("But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God...you shall grope at noonday, as a blind man gropes in darkness; you shall not prosper in your ways; you shall be only oppressed and plundered continually, and no one shall save you...The alien who is among you shall rise higher and higher above you, and you shall come down lower and lower...he shall be the head, and you shall be the tail" (Deuteronomy 28:15, 20, 43-44).

Promoters of mass immigration, the same ones celebrating increasing ethnic diversity across the West, claim that the phrase “the Great Replacement” is part of a “white genocide conspiracy theory.” They also want to persuade security authorities that this phrase should be banned or made illegal because it “motivates alt-right killers the world over.”

The globalist-Marxist controlled internet is full of articles celebrating the replacement of whites. In the case of the United States, we regularly read that “the white share of the U.S. population has been dropping, from a little under 90% in 1950 to 60% in 2018”. And that it will “likely drop below 50% in another 25 years.”

White nationalists want America to be white again. But this will never happen under normal circumstances. America is on its way to becoming predominantly nonwhite.

Stats Canada, which is supposed to be about statistical trends without ideological agendas, regularly inserts celebratory phrases about the impending replacement of white Canadians. After making projections about how mass immigration from non-European countries is leading to a dramatic reduction in the proportion of “Caucasians in race”, StatsCan happily informs us that,

"immigrants and their descendants, in addition to contributing to the social and economic development of the country, play a significant role in shaping and enriching the ethnic, cultural and linguistic composition of the Canadian population."

The logic of this argument is incredibly anti-white. First, it equates increasing the proportion of “non-Caucasians in race" or "non-whites in color” with cultural enrichment, which amounts to the view that a Canada with a declining white population and a rising non-white population is a Canada undergoing “cultural enrichment.”

Second, it is clear that StatsCan happily uses the terms "Caucasian in race" and "non-whites in color" when the subject is the replacement of whites, and the growing "enrichment" of Canada brought by "non-whites in color" while condemning the use of these terms when it comes to making any positive claims about whites or any negative claims about non-whites. StatsCan, for example, prohibits any claim about how Canada was founded by "Caucasians in color" on the grounds that different European ethnic groups cannot be identified as "white".

In any case, to those who say The Great Replacement is a "white conspiracy theory", check the following key replacement projections Stats Canada announced in its 2016 Census:

"Already in 2016, 22.3% of Canada’s population has been identified as “visible minority”.

Stats Canada defines visible minorities as "persons, other than Aboriginal peoples, who are non-Caucasian in race or non-white in colour."

It projected that, if current trends continue, the visible minority population could represent between 31.2% and 36% of the Canadian population by 2036, and the working age population (ages of 15 and 64) could be as high as 40 percent.

The population with an Aboriginal identity in Saskatchewan is projected to be between 21% and 24%, and in Manitoba between 18% and 21% percent by 2031.

By 2031 visible minority groups are estimated to comprise 63 percent of the population of Toronto, 59 percent of Vancouver, and 31 percent of Montréal. Almost 7 of 10 Vancouver residents will be visible minorities in less than two decades.

In another 2010 article, Projections of the Ethnic Minority Populations of the United Kingdom 2006–2056, he concluded that the ethnic minority populations (including the Other White) would increase from 13 percent of the UK population in 2006 to 28 percent by 2031 and 44 percent by 2056, and to about half the 0–4 age group in 2056.

The Great Replacement is real. It is the most radical and permanent alteration in the history of Western Civilization. It the greatest crime against humanity orchestrated by globalist elites who hate whites and want to see them marginalized and demonized without a cultural identity, without homelands, and without dignity.

A Replacement of Population is Taking Place in Italy

By 2065, it is expected that 14.4 million migrants will arrive in Italy. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.

First, it was the Hungarian route. Then it was the Balkan route. Now Italy is the epicenter of this demographic earthquake, and it has become Europe's soft underbelly as hundreds of thousands of migrants arrive.

With nearly 10,000 arrivals in one recent three-day period, the number of migrants in 2017 exceeded 60,000 -- 48% more than the same period the previous year, when they were 40,000. Over Easter weekend a record 8,000 migrants were rescued in the Mediterranean and brought to Italy. And that is just the tip of the iceberg: during the summer, the number of arrivals from Libya will only increase.

A replacement of population is under way in Italy. But if you open the mainstream newspapers, you barely find these figures. No television station has dedicated any time to what is happening. No criticism is allowed. The invasion is considered a done deal.

In 2016, 176,554 migrants landed in Italy -- an eight-fold increase since 2014. In 2015, there were 103,792. In 2014, there were 66,066. In 2013, there were just 22,118. In the last four years, 427,000 migrants reached Italy. In only the first five months of 2017, Italy received 10% of the total number of migrants of the previous four years.

There are days when the Italian navy and coast guard rescue 1,700 migrants in 24 hours. The country is exhausted. There are Italian villages where one-tenth of the population is already made up of new migrants. We are talking about small towns of 220 residents and 40 migrants.

One of the major aspects of this demographic revolution is that it is taking place in a country which is dramatically aging. According with a new report from the Italian Office of Statistics, Italy's population will fall to 53.7 million in half a century -- a loss of seven million people. Italy, which has one of the world's lowest fertility rates, will lose between 600,000 to 800,000 citizens every year. Immigrants will number more than 14 million, about one-fourth of the total population. But in the most pessimistic scenario, the Italian population could drop to 46 million, a loss of 14 million people.

In 2050, a third of Italy's population will be made up of foreigners, according to a UN report, Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Decline and Aging Populations, which designs a cultural melting-pot that could explode in cultural and social tensions. The level of arrivals will fall from 300,000 to 270,000 individuals per year by 2065; during the same period, it is expected that 14.4 million people will arrive. Added to the more than five million immigrants currently in Italy, 37% of the population is expected to be foreigners: more than one out of every three inhabitants.

In addition, the humanitarian-aid system has been hit by new scandals. "The investigative hypothesis to be verified is that subjects linked to ISIS act as logistical support to migration flows", was a warning just delivered in front of the Schengen Committee, to the Italian anti-mafia and counterterrorism prosecutor, Franco Roberti. There are now judges investigating the connection between the migrants' smugglers in North Africa and the Italian Non-Governmental Organization ships rescuing them in the Mediterranean. Only 2.65 percent of those migrants who arrived in Italy were granted asylum as genuine refugees, according to the United Nations. The other people are apparently not fleeing wars and genocide. People-smugglers bring these migrants to Non-Governmental Organization ships, which then disgorge their cargo in Italian seaports. Another legal enquiry has been opened about the mafia's economic interests in managing the migrants after their arrival.

One cannot compare the migrants to the Jews fleeing Nazism. Pope Francis, for example, recently compared the migrants' centers to Nazi "concentration camps". Where are the gas chambers, medical "experiments," crematoria, slave labor, forced marches and firing squads? Italian newspapers are now running articles about the "Mediterranean Holocaust", comparing the migrants that die trying to reach the southern of Italy to the Jews gassed in Auschwitz. Another journalist, Gad Lerner, to support the migrants, described their condition with the same word coined by the Nazis against the Jews: untermensch, inferior human beings. These comparisons are spread by the media for a precise reason: shutting down the debate.

To understand how shameful these comparisons are, we have to take a look at the cost of every migrant to Italy's treasury. Immigrants, once registered, receive a monthly income of 900 euros per month (30 euros per day for personal expenses). Another 900 euros go to the Italians who house them. And 600 euros are needed to cover insurance costs. Overall, every immigrant costs to Italy 2,400 euros a month. A policeman earns half of that sum. And a naval volunteer who saves the migrants receives a stipend of 900 euros a month. Were the Nazis so kind with their Jewish untermenschen?

The cost of migrants on Italy's public finances is already immense and it will destroy the possibility of any economic growth. "The overall impact on the Italian budget for migrant spending is currently quantified at 2.6 billion [euros] for 2015, expected to be 3.3 billion for 2016 and 4.2 for 2017, in a constant scenario", explained the then Ministry of the Economy. If one wants to put this in proportion, these numbers give a clearer idea of how much Italy is spending in this crisis: in 2017, the government spent 1.9 billion euros for pensions, but 4.2 billion euros for migrants, and 4.5 billion euros for the national housing plan against 4.2 billion euros for migrants.

The Italian cultural establishment is now totally focused on supporting this mass migration. The Italian film nominated at the Academy Awards a few years ago was Fire at Sea, in which the main character is a doctor treating the migrants upon their arrival. Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi carried with him 27 DVDs of the film to a session of the European Council. Italy's commercial television channels produced many television programs about the migrants, such as Lampedusa, from the name of the Italian island. 100,000 Italians even took the streets of Milan for a "rally of solidarity" with the migrants. What "solidarity" can there be if half a million people have been rescued by the Italian government and the whole country seems determined to open its doors to all of North Africa?

Winston Churchill was convinced that the Mediterranean was the "soft underbelly" of Hitler's Europe. It has now become the soft underbelly of Europe's transformation into Eurabia.

The Same Scenario in France

Nobody seems to know exactly how fast France, the cultural heartland of the West over the past millennium, is being demographically transformed. But there is a way to estimate the percentage of babies being born in France who are of non-European ancestry.

And the results are astonishing.

Some young Americans who went to Paris last year told me they were stunned by how non-European the famous city has become. Like an increasing number of tourists, they found the inundation of Africans and Middle Easterners to be depressing.

As recently as a decade ago, though, most visitors reported back that the often riotous nonwhites were largely stuck in their suburban banlieues, leaving the incomparable central city as its traditional tourist attraction. Indeed, Paris inspired the mayors of Chicago over the past quarter of a century to Parisianize Chicago by pushing poor blacks out to the margins and replacing them with affluent white gentrifiers.

But recent eyewitness reports suggest that Paris, and much of France overall, is becoming more Third World. This is rather surprising since the French economy has been weak for years. Many African and Asian “refugees”� safely in France tried for years to get from the “Jungle“� they set up in Calais to higher-paying England. The French government has also been less ostentatiously welcoming than the German government was in 2015.

But it is hard to get any statistics to back up these eyeball estimates.

A rare 2016 survey of French teens found 25.5 percent identifying as Muslim. And there are also non-Muslims from sub-Saharan Africa, as well as better-behaved non-white groups like the Vietnamese.

The American government bans collecting Census data by religion or citizenship, but is relentless in tabulating residents by race and (Hispanic) ethnicity. In contrast, the French government believes it would be a violation of Republican principles to categorize citizens by ancestry, so it bans official data collection by race.

It’s often suggested by idealistic Americans that if the U.S. government didn't collect so many statistics on race, then we wouldn't have so many problems with race. But the French government collects no racial statistics, yet still seems to have a broad set of racial problems, such as the endemic car-be-ques: For instance, 945 cars were torched on New Year’s Eve in France.

Back in the fall of 2005, when 8,973 cars were burned, the American news media were hazy over who exactly the rioters comprised. Were the “youths”� more North African Muslims waging jihad or were they more black Africans raising hell for the hell of it? No Americans knew for sure, and the French authorities seemed to feel it would be inappropriate to find out.

On the other hand, the French national health authority is rightfully worried about sickle-cell anemia, a genetic disease that can afflict people whose ancestry on both sides traces from warm parts of the world. And this obscure data provides us with a rare gateway into quantifying the rapidly changing demographics of France.

The genetics of sickle-cell anemia were an early influence on the field of human biodiversity studies. In some places in West Africa, as many as one-fourth of the population carry one copy of the sickle-cell gene, providing them with relief from malaria. But that means that one-sixteenth would inherit two copies and thus suffer sickle-cell disease.

In contrast, if only one out of 20 have one copy, then the chance of inheriting two copies is merely one out of 400. Thus, the frequency of the mutant version evolves to respond to the severity of the disease in the region.

Among African-Americans in the U.S., where falciparum malaria is not common, it appears that the sickle-cell gene has been slowly dying out over the past few hundred years.

Sickle-cell disease has been increasing rapidly in France due to immigration. It’s now the most common genetic disease in France.

The French government has started a neonatal screening process for babies at risk of inheriting the disease. The percentage of newborns screened due to their ancestry tells us much about the onrushing demographics of France.

But it’s important to look carefully at the rules for who is screened, so let's walk through a number of methodological issues before presenting the data.

Only children who are likely descended through both parents from certain regions are at risk of getting the disease. This particular genetic variant is most common on the Atlantic coast of sub-Saharan Africa, but it is also found in India and places in between where falciparum malaria is a hazard. This includes some parts of Mediterranean Europe, although probably no places on the French mainland.

The French government says, “This disease mainly affects children from the Caribbean, Black Africa and North Africa.”

On the other hand, its more detailed warnings point out that there is a small chance of the disease deriving from the warmest parts of Europe. The French health authority specifies that the regions at risk are:

(1) French departments overseas: West Indies, French Guiana, Reunion, Mayotte

(2) All sub-Saharan Africa and Cape Verde

(3) South America (Brazil), Blacks in North America

(4) India, Indian Ocean, Madagascar, Mauritius Comoros

(5) North Africa: Algeria, Tunisia, Morocco

(6) Southern Italy, Sicily, Greece, Turkey

(7) Middle East: Lebanon, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, Oman

Some non-whites, such as Vietnamese, Chinese, and Tahitians, are not tested because sickle cell is not native to their homeland.

(East Asians appear to make up 1 to 2 percent of the population of France today, but they cause fewer problems than Muslims and blacks, so their profile is lower.)

Some percentage of white babies are tested for sickle-cell disease, but it’s not clear how many.

A fair number of white people in France have ancestors from southern Italy or Greece. Also, a fair number of Jewish French are at least in part from Algeria.

But the test is offered only to those who are descended on both sides from a region at risk. The government’s rules are:

Currently, for the newborn to be screened:

(a) Both parents must come from a region at risk.

(b) Only one of the two if the second is not known.

(c) If there is a history of major sickle cell syndrome in the family.

(d) If there is doubt about criteria 1, 2, 3.

So a baby who is French on one side and Sicilian on the other would not be tested.

It’s worth noting that this test is not offered to those who might have inherited one copy of the gene, just those who might have the disease because they inherited two. (The French government apparently doesn't want to be accused of promoting eugenic knowledge, the way Orthodox Jews test for genetic Tay-Sachs risk, so it doesn't offer people awareness of whether their children might be at risk before they are conceived.)

For example, if Barack Obama were born in France today, he would not be tested because he couldn't have inherited a copy of the gene through his northern European mother. (And yet, on the 2010 Census, the president refused to acknowledge his white ancestry, marking himself down as only black.)

On the other hand, Barack and Michelle’s daughters might have been tested because they could have inherited the mutation through both parents. Or perhaps not. The French state specifies, “Both parents must come from a region of risk,”� so the test might not apply to the Obama daughters, whose risk is half as great as if their parents were both fully black.

To take a Continental example, half-African tennis player Yannick Noah, who won the French Open in 1983, would not be tested because his mother was white. Nor would his son, NBA center Joakim Noah, because his mother was Miss Sweden.

So babies who have one native French parent are not tested even if the other parent is black. It’s not clear what the government wants done for people like the Obama daughters, who are three-quarters black.

Let’s put all the potential adjustments in one place before I reveal the unadjusted 2015 percentage of newborns tested:

(a) Some numbers of wholly European babies are tested because both parents come from the southernmost parts of Europe.

(b) Some babies who are as black as Barack Obama are not tested because one parent is northern European.

(c) All nonwhite Indochinese, East Asians, and Polynesians are not tested.

Overall, I'd guesstimate that these three adjustments about wash out. Maybe they would bump the real percentage of nonwhite babies up or down somewhat. It’s hard to say. But considering them all together, they don't seem likely to bias the number all that much.

After all those preliminaries, here are the unadjusted percentages of newborns targeted for testing in France because both parents come from the Global South:

2005: 25.6 percent

2010: 31.5 percent

2015: 38.9 percent

And Paris in 2015 was 73.4 percent, up from 54.2 percent just a decade earlier.

Wow.

Within 40 years, given current demographic trends, the white population in France and the rest of old Europe will recede, creating a Muslim majority, a French researcher says.

Charles Gave, an economist, fund manager and political commentator, published his conclusions this month on the webpage of his think tank, Institute des Libertes. He writes of the “disappearance of the European populations” as native populations shrink and Muslims continue to exhibit a robust fertility rate.

Mr. Gave, president of Gavekal Research, acknowledges that his decidedly unpolitically correct view may bring him scorn and possibly censorship. The political left generally protects Islam from criticism. In the U.S., President Obama consistently defended Islam and mocked Christians for their criticism.

The paper, titled The White Plague, is dangerous, Mr. Gave said, “for my personal respectability and my chance to be heard in our beautiful democracy.”

The financier draws his conclusion from demographics. He assesses France’s white, or native, birthrate at 1.4 children per woman, compared with a Muslim rate of 3.4 to 4 children. France’s population today is 67 million. Unlike the U.S., France does not conduct a census on ethnic origin, but based on outside polling, some researchers, including Mr. Gave, believe the French population is already 10 percent Muslim, with 6.7 million people.

France’s official birthrate is 1.9 per woman, but Mr. Gave’s calculations put the native rate at 1.4. Overall, the European birthrate is a low 1.6 per woman.

Mr. Gave extrapolates those numbers, a declining white population and a growing Muslim population, and concludes that France will have a Muslim majority by 2057.

“And so, within 40 years at the latest, it is almost certain that the majority of the population will be Muslim in Austria, Germany, Spain, Italy, Belgium and Holland,” he writes. “Again, these are not predictions but calculations, and I do not even call for new immigrants.”

The pace could be accelerated given continuing Muslim migration into France and other Western European states, either through regular legal processes or through refugees escaping conflicts in the Middle East and North Africa.

“Our summer will be really over the day when demographics will change, simply because we will have become a minority in our own countries and the majority will no longer pay attention to 68-year-old jeremiads, all of whose authors will be retired or dead,” he wrote.

“The immense news of the next 30 or 40 years will thus be the disappearance of the European populations, whose ancestors have created the modern world. And with these populations will disappear the diverse and complementary European nations that have made an immense success of the old continent for at least five centuries.”

Mr. Gave takes an agnostic view on what an Islamic Europe would mean for liberal democracy and free speech.

“I do not say it will be wrong, or it will be good,” he writes. “I am simply saying that this will be very different and that this will necessarily have an influence on the political system.”

Uncertainty

The Gatestone Institute, a conservative foreign policy think tank, analyzed Mr. Gave’s paper and did not agree with all of it. Analyst Drieu Godefridi forecasts that the native French population will not disappear or lose its prominence in the space of four decades.

Across Europe, however, there are signs of the coming Muslim majority. Muslims make up nearly 50 percent of primary school children in the Belgian port city of Antwerp. A quarter of Brussels’ 1 million population is of Muslim origin. The Daily Mail, citing the Office of National Statistics, reported that the most popular boy’s name in Britain in 2015 was Mohammed or its variant spellings.

The Christian Broadcasting Network’s Dale Hurd in 2012 took his cameras inside Belgium’s Muslim strongholds to interview the leader of a small but growing militant group, Sharia4Belgium.

“Democracy is the opposite of Shariah and Islam,” said Belgium-born Fouad Belkacem, referring to his hometown of Antwerp as a “dirty perverted community.”

“Even disbelievers themselves, they say in 2030 there will be majority Muslims here. It’s just a matter of time.”

Three years after the interview, Belkacem was convicted on charges of grooming terrorists to travel to the Islamic State in Syria. A court sentenced him to 12 years in prison.

The religion of Satan is ascendant.

When Everyone Kneels, Who Will Stand Up for Western History and Culture?

"We are afraid that anything we do is colonial. There's plenty of countries willing to step into that global governance gap: China, Iran, Russia, Turkey" (Bruce Gilley, The Times, May 10, 2018).

British post-colonial guilt is, however, having repercussions far larger than statues. There is, for instance, still total silence about persecuted Christians, according to a UK bishop leading a government review into their suffering.

Western history is seemingly being remade to portray all of Western civilization as just one big apartheid. It is as if we should not only pull down statues but also pull down ourselves. A successful democracy, however, cannot be built on just erasing the past.

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right" (George Orwell, 1984).

What is this macabre ideological game aimed at accomplishing? It is a power-grab to create a cultural revolution, to prevent anyone from saying that cultures are not all the same; to put Europe's past on trial; to instill perennial remorse into consciences, and to spread intellectual terror to advance multiculturalism.

The statue in London of Winston Churchill -- who stood against the Nazis during the Second World War and saved Europe from barbarism -- was covered up by the city authorities during recent protests. Its visual erasure reminds one of the nude statues in Rome covered up to please Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, or the "disappearance" of portraits in the former Soviet Union.

"Antiracism is no longer the defense of the equal dignity of people, but an ideology, a vision of the world," said the French philosopher Alain Finkielkraut, son of Holocaust survivors.

"Antiracism has been transformed...At the time of the great migration, it is no longer a question of welcoming newcomers by integrating them into European civilization, but exposing the faults of this civilization."

He referred to "self-racism" as "the most dismaying and grotesque pathology of our time." Its capital is London.

"Topple the racists" consists of a map with 60 statues in 30 British cities. The removal of the statues is being requested to support a movement born in the United States after a white policeman, Derek Chauvin, supposedly killed a black man, George Floyd, by kneeling on his neck.

In Bristol, a crowd pushed the statue of philanthropist and slave-owner Edward Colston into the harbor. The act was followed in London by protests vandalizing statues of Winston Churchill, Mahatma Gandhi and Abraham Lincoln. London's Mayor Sadiq Khan, after removing the monument to Robert Milligan, a Scottish slave trader, from outside the Museum of London Docklands, announced the creation of commission to review tearing down statues that do not reflect "the city's diversity." Two more statues were ordered to be removed from two London hospitals.

Vandalism and self-hatred are quickly gaining ground. The epic of great discoveries associated with the British Empire has become shameful. The protests are not about slavery. No one in the UK today would cheer that period. It is rather a call for cultural cleansing of all the works contradicting the new mantra: "diversity".

"A new form of Taliban was born in the UK today", wrote Nigel Farage, referring to two giant ancient Buddha statue that were blown up by the Taliban in Afghanistan in 2001. "Unless we get moral leadership quickly our cities won't be worth living in."

The list of statues to be removed includes the names of Oliver Cromwell and Horatio Nelson, two major figures in British history, as well as Nancy Astor, the first woman to be elected to the British Parliament and take a seat in 1919. Also on the list were the names of Sir Francis Drake, Christopher Columbus and Charles Gray (the prime minister whose government supervised the abolition of slavery in 1833).

British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, expressing opposition to the removal campaign, said:

"We cannot now try to edit or censor our past. We cannot pretend to have a different history. The statues in our cities and towns were put up by previous generations. They had different perspectives, different understandings of right and wrong. But those statues teach us about our past, with all its faults. To tear them down would be to lie about our history, and impoverish the education of generations to come."

British post-colonial guilt is, however, having repercussions far larger than statues. There is, for instance, still total silence about persecuted Christians, according to a UK bishop leading a government review into their suffering. There is also, notably, a retreat from the world's stage. "When the West loses confidence in itself, because of excessive or misplaced guilt over colonialism, it turns to isolationism", noted Bruce Gilley, a professor of political science. "We are afraid that anything we do is colonial. There's plenty of countries willing to step into that global governance gap: China, Iran, Russia, Turkey."

Post-colonial guilt is also suffocating freedom of speech in the UK. The former British "equality watchdog" chief, Trevor Phillips, was suspended from the Labour Party after allegations of "Islamophobia". Phillips' guilt? Being critical of multiculturalism. According to Phillips:

"In my view, squeamishness about addressing diversity and its discontents risks allowing our country to sleepwalk to a catastrophe that will set community against community, endorse sexist aggression, suppress freedom of expression, reverse hard-won civil liberties, and undermine the liberal democracy that has served this country so well for so long."

Phillips also claimed that British politicians and journalists are "terrified" of discussing race, thereby leaving multiculturalism to become a "racket" exploited by some to entrench segregation. A man of Guyanese origin, a Labour Party veteran and an equality commissioner spoke the truth to the multiculturalists.

The activists who campaign to remove the statues want radically to change the look of the British capital. The clash seems to consist of, on one side, violent censors who bully everyone, and on the other side, cowardly, appeasing politicians, who are afraid and bow to the vandals. Monuments are a vital and visible part of a global city; they embody their place in the history of a city, otherwise only bus stops and Burger Kings would remain there.

These protestors appear to wish for a revised, sanitized history. If we do not quickly understand that, if we erase our past, as the former Soviet Union tried to do, it will be easier for people to create their vision of our future with no rudder to anchor us or our values. We will be left with nothing in our hands but shattered pieces of our history and culture.

This movement of hating the West -- which has, as all of us do, an imperfect history -- seems to have begun in British universities. In Cambridge, professors of literature asked to replace white authors with representatives from minorities to "decolonize" the curriculum. The student union of London's prestigious School of Oriental and African Studies (SOAS) asked to remove Plato, Kant, Descartes, Hegel and others from the curriculum, because they were "all white" -- as if the color of our skin should be the sole determinant of our thoughts. In Manchester, students painted over a mural based on Kipling's poem "If."

A scholar of colonialism, Nigel Biggar, said that a "climate of fear" has returned to British universities. The University of Liverpool recently agreed to rename a building honoring former prime minister William Gladstone. At Oxford, meanwhile, the statue of Cecil Rhodes, philanthropist and founder of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe), risks being the next to go.

"There is a bit of hypocrisy," Lord Patten, the chancellor of Oxford, commented, "in Oxford taking money for 100 scholars a year, about a fifth of them from Africa, to come to Oxford, and then saying we want to throw the Rhodes statue...in the Thames". He said that his own view remained the same as one "expressed by Nelson Mandela at a celebration of the Rhodes Trust in 2003": that despite the "problems associated with Cecil Rhodes in history, if it was alright for Mandela, then I have to say it's pretty well alright for me". But not for the revisionists.

Western history is seemingly being remade to portray all of Western civilization as just one big apartheid. It is as if we should not only pull down statues but also pull down ourselves. But a successful democracy, cannot be built on just erasing the past.

There is a falsity in erasing one's history. One may not have a perfect history, but it is one's history, nevertheless. As the historian Victor Davis Hanson wrote, a country "does not have to be perfect to be good." Excising the distasteful parts does not change what happened; they may even be replaced with parts that are more distasteful.

Some London museums already adopted this covering-up and self-censorship a while ago. The Tate Gallery in London banned a work by John Latham that displayed a Koran embedded in glass. The Victoria and Albert Museum showed, then withdrew, a devotional art image of Muhammad. The Saatchi Gallery featured two works of nudes overlaid with Arabic script, which prompted complaints from Muslim visitors; the museum covered the works. The Whitechapel Art Gallery purged an exhibit containing nude dolls.

The Merriam-Webster Dictionary just revised the definition of "racism" to include "systemic racism", presumably meaning that the entire society is guilty and unjust.

The censors seem to want to control our mental universe, as in George Orwell's novel, 1984:

"Every record has been destroyed or falsified, every book rewritten, every picture has been repainted, every statue and street building has been renamed, every date has been altered. And the process is continuing day by day and minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Party is always right."

This process of Western self-abasement began long ago. The Labour Party councils in the UK, for example, began to examine all the statues under their jurisdiction. The mayor of Bristol, Marvin Rees, instead of defending the rule of law, called the violent removal of the statue of Colston an act of "historical poetry". When vandals started to destroy statues, many applauded. British Prime Minister Boris Johnson called it "politically correct iconoclasm."

A week before the statues row, people in the UK knelt in the name of George Floyd. It was as if there was a collective claim that Western society as a whole had to repent. It seemed a form of ideological hysteria, not so distant from that of the Inquisition or the Salem Witch Trials: those who knelt were presumably supposed appear as if they were more moral, on the "right side" of justice. There were even British policemen kneeling, as, in the US, Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats knelt to their overlords. Both were acts of irresponsibility and capitulation. A few days later, the British establishment kowtowed to the new Taliban.

What is this macabre ideological game aimed at accomplishing? Not taking down monuments as such, like the statues of Christopher Columbus which have been torn down or beheaded. It is more than that. It is a power-grab to create a cultural revolution, to prevent anyone from saying that cultures are not all the same; to put Europe's past on trial; to instill perennial remorse into consciences, and to spread intellectual terror to advance multiculturalism.

How many people will refuse to go along with this coerced suppression of history? If many kneel to this new totalitarianism, who will have the courage to stand up for Western (Israelite) history and culture?

So, is there any hope for the future? Writes Arthur Kemp:

"There is no need for despondency. There are now more whites [mostly Celtic, Anglo-Saxon, and Scandinavian Israelites] on earth than ever before at any other time in history.

"The only thing that is required to ensure the survival of European civilization and white [Israelite] people is willpower [and obedience to YEHOVAH God]. Generating that willpower is the task of everyone who understands what is at stake, and who are not prepared to sit idly by while civilization itself is destroyed.

"The history of white [Israelite] people has shown that once they amass the willpower, they can overcome unimaginable odds [with YEHOVAH God's help] and seemingly insurmountable obstacles.

"The struggle of the twenty-first century is no different in this regard. The stakes are high, and the sacrifices will be great, but with applied resolve and understanding, a solution which will ultimately serve the interests of everyone can be attained" (Arthur Kemp, The War Against Whites: The Racial Psychology Behind the Anti-White Hatred Sweeping the West, p. 275).

Indeed it will, within the confines of the Kingdom of YEHOVAH God here on this earth!