A lot can change in just a few years. It’s easy to forget how often that which feels so mainstream and normalised today – for example, the ubiquitous promotion of trans ideology in the West – is in fact very recent indeed. Yet previously, the idea that an issue affecting such a miniscule proportion of the population would be elevated by the leftist media and corpocracy to something akin to a religion would have simply seemed bizarre.
Only a few years ago, it seemed lockdowns and masks might never end. Now it all seems a distant memory, as does the madness of BLM, shortly to be replaced by the Russia-Ukraine war as the Next Big Thing in the news cycle – now as of the time of writing, the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Of course, there is an important distinction to be made between inorganic, largely manufactured movements such as climate hysteria, COVID hysteria, BLM and the sanctification of trans ‘culture’ – all relentlessly pushed by the media, at the same time bolstered by big business and the political classes – and those arising as a genuine response to events taking place. An example of the latter would be mass public support in the West for Palestine, a reaction to Israel’s actions in Gaza rather than to Western media which, being disproportionately controlled by Jews, is almost entirely pro-Israel. Perhaps analogous are anti-lockdown protests, which were a response to what the mainstream was pushing.
Curiously, with vast numbers of Muslims protesting Israel’s actions in our cities, the scale of the Western ‘Muslim problem’ seems only now to have dawned on the civnats and normies. In addition, this month we have been treated to the spectacle of the Jewish diaspora pivoting from relentlessly pushing third world immigration and multiculturalism into our lands to complaining that Western immigration has gone ‘much too far’ whilst having the temerity to blame us for it. These perfectly foreseeable events appear to have played a part in igniting mainstream conversations we were not hearing before, one topic being the reversal of mass third world immigration.
The Semantics of Removal
‘Remigration’ implies the negation or reversal of immigration. Significantly, the word affords the migrant less agency than the concept of ‘migration’. Migrants may migrate – but they will be re-migrated – or if you like, ‘un-migrated’ (that is, if they won’t re-migrate by themselves). ‘Deportation’ focuses solely on the removal – the literal de-porting – of people from our lands. ‘Repatriation’, while again referring to the same overall process, emphasises the return to their patria, their homelands.
Indeed, the three words and their meanings are elegantly tied together. The overall process of remigration (dis-immigration) is the sum of the other two parts – first, the removal of those who do not belong in our lands (deportation) followed by carriage back to their homelands (repatriation).
The point is, although deportation is arguably the most important part of the process, it isn’t the full picture. Just getting them across the border isn’t enough. To take the USA’s southern border as an example, there’s little use placing migrants no further than the Mexico-side of the fence so they can immediately try to break in again as soon as your back is turned.
Repatriation – again with emphasis on the migrants’ homelands – must take place. So, taking another example of an illegal Afghan immigrant in the UK – deporting him back over the channel to France is not sufficient, no matter if he made his way through France to reach the UK. Firstly, sending him back to Calais simply ensures he will eventually wind up back on UK shores, with or without French assistance. Secondly, even were this not to happen, the Afghan has no place in France, nor any other European country. He has to go back to his homeland.
Immigration is an international problem affecting nearly every White country in the world, therefore remigration will be an international solution, requiring co-operation and co-ordination between our nations, as we will discuss.
The Overton Window
Many of us can remember the point we stopped caring about being called ‘racist’. Mine was a gradual process, culminating in total separation from all those who would even think to use the word in earnest. Later in life, having more like-minded friends – not to mention that greater appreciation of what really matters, which comes with age – I felt less isolated in my views and unafraid to voice them.
That word, ‘racist’, which alone has harmed us so much as a people, no longer has the power it once did. Hurled at us non-stop and indiscriminately, even for saying the most uncontroversial things – it has been used to guilt-trip us into accepting all manner of egregious crimes against us as a people. The word has little meaning now. Various memes on Twitter/X show the right-leaning man’s reaction to being called ‘racist’ evolving over the years. It generally goes something like
- How dare you (vigorously defends oneself against charge of racism)
- Well, that’s just your opinion
- Uh-huh
- Thanks!
Indeed, to quote another popular Twitter meme (usually used when some unfortunate White girl has been murdered by her black boyfriend): racism saves lives.
British patriot Steve Laws, who has done outstanding work reporting on the non-stop assisted invasion of Britain by illegals in rubber dinghies, makes a point of constantly speaking of the necessity and indeed inevitability of mass deportations. As he correctly points out, doing so both raises the idea to prominence while normalising it, particularly in the minds of those who may have considered it ‘taboo’. The reasoning is, the conversation will inevitably end up there when things reach a head – if they haven’t already – so why waste time? Not only must remigration happen, but it will happen; it’s destiny. Affirmations are powerful indeed.
As recently as five years ago, there was little talk of mass deportation in the West. In the wake of the migrant invasions sparked by Angela Merkel’s opening Germany’s borders to vast numbers of third worlders, outside of right-wing circles confined to the corners of the internet, discussion of the migration problem rarely went beyond ‘getting control of immigration’. Across the UK and Europe, even the most conservative politicians and talking heads spoke only of ‘bringing the numbers down’ and ‘securing the borders’, notably while doing virtually nothing about it.
Since then, the rhetoric in the UK has shifted. While the actual numbers deported are still pitiful and pale in comparison to the illegal arrivals, successive home secretaries Priti Patel and her successor Suella Braverman ramped up the rhetoric, pledging mass removals – notably via the ‘Rwanda Plan’, under which illegals were to be processed offshore – far offshore, in dedicated migrant centres in the formerly war-torn African nation – and should their asylum claims be accepted, resettled there. Unsurprisingly, none of these plans have come to fruition. The Rwanda Plan failed at the first hurdle, being ruled unlawful by a leftist court of appeal, and not one single migrant has been removed to Rwanda. Incidentally, Patel and Braverman are of Indian, not White British heritage. I never claimed for a minute the UK wasn’t in a sorry state!
Across the pond, Donald Trump has released details of plans for enormous, unprecedented waves of mass deportations should he come to power in 2025. Again, there is a gulf between words and promises, and tangible actions and results – but it’s worth reflecting on the fact that previously, both as candidate and 45th president, Trump’s rhetoric focused on ‘building the wall’ and keeping illegals out. The frame has shifted.
As we see moving the Overton Window rightward, while a step in the right direction, it is far from enough. Some continental European nations, such as those comprising Scandinavia, have proved more effective lately in backing up tough rhetoric with action, as we shall explore.
Darkest before the Dawn?
But there are many reasons to be optimistic. The phrase ‘darkest before the dawn’ may seem trite but like many aphorisms, it is grounded in truth. For one thing, as this French nationalist pointed out, it’s likely the negative effects of mass immigration have not quite yet sufficiently affected the middle-class boomer generation. Their lives have remained relatively comfortable, so why would we expect them to drive change – particularly when they risk social disapproval as a consequence?
A sense of existential threat and fear of being regarded as a ‘bigot’ in social circles are inversely correlated. White guilt and political correctness are the luxuries of an overly comfortable and decadent society, reflected yet again in meme culture by the recurring four-stage loop ‘good times create weak men, weak men create hard times, hard times create strong men, strong men create good times’. To skip the third stage, ‘hard times create strong men’, is perhaps too much to ask.
Things often do need to get worse before they get better. When we find the strength –strength borne of the adversity we now face – to remigrate the unwanted en masse, the good times may begin again. We may just be approaching that tipping point.
Remigration in Practice
The five nations comprising Scandinavia (Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland and Iceland) appear to be leading the way in translating policy through to concrete action. In addition to placing restrictions on accepting further immigration, these countries are co-operating in the organisation of large-scale removal of migrants to their countries of origin:
“The five countries also have agreed to arrange joint flights to take illegal residents to a third country through the European Border and Coast Guard Agency, Frontex. Last year the Agency helped return just under 25,000 people, of which 40% returned voluntarily, according to Frontex.”
Sweden, which has overseen an immigration policy so liberal that African gangs run riot with military weapons in numerous ‘no-go’ areas, sparking calls to draft the army to re-take these districts, has long been regarded as ‘the canary in the coal mine’ – an example of what happens to homogeneous White, high-trust nations who open their borders and a dire warning to the rest of us. Should Sweden, in which the anti-immigration Sweden Democrats now have political representation, end up leading the way in massive remigration of non-native Swedes, it would appear to support the ‘darkest before the dawn’ idea.
While Germany is further behind, this immigrant-besieged nation has at least turned rhetoric into policy and appears ready to begin undertaking mass removals.
Outside of Europe, Pakistan has commenced the deportations of 1.7 million Afghan immigrants after giving them notice to either self-deport or face enforced removal. This is noteworthy in two crucial ways; firstly, it shows that even Pakistan, a nation sharing genetics, religion and culture with the Afghanis, does not want to host them, and clearly considers their presence detrimental to the nation. How absurd then, does the case for Europeans – with a culture that couldn’t be further away from that of Afghanistan (or indeed Pakistan) – to take such people sound?
Secondly, and perhaps most importantly – it shows just how easy it is to mass deport people. It puts paid to the lies of NGOs, immigration lawyers and leftist politicians that mass removal is impractical, unworkable or overly complex.
Naturally would-be migrants have an array of tricks, thanks in large part to coaching by said NGOs, activists and immigration lawyers – such as throwing away all identifying documentation in the hope it will prevent their removal. For one thing, there are ways to establish nationality via ethnicity, such as DNA tests. Even if the precise geographical region or country from which they came cannot be established, what matters is that third world immigrants are sent back to the third world, whether by some sort of co-operation or incentives between third world countries. The key point is the protection of the homogeneity of ethnic White nations and culture. Every people deserves its own homeland. As a global minority, the preservation of ours is the priority.
The Importance of International Co-Operation on Remigration
The essence of nationalism is the preservation of one’s nation, heritage, culture and demography – but the challenge all nationalists face is the same. Our enemies are international. They co-ordinate across borders, facilitated by supranational organisations dedicated to undermining and diluting our nations with mass third world migration. As such, we cannot be siloed ourselves. It is crucial we share knowledge, capability and resources between ourselves in addition to moral support.
Within the European Union, three of the four Visegrad nations presented a combined front to reject the EU’s attempt to force a refugee quota onto them. If the overwhelming public support across Europe for remigration finds sufficient political representation, the same solidarity will go a long way towards creating a mass movement to help rid us once and for all of those who have no right or claim to our territory.
Remigration Now and Going Forward
While they’re obviously right, it would be an enormous mistake to allow these groups to lead the conversation on remigration. After all, it wasn’t until they themselves felt threatened that the ethnic replacement of Europeans in their homelands became a problem; we heard nothing from rabbis about the outrages of wide-scale grooming and child rapes across Rotherham and numerous other British cities; about the mass sexual assaults in Cologne, or any of the other countless, sickening crimes against indigenous White Europeans at the hands of third world imports.
It is vital we do not allow this momentum to die off, as risks happening when certain groups are done temporarily exploiting it to further their aims. Increasingly, we have concrete examples to support the case; the Scandinavian agreement demonstrates the effectiveness of co-operation. The mass deportation of Afghans by Pakistan shows what’s possible, and also obliterates any sort of moral argument that White European and Western nations have a duty to house such people.
Words carry power, and like its synonyms, the word ‘remigration’ has a nice, phonetically satisfying ring to it. The topic itself is not, and never should have been controversial in the slightest. It’s time to normalise what inevitably lies ahead.
Cut off all subsidies and support. All of it. That should cause many “migrants”, especially the non-productive dead wood, to high-tail it back to their home countries. The remainder can be encouraged to leave in other ways.