Geert Wilders, a candidate for Dutch prime minister had this to say recently. “Right now, it’s what I call the ‘Patriotic Spring,’” he explained. “People feel misrepresented by the current political parties, by the current elite, who [advocate] multiculturalism, mass immigration, Islamization – or the fact that we transferred our national sovereignty to this institution called the European Union in Brussels, and we don’t even have the key to our own front door and cannot decide who we let enter into our country, or when people should leave.”

“People are fed up with the arrogance of the political elite.”

Bingo.

He hit the nail on the head. Most people from both sides of the political spectrum are fed up and this is evidenced in the United States and Europe. Congress has a 6% approval rating. In France, President Francois Hollande has a 4% approval rating. The powerful Angela Merkel is faltering and the political establishment the West is floundering for all to see.

Even if you think it is a good idea to have a multicultural society based on mass migration of predominately young Muslim men, the pesky truth is that most Europeans are opposed to it. Most Europeans and most Americans think their countries are heading in the wrong direction, especially when it comes to immigration policy.

Wilders also stated forcefully that “It is our mere existence that is at stake. Our continent is bordering Africa, the Middle East – and the African inhabitants, the African people, will explode in this century. They have one billion people living in Africa today.

According to the United Nations, at the end of the century it will be quadrupled to four billion people, where at the same time, the amount of European people will diminish” he lamented.

Now, if I was betting man I would think two things about the current situation if I was to try to predict the future. The first would be, if a majority of people did not want something to continue and people are fed up with those that continue that certain practice, then you can bet those politicians will lose the election. Right? It’s common sense.

So far, with Brexit and Donald Trump’s victory in the United States, such a prognostication has proven to be true, despite the fact no one believed it would happen in the first place. Or, so we were all lead to believe in the polls and in the press.

With European countries like Holland, France, and Germany poised for major elections in the coming months, why are the establishment and the media continuing to turn out for certain politicians, at least, the ones who are tacitly calling for the potential end of Western civilization as we know it?

This is no small question. If trends continue as they are, Wilders will no longer be some lone crank in the political wilderness screaming to passersby about the dangers of an Islamic invasion. He will be seen as a sober voice and a patriot who rightly predicted the demise of Europe as we have known it for hundreds of years.

It makes no sense that a politician would run on a platform of that is counter to the people who live in that same country. Yet, this is happening over and over and over in the West. The question is why? Or maybe the question should be simplified. What is in it for the politicians who are running campaigns that openly call for the demographic destruction of their own homeland?

Francois Hollande, Hillary Clinton, Angela Merkel, Justin Trudeau, Mario Renzi, Stefan Löfven, John Kerry, and other leaders of the Western world have decided that porous borders are necessary and inevitable. We should embrace the rush of migrants, not abhor it. The incoming Secretary-General of the United Nations told a room of policymakers in Europe last November that “migration is not the problem but the solution,” and said politicians should ignore voters.

Politicians should ignore the voters! Migration is the solution! To what problem is he speaking? The only thing one can conclude from such a statement is that the current set of circumstances that make up European identity are the problem, namely, its native-born citizens who oppose such cultural advancements.

As the French election heats up and Marine Le Pen goes from long shot to the frontrunner, her rival Emmanuel Macron had this to say about mass migration of Muslims from Africa and the Middle East. “We have entered a world of great migrations and we will have more and more of it.”

He went on to say, “In the coming decades we will have migrations from geopolitical conflicts that will continue to play, and we will have climate migrations because the planet is in a state of deep imbalance,” he said.

Macron draws from the left-wing playbook and claims that there is no way of stopping illegal immigrants from flooding into Europe. And, listen closely, it is because of poverty, war, and climate change. So how is this supposed to appeal to voters? I would contend it is not aimed at doing that. It is aimed at continuing wars of choice and blaming the outcome of external factors such as climate change and poverty.

You see, from what we can gather by these statements from Macron and others like him, is that they are advocating a police state policies at home, foreign wars abroad, exploding national debts, and doing so all in the name of shielding the weak and protecting the environment. How do wars prevent global warming? They don’t. In fact, the biggest single polluter on planet earth is the Pentagon. Facts are a bitch, eh?

None of this makes sense. The more a person looks at a cross section of political platforms and decision-making across the western world, the more it becomes apparent that there is an actual political playbook, and the goal is to leave Occidental culture in shambles.

All of this seems very straightforward, and perhaps it is, but it begs the question as to why? Why are Europe politicians blatantly ignoring their own people, willfully not defending the sovereignty of their own nations, and calling for an end to their own lineage and their children’s futures?

Who doesn’t fight for their own country’s future, yet runs for the leader of that very country knowing full well their decisions will imperial those that have elected them?

The fact that nearly all—not some, but almost all—of the current leaders listed above are calling for the same thing is more than a little strange. People often reference “globalists” and the Illuminati as to wanting to destroy the predominately white middle-class in the West, but what is in it for these elite if the productive functioning means of creating and accruing wealth are replaced by illiterate and dysfunctional people who are ill-suited for acculturation into first world nations?

Cheap labor or human rights or white guilt, or even just guilt (in the case of Germany) is not enough to advance an agenda that has, as its end result, self-deprecating cultural suicide on the other side of it. Is Angela Merkel, an educated scientist, so blind as to be unable to see through her own self-loathing biases?

Maybe the substitute drama teacher Justin Trudeau might be fingered as that kind of naïve rube, but people like Hillary Clinton and Emmanuel Macron are certainly savvy and accomplished and not willfully blinded by ideology. Or are they?

The Rebel Media, an independent news company out of Canada of all places, points out that Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia, Omar, Kuwait, Qatar, and others have taken zero migrants from Syria. They posit that the elites in Europe want to take in these migrants to boost rental occupations, social service bureaucracies, and bolster their own voting base.

It is a nice theory, and it does make sense at face value, but when we consider that most European countries are broke, do not have a glut of vacant, cheap housing, and the native labor force is mired in depression-like conditions over much of the continent, these arguments are left lacking in plausibility.

Are the leaders in the West so stupid as to not recognize the obvious consequences of mass migration into financially insolvent countries? I highly doubt it. In Germany and Sweden, the media is being told by the government to hide migrant crime statistics and not tell their own people the truth. The lies and deception could not be more blatant.

One thing is evident above all else: the mainstream media in all of Western culture, along with a large chunk of the political class, is encouraging mass migration of Muslim youth to replace older generations of Europeans. Also, it is easy enough to see that this kind of unimpeded migration will most likely be the catalyst that ends the European Union, even more so than a massive financial meltdown.

Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama conspired to kill Muammar Mohammed Abu Minyar Gaddafi, commonly known as Colonel Gaddafi. According to Julian Assange of WikiLeaks it was Clinton who personally oversaw the destruction of the Libyan state itself. As such, Libya could no longer remain “the cork” that previously stopped mass migration from Africa into Europe. Gadhafi was supposedly trying to blackmail Europe for billions of euros a year with the threat of unleashing hordes of Muslims into the continent if they didn’t pay up.

Are we really to believe that Clinton, Obama, the US State Department, the CIA, and the Pentagon (who carried out the bombing missions to run air support for al-Qaeda no less), knew nothing of what the ramifications of such a move might be? You’d have to be a Hollywood celebrity to believe something that foolish.

Probably, most of this agenda hinges on money and the chance to have new voters that are going to vote for Democratic candidates based on receiving welfare checks. But is there something more here? Conservative columnist Ann Coulter believes that “Every single elite group in America is aligned against the public — the media, ethnic activists, big campaign donors, Wall Street, multimillionaire farmers and liberal “churches.”

Yes, this is true in the United States, but it would not make as much sense in Europe. It certainly does not paint the whole picture.

The number one reason for the migrant crisis is most likely to spark a war on the European continent, as well as in the Middle East. The end goal? Population reduction, as well as profit, and control of oil resources. The same end goal as the last two world wars. 60 million people died in World War II and the US became a global superpower.

Why not hit the reset button and start the cycle over?

Although climate change has yielded little in the way of convincing the world that the planet is about to fall apart, environment concerns are real. Acidification of the world’s coral reefs, soil degradation, trash in the oceans, declining fish stocks, and species extinctions are very, very real problems.

It would be easy enough to lob a nice virus over to Africa to wipe out millions of people, but that would not be ethical and it certainly would not be politically viable. Plus, it would probably kill everyone else, including the rich and famous.

The fact of the matter is, the end goal has to be population reduction because there will be no other outcome. Since the advent of Islam into the world, it has produced war and left death and destruction in its wake.

Muslim Moors nearly overtook Spain. In the 8th century Muslims began to conquer parts of Spain until the people there were almost vanquished; pushed back into the northeastern part of the country their numbers dwindled for hundreds of years, until in 1492, the last of the Muslims were pushed out of the country and it was finally retaken as a Catholic stronghold.

At some point soon, when the Muslim population in Europe reaches a significant percentage, wholesale violence over territorial claims and political and religious conflicts will start to rear their ugly head. What happened in Spain will repeat itself.

Bankers historically enjoy war profiteering and politicians also like that when a country is on a war footing domestic measures that would be considered unacceptable become somehow tolerable, especially if they are seen as temporary.

The West is insolvent. With debt levels that are unsustainable and with environmental damage that is quickly set to create havoc, it becomes clear that the wealthy are going to try to play to a situation that is advantageous to them. With the UN projecting the world to hit 9.6 billion people by 2050 it becomes no huge leap in thinking to assume that this will produce famine, war, extreme poverty, and a drain on natural resources.

What better way to end the population burden, quash the coming entitlement tsunami, and constrain environmental woes than to unleash a guaranteed calamity with the removal of a single, well-placed cornerstone? That cornerstone was already removed and its name is Libya.

Even if we are lead to believe that Hillary Clinton and her coterie of Washington insiders are bumbling idiots who have no means of gauging the consequences of their actions, the knowledge that Libya is the jumping off point of the migrant crisis is hardly ever addressed in the media, much less in quiet conversation. Libya, nevertheless, remains the locus of the migrant crisis.

Donald Tusk, a powerful EU bureaucrat has alluded to the need to plug the dike of the now defunct Libyan state. Hemorrhaging onto the world hundreds of thousands of young, male Muslim migrants from all over Africa is now a common sight in the blue waters of the Mediterranean Sea.

How is it possible that nothing is being done? Are the Europeans that helpless? Are their armies incapable of mounting an offensive that could reinstate order in Libya? One would think that NATO, with all of its resources, could marshal a garrison big enough to turn the tide.

We are being played. We just don’t know why. Pundits from all over Europe and the US speculate why this mass migration is being permitted, and a quick look at the facts suggests that things are moving along as intended because the consequences will become our reality soon enough whether we want them to or not.

The plan it seems is for the super wealthy and well-connected is to play both sides and make a profit while they clean house demographically.