremist views. It is unlikely these efforts have succeeded entirely or even to a sufficient extent to remove supposed “rogue” elements of these the armed forces and law enforcement in the event of a black swan event.

There are other important disclaimers related to historical predecessors mentioned above. The American Revolution occurred in The Age of Sail, not in present day modernity replete with a surveillance state that could scarcely be fathomed a few decades ago. The American Revolution would almost certainly have failed but for the compounding factors of how overstretched the British Empire was, exploited and exacerbated by French intervention and support. The subsequent collapse of royal authority in several colonies was also most likely a necessary condition for the eventual success of the American Revolution as well.

The Bolshevik revolution only succeeded in the wake of unprecedented instability after decades of inefficiencies from the Czarist state and the devastating consequences of military defeat against the German imperial Army in World War I, preceded by the surprise upset of the Sino-Russian war in 1905. Quite famously in dissident circles, Jacob Schiff and other Jewish financiers in the United States also played a crucial role in destabilizing in the Czarist regime. Without that precursor, combined with catastrophic defeats at the hands of the Imperial Germany Army in World War I, none of the conditions that made Russia ripe for the Bolshevik revolution would have been possible.

Consider also the important qualifications that pertain to the otherwise encouraging example of Franco’s leadership in the Spanish Civil War. Opposition to the leftist and communist rabble did begin as a minority military faction in 1936. While superior military organization was a critical factor to Franco’s ultimate success, so were material support and even volunteers from fascist Italy and Nazi Germany without which Franco would have been unlikely to succeed. Quite obviously, no such analog to nation states that would support a revolt by a large dedicated minority exists in the modern world of the 21st century.

These and many other considerations beyond the scope of this essay demonstrate that the ultimate prospects for success are not exactly encouraging. But as explored above, the prospects are better than what is certain to follow decades from now if the current trajectory is not averted through revolution, whereby minority native populations in the European nations must somehow revolt and then expatriate—or remove by other, more drastic, undisclosed means—populations of racial imposters who never had the natural or moral right to have ever even set foot in Mother Europa.

As this essay has provided a mere outline of the gravity of those existential threats facing Europe, the Occident, and above all its future, hard truths about these governments and much of the ruling class that wields so much power and influence also comes into sharper relief. These threats outlined above and even a summary review of other writings, videos, and other presentations on these and other matters demonstrate how much these governments and the incumbent institutions of culture of power that condone, endorse, and reinforce these policies hate their own native populations. A cursory glance of the actions of the Bundesrepublik over the past generations reveals nothing but naked contempt for the German people and utter disdain for the very prospect of a continued German posterity in the not-so-distant future. Whether this has been exceeded by the British government is a topic open for heated debate and discussion. There can be little doubt, however, that the German model of ethnomasochism and racial suicide has been exported to other nations and peoples since 1945, including most especially the United Kingdom: a grim irony to the true consequences of The Second World War. Nor can there be any question among reasonable minds as to how the observations and considerations set forth in this essay provide ample moral justification and even a moral obligation to jettison governments and the institutions underling them.11 Whether such an opportunity presents itself in time is the uncertainly. Yet another certainty is how very limited that window of opportunity to formulate and disseminate this new discourse actually is. The very fate of Europe and the West can thus be seen as a race between the left’s insidious bid to consolidate power truly beyond the power of no return on one hand and the ability by the radical, reactionary right to formulate a discourse that envisages a meaningful response to such tyranny on the other. The only hope is to sow and propagate dissent on a scale sufficient to defeat and vanquish these insidious designs of European dispossession and eventual extinction. The future of Europe and the West depends on a discourse that not only rejects liberal democracy as an inviolable societal norm but also repudiates and rejects the governments and institutions themselves while envisaging certain designs to their demise. Although the prospects of success may only now be dimly perceived as if in a dream, the progression from mere thought can yet be discerned, just as every revolution starts with the mere thought of the visionary, discussed only at first in hushed whispers in a café or its modern analogs and counterparts.