REPLACING EUROPE is a full investigative documentary on the illegal immigration route from West Africa to the United Kingdom, and the governments, NGOs and smugglers who profit from it. The documentary has been commented in full by ZeroHedge yesterday[1].
Muckraker team spent two months following the world's deadliest migration route: from Mauritania to Spain's Canary Islands, across Spain and France, to Calais and the English Channel.
In this documentary, you'll see:
- A UN migration worker admitting that governments profit from illegal immigration and have no interest in stopping it
- Illegal immigrants getting flown by plane to the European mainland
- Organizations openly guiding illegal immigrants across borders
Muckraker crew was violently attacked and nearly arrested for exposing it. Watch Replacing Europe: Following the World's Deadliest Migration Route, and share it with the world.
0:00 original ↗ Intro
1:56 original ↗ Mauritania
5:02 original ↗ The Atlantic Crossing
6:53 original ↗ Inside an African Migrant Camp
9:40 original ↗ Flown to Mainland Spain
12:03 original ↗ UN Migration Worker on Hidden Camera
16:01 original ↗ The UN's 2030 Migration Agenda
18:03 original ↗ Madrid, Spain
19:56 original ↗ Irún, Spain
23:36 original ↗ Exposing Pausa
25:45 original ↗ Crossing Into France
26:09 original ↗ Paris
28:15 original ↗ Attacked in Paris
29:26 original ↗ LGBTQ Asylum NGO
30:18 original ↗ Calais
32:41 original ↗ Inside a Calais Migrant Camp
35:49 original ↗ Warned: The Smugglers Are Armed
36:58 original ↗ The Boat Launch
41:42 original ↗ The United Kingdom
42:23 original ↗ Free Hotels and Welfare
44:28 original ↗ Outro
👉 Visit our website https://www.muckraker.com
👉 Support the operation https://www.muckraker.com/donate
Thanks, watched to the end. I knew what was happening, I didn't know the details of how it was happening or the specific organizations/governments orchestrating it.
https://remigrationnow.co.uk/support/ accepts Monero donations
and so does Martin Sellner who is the cofounder of the Save Europe Act and the Institute for Remigration. He has tweeted about Monero several times as well.
https://x.com/MartinSellner_/status/2048481829531914461 original ↗
He even has a tutorial about how to donate with Monero: https://monero.martinsellner.info/
Thank you to the anonymous donors who support my work via MONERO the past weeks. I have been debanked 116 times, but noone can debank Monero. I have no idea who you are and that's the idea of Monero. But if you read this, rest assured I will to my best to honour your trust…
Another content creator who talks about the migration issue who just started accepting Monero recently:
https://x.com/ThaisEscufon/status/2112625546865615050 original ↗
It was suggested to me that I set up a Monero wallet so that anyone who wishes can make a completely anonymous and untraceable donation. Here is the full wallet address you can use: 47vYtX6NLYCPzJWoTMPzk4FqZ2gZhmr4DUtCSTMGWvw7FGxLFZ7swSvHocfMLE5FzphE8gJ9xySkjSwid78XnFyaG8GAZSV…
I remember this starting as a French student protest. Has now became immigrats revolution?! Weird...
If you listen to some of the students, you can clearly hear the retardation/brainwashing. Immigrants are just giving into their nature, taking advantage of the situation, and the students as brainwashed as they are likely see it as a positive. As a blow to nationalists and fascists.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJKwRJBsrV8 original ↗
Thanks for the links. Sent some XMR their way. This is exactly the use case. Debanked over a hundred times, platforms deleted, yet the work continues because the money arrives and no one can freeze the address or demand the donor list. The documentary shows the machine. The donations are how people who still want a say fund the people documenting it and pushing back.
Some notes:
Many of the organizations that push this were not directly named. I can come up with a list of more, but the thing nobody wants to talk about is that Abhrahmism is all over this project. They bring them in under egalitarian/progressive/Christian justifications. Christian organizations fund and support these networks. Jewish organizations influence legislation and policy to enable this migration (they also discourage all migration to Israel). Muslim organizations support and lobby for this. Spiritual abrahamics (progressives) also support this as you can see from the stickers and other indicators. They also contain anarchists that's why I say that progressivism needs to be uprooted out of our verbiage. That's why I say they are not "trying to divide us". We are divided. Those anarchists are our enemy. I understand the anti-border stuff and arguments, but they really don't hold when a foreign invasion is being facilitated via the state and other hostile entities. If there were no public spaces and there were only privately owned borders these people would be stopped much more forcibly.
Notably pepper spray isn't even allowed in France. A woman is given no means to defend herself. Her only hope is avoidance, creating an environment of fear and compliance.
If you look at 35:00 and think the solution is anything other than a good external lock (to keep them safe of course) and some gasoline (for power generation obviously), then you are part of the problem. When your home is infested with bugs, you don't call a bug negotiator. You call an exterminator.
They also mention "assimilation". Assimilation is a lie. Even if the parents assimilate, the children and grandchildren revert. This is because a large part of behavior is genetic and that's been proven via twin studies and other studies. They don't assimilate because assimilation is generally impossible. Invasion is not a peaceful activity.
Many of these people appear to be "Muslim" in the same way they say they are "gay". It provides them with benefits and pretending to be that is low cost. They would also happily say they are "Christian" for those same benefits. It's also why a lot of them use CRT type language or call people Nazis. It's just a trick of rhetoric. They will use whatever justification makes it moral and ethical for them to harm you. Religion is part of the problem, but the biggest problem is race, people are just unwilling to discuss it because it is taboo and "not christian".
These people are being incentivized to come here. It's not a natural flow of migration in a free market. It is mafia type organizations including government, NGOs, and religious institutions intentionally replacing the native demographics of the land through covert means funded by stolen money from the unconsenting tax base. They don't do it overtly (war, ground invasion) because they would lose. Your empathy is being weaponized against you. Shed your progressivism and abrahamism and protect your people. The world would not be better off without them.
A good response video I saw to the issue:
https://rumble.com/v7h4jm2-the-end-of-france.html
I disagree with him on vigilantism and a bunch of other things though (generally and specifically).
All of this is happening because Christianity was replaced by secularism. The canonical biblical punishment for straying from the path of God is to be ruled by foreigners and women.
Talmudists have been trying to destroy Christianity for millennia. Not too long ago, they assessed that the reputational damage they took from their genocide in Gaza was too much to fix in this generation. Instead, they pivoted to focusing their attacks on Christianity. The goal has always been to end it in some way or form.
I was on 4chan when they flipped the switch on the new script. Suddenly, one day, whole boards were inundated with "Christcuck", "Jesus was a jew", "Christianity is jewish, return to paganism", etc. It has been like that all over the internet ever since.
They don't like Christianity because it follows the idealistic ethos of "not my will be done but thine" -- meaning that you consecrate your will to God and try to do His works to the best of your ability. They subscribe to Luciferanism, which states "do what thou wilt" -- meaning that they do not recognise God's will and would rather do what they feel like doing; even if that means committing heinous acts.
You see, they want you to be ANYTHING other than Christian, because they know that they can crush you easily that way:
If you want to see how a "based" pagan country looks like, look no further than India, possibly the biggest pagan country in the world; conquered by a tea company, disgenic, worshipping faeces and monkey gods.
I am not saying Christianity is perfect. Only God is absolutely perfect, and religion is merely our best interpretation of the nature of God. But there are religions who have managed to grasp more divine truth than others. And Christianity is by far the one who carries the most truth in our days compared to any other mainstream religion. To shun that in favour of Paganism is foolish.
If Christianity is the cause for all of this, how is it that Europe has been a collection of Christian ethnostates for thousands of years until only a few decades ago, when we entered the Talmudic Golden Age of secularism and the New World Order?
Your "Pagan Norse Anarchism" LARP will not save you. You've fallen for their trap.
You are free to do and believe whatever you think is best. But I encourage you to follow the most prominent Pagan tradition: conversion to Christianity.
This is not about religion, don't even mention it. Christianity is on par with all other religions. Look at the repercussions; they are all scams. However, people must have some sort of belief, don't they?
From an outsider's point of view, the video does a great job explaining how all of this immi bs is planned and orchestrated. You do the math and connect the dots on your own.
Then, on the other side... lol #341456
Shut the fuck up you fucking e-crusader. Why don't you spend less time policing the pagan conservatives and more time policing the churches flooding the country with foreigners? All the rhetoric supporting foreign invasion is Christian. "We're all children of god". "They're our neighbors". " We have to help those in need". If you are this confident that your theology of based Christianity is correct, why don't you argue it against the christian institutions that have a million times more influence than your Deus Veult crusader LARP? It's because based Christianity doesn't have a theological leg to stand on. You would get spanked in a theological debate with theological scholars on it. India isn't a white country and it's not remotely comparable. Maybe compare it with a more accurate comparison with a more similar people like Japan? I have watched hours and hours of rabbis saying that the number one thing they want is for people to be Noahide compliant via religions like Christianity. Jesus never existed. He's a fucking myth destroying indo-european civilization with his constant sycophantic preference for the outsider instead of the insider and his praise of meekness, weakness, poverty, degeneracy. " Resisting not evil". Not taking vengeance because it is the Lord's alone.
I wonder where communism came from?
Acts 2:44-45 KJV
"And all that believed were together, and had all things common;
And sold their possessions and goods, and parted them to all men, as every man had need."
You're the mind fucked one following a foreign god and a foreign people who only wish to subjugate you at the expense of your people. Why don't you go do what Christians do and go worship jews who you view as the chosen people and who you're the branch from the tree of and send your money to fucking Israel? Wouldn't want to be cursed, because those who curse Israel will be cursed.
Why don't you turn the other cheek or spread your cheeks like you always do?
By the way turn the other cheek wasn't some form of rebellion by saying I'm an equal to you according to ancient Roman slapping practices. That's a bullshit e-crusader lie. Look it up. Sell your cloak for a sword was never connected to actual fighting being done. Flipping the tables and driving the money lenders away with a whip doesn't even inherently imply any sort of significant violence. Christianity was never based, most people just retained their pre-christian ways, temperaments, and customs and that's why they ever did anything remotely based. You would know that if you didn't begin your understanding of your own people with "we were all worthless listless savages until the magical jew came around". I don't give a fuck what you saw on 4chan you're wrong and retarded.
We all know Christians and progressives (secular Christians) will be the first to fight remigration. The first to stay the hand of those willing to act. It hamstrings conservatives regularly.
Looks like I touched a nerve.
You have no idea what you're talking about, like most pagan LARPers online, and I don't even know where to begin addressing all of this drivel. Likely won't cover everything:
How come foreign invaders were constantly repelled by Christians for centuries and it is only now, after we got secularism and separation of church and state, that the invaders started flooding in? Christianity was infiltrated by talmudists (see Nostra Aetate) and there are indeed so-called Christians supporting replacement, but the root of it all is not based on Christian theology but on Talmudic distortion
Are there any Christian institutions posting on stasher.news so that I can address it here?
Under Noahide laws, Christians would be beheaded. They introduced Noahide laws specifically to persecute Christians. "Rabbis" can say whatever they want to get laws passed because they are allowed to lie to gentiles according to the Talmud
Even most atheist historians agree that Jesus existed. There is more evidence for Jesus' existence than for example Alexander the Great, and yet you don't see anyone denying Alexander's existence
You have zero understanding of Christian theology.
Talmudists, so-called "jews". Definitely not Christianity. The communist Bolsheviks committed the largest genocide ever in their persecution of Eastern Orthodox Christians. This is a well-documented historic fact, to which you are oblivious or choose to ignore to fit your agenda.
There is no such thing as a "foreign God", because there is one God alone. I guess monotheism would go over the head of a polytheistic LARPer.
Christianity has persecuted and converted so-called "jews" for centuries. American Evangelical heretics worshipping them is a recent phenomena, and they are a tiny subset of Christianity.
The Israel of today has nothing to do with the Israel of two thousand years ago.
Right, so they were all secretly Pagan for two thousand years until just recently, when they decided to finally follow Christianity for real, and that's when things went bad. Are you hearing yourself?
"Looks like I touched a nerve"
Yeah, that's the normal response to when someone outright insults you, but attempts to hide it behind a veil of politeness like the feminine christian you are. Instead of addressing my ideas you just defer to arguments of the status quo and institutional opinion and authority. Then come the fucking ad hominems of course.
It's not "the Talmudists" you fucking idiot, it's not the fucking khazars, it's Jews practicing the Torah aka the Old Fucking Testament. They reference the Torah when they do the fucked up shit they do. They say "look it says in the Torah that god loves us the most". You attack only the Talmud, because you CAN ONLY attack the Talmud. Because your religion says that an ethnicity infamous for lying throughout the entire history of the planet instead dutifully transmitted via oral tradition the Torah word for word from god's mouth with no mistakes or mistranslations for decades or more (depending on the book) before finally being written down. Because jesus said "I came not to contradict the law, but rather to fulfill it". So you can't be a Christian and not affirm the validity of anything in the OT.
Do you think when people convert to or from a religion that they immediately gain a whole new epistemological foundation? That their ways and practices just go away immediately?
Many European nations took until around 1000 AD to convert officially to Christianity, but that only reflects state policy. Many hold outs and peoples still practiced European paganism until much later into the 1600s. The Mari never stopped their practice of paganism. Also, much conversion was done at the point of a sword. Seems real genuine.
None of you ecrusaders go around attacking churches and institutions and getting into theological debates and calling the existing churches heretical corruptions. You just counter signal rival conservatives.
Now you reveal even more comprehensively that you don't know your own fucking religion. Noahide laws are based on the laws that were provided to Noah by god in Genesis 9 (https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%209&version=KJV). These laws are:
Do you know the only one they have a conflict with Christians over? Idolatry because they say that Jesus was not god so worshipping him is idol worship. Most Jews view that as incredible progress compared to paganism. Guess what? You and them agree :).
Did you bother to actually look into this before you responded here? The best evidence that exists that's not from literal followers of the religion is Tacitus and Josephus. Tacitus basically offhand mentions one time that a cult exists and they worship Jesus who they view as the messiah who was crucified. He doesn't say I saw this, he doesn't produce a record, he just says supposedly this happened. Josephus is the second and if I remember correctly he wrote it way too long after the supposed events for it to be practical or useful. You should actually engage with Jesus Mythicist arguments before arguing that even atheists believe this (many of which are jews and whose paycheck definitely depends on them affirming it).
No argument, got it.
Yes, real jews (not only Talmudists, not khazarians) had a large part in it. That's in no way my argument. An ideology doesn't spread without fertile ground which was laid by Christianity. I'm not saying Christians schemed to come up with it, I'm saying they provided the prerequisites and fertile ground for it to take hold of.
Before Jesus came who were the people your god chose and considered to be the most exalted and according to many denominations (yes even beyond evangelicals), still consider the most exalted? Was it....the Europeans? Was it...the Africans? Was it...the Asians? Nope it was the Jews.
Again it's the actual Jews. Your conspiracy is garbage and much less legitimate than any of my arguments. Provide supporting evidence not from ecrusader blogs.
Yes, that is true. It's also true that the church persecuted pagans ten times more harshly and in almost every instance where pagans were prohibited from worship the jews got a special carve out. The Christians even allowed jews the special privilege of controlling the banking industry by proclaiming it usury for all Christians, but luckily their extra special chosen people didn't have that restriction. I sure hope that's not giving a major important monopoly to a hostile foreign people. Christians also have been making an extra special effort to keep them around as a "witness people" or "the book bearers" since around 430 AD which St. Augustine used to explain why God said "slay them not" in Psalm 59:11-13 KJV.
I addressed this a bit earlier. I'm saying they retained their pagan ways and practices. It's called syncretism.
Obviously pre-christian pagan practices and beliefs didn't have a significant impact. Happy Thor's day by the way.
https://www.etymonline.com/word/Thursday
Not worth my time answering walls of text with internet strangers on basket-weaving forums. I'll leave you with this excerpt which might be relevant:
Happy Thursday.
https://stasher.news/uploads/926
Fair enough. I plan on writing more on it in the future with references and more fleshed out arguments. I can also provide sources regarding the historicity of Jesus and Jesus mythicism. You may not like my arguments, but I believe them to be well thought out and well founded. I welcome dissenting arguments if they are of high quality and addressing my actual points instead of appealing to consensus, the status quo, or institutional bias. You want to trade insults, I'll do that all fucking day. You want to debate points in a civil fashion, I'll do that too. Attacking pagan conservatives is not productive. What have christian conservatives conserved over the past 100 years? Not a damned thing. So don't suppress newcomers within your own people that propose something different just because they want to return to an earlier ancestral European religion. Nobody is proposing American Hinduism. I would put on the templar outfit with you if someone proposed that. I think tolerance for religion should be scoped to ancestral European religions (Christianity/European paganism), not judaism/Islam/Hinduism. E-crusaders come from just as much of a minority viewpoint as conservative pagans whether you like it or not. Approaching the argument from a viewpoint of haughty derision is not productive.
I would also ask that you provide a source for your passage above. Christian antisemitism is fighting with one hand behind your back because you accept many tenants and key components of their religion implicitly and explicitly. Much of the logic behind not blaming the jews for shit they very much did is because of arguments like this. I don't think they're 100% behind everything, but they are a powerful faction and most sects of Christianity fight against them with unwarranted restraint because of their theology. They are the most powerful faction in the world. It is comprised of a race, religion, culture, and nation. Disallowing an honest examination of their organization and works because of theological blinders is not productive.
Also, the image was a nice touch. I chuckled at that one.
Watching this tonight, thanks
https://goyimx.com/AFpost/status/2119586419983429731
There is no political solution. There is no peaceful solution. There is no solution where you can be nice to everybody. There is no politician you can elect to do your violence for you. They will import 6.6 million people and then grant amnesty for at least half. They will repeat this until you are a stranger in your own homeland.
I feel the main problem here is the idea of nationalism, patriotism, pride and the fact most people on Earth believe to belong to a "state" with fictional borders worth thousands of lives to protect from strangers. These people live in fear, the most dangerous disease.
We are all Earth's guests here, just passing by for a small amount of time. We all have the right to move around as we please and stand where we like.
Do you believe people coordinate ethnically and/or religiously? Do you believe people have a desire to force their beliefs on others? If you believe those two things, it is impossible to chalk up the problems associated with ethnic replacement to xenophobia or some "fear of strangers". I mentioned it above already, the problem is not we have robust private property in a rothbardian/hoppean sense and people are inviting a lot of people who are different than us. The problem is the state and other entities are helping bring in these foreigners against the consent of many Americans and then they come and receive incentives to stay like welfare, subsidized loans, private aid. Then they advocate to make America more like their old country. They add to the supply of labor which naturally brings down the price according to the supply demand curve (I realize there can be complexity there). I would also argue that there is a racial component which I won't elaborate on here because I think that would only close your mind off more. I will just say that the only countries they want to flood with immigrants to demographically replace natives are white ones (and Japan for some reason, I think to destroy a successful homogenous society to eliminate the example).
Fear is part of a natural healthy response to a credible threat. If you're walking alone at night and there is a man walking behind you acting odd, fear is the appropriate response. I believe the correct response here is fear (recognition of serious credible threat) and then anger (motivation to act to eliminate the threat).
This is kumbayaism and it's also wrong. Nobody has a right to stand on my property if I tell them to leave.
I have mixed feelings about patriotism and nationalism. It has caused people to not resist against the state and do many things against their interests that they otherwise wouldn't. Love for your people and homeland is often definitionally co-mingled with these. Ultimately I love my homeland and people, but not my government. I am nationalistic and patriotic only where it protects my land and people. I said it before, but I understand the anarchist "anti-border" arguments. I also think they're wrong and Hoppe is right. I think in a society where absolute freedom of association is preserved, free movement, but not permanent residence would be commonplace in most places, but it would be subordinated
to the consent of the property owners who could decide as a community that it's time to move along or we will no longer provide you services.
It is not about what I believe; it is about what I see. It does not mean I behave following these behaviours.
I fully comprehend the point you raise, and I refuse to adhere to it due to the simple fact it is the cause of all the mess we live in today, especially the idea of private property. That's why you live in fear someone may trespass, someone may take what you believe is yours. The state/governments are the ones who created private property, making you believe you own something. In reality you have been given the privilege to overlook the property owned (in a fictional jurisdiction) by the state/government. Otherwise, why are you continuing to pay taxes, asking for a permit to build an extension, and getting a licence to drive what you believe to be your car? Whatever...
I know why. Because you have fear someone from the gov will come and take it away from you. Fear.
Fear is an induced belief. You are free to accept it or see it as an opportunity to learn something, upgrade your perspective.
kumbayaism? Another -ism? Everyone is good at tagging and categorizing, not many are at evaluating and observing.
But hey, who am I to tell you what or what not to do? What or what not to believe. People voluntarily serve the purpose that most fits their needs. Nothing personal here, simply sharing ideas I know you might disagree with.
Why do you think this? I think this is objectively wrong, but I'm curious who even made a compelling case to you in order to get you to believe this. Or do you believe in "personal property" (private property with more definitional issues) instead?
Fair point. Everything is an -ism and it's getting annoying. I read that back and it annoyed me. My point is that you seem to be pointing towards "what if we all just got along" or Imagine by John Lennon. This will not happen no matter how much it is desired and oftentimes the people culturally adopting beliefs along these lines are just giving ideological cover and fertile soil for ideologies like socialism/communism to grow. The growth will not be anarcho-socialism, or anarcho-communism, it will be authoritarian socialism/communism. In fact, I would argue, if you wanted to live in an anarcho-socialist or anarcho-communist community, the best way to do that would be within a Hoppean framework. It is not a clever insight to say "the state defines who owns what". That is only partially true in reality. Private property ownership is such an innate part of this world that even animals understand it. Dogs very much understand when a toy is theirs, when a home is theirs, and will defend it with violence. Those things are the dog's private property. A government didn't define that the dog owns that property and if the government says it's not the dog's that doesn't make it true. If a government steals that property it doesn't make it not the dog's property. Try to tell a dog "private property is just like your opinion man, what if we all shared" when he doesn't want you in his territory or to have his toy and you will find out how real and innate private property is to this world.
Fair. I think you're a good faith actor engaging in a good faith discussion and I generally appreciate your input when I see it on this platform. That being said, I don't think you put forth the effort to seriously engage with my points. This is a very common anarchist/libertarian response where instead of seriously engaging and attempting to take seriously a limited set of choices, they retreat to the abstract. It is responding to a question of "Somebody is breaking into your house. You have a gun and are proficient with it. Do you shoot them or attempt to leave/hide?" with "I would never live in an unsafe neighborhood in the first place"/"I would never own a gun". It is a behavior Michael Malice points out that his twitter followers exhibit often.
Yes, I agree with this, and I also think Hoppe is right. An ideal world should look something like this:
Jokes aside, as you said, in an ideal world of absolute freedom of association, lasting demographic change probably wouldn't come easily, since communities tend not to welcome outsiders warmly. That's just human nature: we're more inclined to accept people who are like us (in customs and values).
Jokes aside? That's literally what I think hahaha. Yeah, I agree. I think visitation would be fine and the requirements for residence whether temporary or permanent would be much more rigorous.
https://stasher.news/uploads/1042
It's called The Shirky Principle
deleted by author