Generation Remigration And Their Lebensraum
1.27 million British servicemen did not give their lives in two world wars for their radical grandchildren to resurrect ideology from the 1930s as fashionable reactionary politics. "Mass deportations" and "ethnocide" are an ignorant contemporary repackaging of garbage from the Imperial Reich.
Two things are unimpeachable in the current political moment: a) the British state has catastrophically abused and mismanaged immigration policy against the will of the people to pay for the unsustainable welfare system – bringing the country to civil conflict; b) the immigrant population must be humanely reduced to restore demographic balance, regardless of what political parties on either side of the spectrum think.
That does not mean you get away with advocating policies from Nazi-era Germany a century ago as a solution. Even if you do not know that's where they come from.
The mass immigration problem in England is not a sinister Jewish conspiracy to replace the white peoples of Europe in revenge for the Holocaust. It is the result of idiot politicians who can't think of any other way to fund the spiralling welfare ponzi scheme other than to import workers, and Islamic ideologues taking advantage of their stupidity.
The Intellectual Roots Of Living Space
Before examining how British youth have adopted German expansionist ideology as immigration policy, we must understand what Lebensraum actually meant and how it developed.
The concept originated not with the Third Reich but in late 19th-century German geographical and biological theory. Friedrich Ratzel, a geographer trained in zoology, coined the term in 1901 within his study of biogeography—examining how organisms competed for territory and resources. Ratzel observed how species required specific geographical areas to support their populations at current sizes and modes of existence, and termed this necessary space Lebensraum.
The critical intellectual move came when Ratzel began applying biological concepts to human populations and cultures.
He described history as "the permanent battle for Lebensraum"—reframing human civilisation through Darwinian struggle for survival and territorial competition. Germany, united only in 1871, lacked the colonial empire and territory of Britain or France.
German intellectuals like Ratzel complained their nation did not possess sufficient land or colonies to house its growing population or build a powerful economy to rival established empires.
This fusion of social Darwinism with geopolitics proved explosively influential. The German geographer Karl Haushofer further developed Ratzel's work in the early 20th century, creating what he termed:
the study of Darwinian natural selection as it related to specific areas such as blood, race, genetic inheritance, ancestral land, and culture.
Haushofer's theories provided academic veneer for the proposition Germans—as the supposedly superior race—had natural rights to territory occupied by "inferior" peoples.
By the First World War, Lebensraum had evolved from descriptive biogeography into prescriptive policy. The concept underpinned the Septemberprogramm of 1914, General Erich Ludendorff's programme for German territorial expansion eastward. Germany briefly achieved this through the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in 1918, extracting vast swathes of Russian territory including Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltic states. Tactical defeat on the Western Front forced Germany to abandon these gains under the Treaty of Versailles, but the appetite for eastern expansion remained.
Adolf Hitler devoted an entire chapter of Mein Kampf—written in 1925, well before his rise to power—to "Eastern Orientation or Eastern Policy." He wrote:
We National Socialists consciously draw a line beneath the foreign policy tendency of our pre-War period. We take up where we broke off six hundred years ago. We stop the endless German movement to the south and west, and turn our gaze toward the land in the East.
The ideological framework rested on several interlocking premises:
First, that history was dominated by merciless racial struggle for survival, with races possessing larger territories innately stronger than those confined to smaller ones. Second, that the Germanic Aryan race had natural right to seize the Lebensraum they required by force. Third, that restoring Germany's 1914 borders would be absurd because those boundaries provided insufficient space for the German population—only geopolitical conquest of adequate Lebensraum justified the sacrifices war demanded. Fourth, that inferior races—particularly Slavs and Jews—occupied lands rightfully belonging to Germans and must be removed to make space for German settlement.
Hitler explicitly compared German expansion to American westward colonisation, likening Slavic peoples to Native Americans. In 1932 he stated:
The settlement of the North American continent was similarly a consequence not of any higher claim in a democratic or international sense, but rather a consciousness of what is right which had its sole roots in the conviction of the superiority and thus the right of the white race.
The German pursuit of Lebensraum culminated in Generalplan Ost—the Master Plan for the East—which stipulated most indigenous Eastern European populations would be removed through mass deportation to Siberia, enslavement or death. Policy guidelines issued before Operation Barbarossa in 1941 stated unequivocally:
Many tens of millions of people in this territory will become superfluous and will have to die or migrate to Siberia… With regard to this, absolute clarity must reign.
Between 30-45 million civilians and prisoners of war died in German-occupied Eastern Europe. The pursuit of "racial space" led directly to industrialised genocide.
This is the intellectual tradition Britain's self-styled "ethnonationalists" have adopted as immigration policy.
Ethnonationalism: A Weasel Term for Uncomfortable Truths
Steve Laws—one of Britain's most prominent working class ethnonationalist voices—lays out his position with remarkable candour:
If there's no English, there's no England. And at the moment, the direction we're going, there will be no England. Culture is downstream from ethnicity and race. Our culture comes from our people.
His solution?
Total remigration. Everyone has to go.
When pressed on whether a British-born person of Ghanaian heritage whose grandparents were born here belongs in this country, he is unequivocal:
No, he does not belong here. It doesn't matter how long you've been here or the time scale is irrelevant. This is not your lands. These are not your people.
Replace "English" with "German" and "lands" with Lebensraum and you have precisely the ideological framework Friedrich Ratzel articulated in 1901, weaponised in Mein Kampf.
Laws echoes each principle, and also rephrases variants of the so-called "14 Words."
We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children, because the beauty of the White Aryan woman must not perish from the earth.
When asked if he considers himself racially superior, he demurs only slightly:
I don't see myself superior to any other race. But that doesn't mean they belong in our homeland or should be allowed to live here... Our people are being demographically replaced.
This is Lebensraum repackaged for Britain's post-Brexit political moment. It's dishonestly swapping the idea of "ethnicity" for "race."
The Generalplan Ost Comes to Birmingham
Modern remigration advocates employ nearly identical language, differing only in their professed commitment to "peaceful" methods. Laws insists:
I very much advocate for the most peaceful solution to fix demographic replacement. The position I advocate for with remigration is very much we're going to return you to your homeland peacefully.
Yet when confronted with specifics, the mask slips into weaselry and century-old rhetoric about "race-mixing." Asked what he would do if his daughter fell in love with a black man, Laws responds: "I would deal with the bloke. It'd be gone. It'd be out the way." Pressed on whether he would separate a British mother from her non-European child, he pivots: "I would encourage you both to leave."
The "peaceful deportations" rhetoric crumbles upon contact with reality. You cannot forcibly deport millions of British citizens—many of whom are third or fourth generation—without violence. The Germans learned this. That Laws believes otherwise speaks either to profound historical ignorance or deliberate dishonesty.
Eva Vlaardingerboek, the Dutch commentator who launched the viral "Generation Remigration" campaign, frames her call to action in equally familiar terms:
Europeans have been replaced, sold out and betrayed by their own governments. As a result of their open border policies of mass migration, we are no longer safe and no longer at home in our own homelands.
Her rallying cry: "We Europeans have to claim our countries back."
"Claim our countries back" from whom? Schoolchildren born on European soil whose crime is having the wrong ancestry?
Blood and Soil Redux
The German slogan Blut und Boden—"Blood and Soil"—encapsulated their racial ideology: true Germans were defined by bloodline and ancestral connection to German land. No amount of integration, cultural adoption or civic participation could transform a Slav or Jew into a German.
Laws articulates the identical principle when discussing European versus non-European immigration:
Europeans can live amongst each other and be unified to an extent because you from the same continent, you have similar histories... But when you go to places like Africa and Asia and India and so forth, these people are clearly foreign. They're clearly very different to us, and they should not be allowed in.
Pressed on whether Polish or German immigrants should be deported, hr equivocates:
It's slightly different because they are more culturally similar to our people. They are even... you could assimilate a German within two three generations and it would not really be much noticed... But when you've got non-whites coming over, that creates a problematic issue where the demographic decline is changing.
When the interviewer notes this sounds like "white supremacy," Laws reframes:
I just say I put my race first. I put my people first. I put my ethnicity first.
This is indistinguishable from 1930s ideology when viewed academically in the abstract. The specific hierarchy differs—he advocates British ethnicity above all others rather than a pan-Germanic Aryan monopoly—but the foundational logic remains identical: race determines belonging; cultural integration is impossible across racial lines; and territorial rights derive from ethnic ancestry rather than citizenship or residency.
There is an argument for indigeneity. This is not it.
Race has been willingly mutated into "ethnicity" for this argument.
The Great Replacement: From Conspiracy Theory to Policy Paper
The idea of "Great Replacement" was popularised by French writer Renaud Camus claiming global elites orchestrate mass migration to replace white European populations. The theory explicitly builds on tropes about Jewish orchestration of demographic change and is similar to the Kalergi Plan.
The "debunking" of it is even dumber than the what the debunkers claim it is.
Replacement migration is not a conspiracy but documented policy discussion. The United Nations Population Division published "Replacement Migration: Is It a Solution to Declining and Ageing Populations?" in 2000, examining whether immigration could offset population decline in developed nations.
The report's key findings merit attention:
- Japan and virtually all European countries face population decline over the next 50 years absent immigration
- To maintain working-age populations at current levels, Europe would require 161 million immigrants between 2000-2050
- To maintain potential support ratios (workers to retirees), the numbers required are "extraordinarily large"—674 million for the EU alone
- Immigration alone cannot solve population ageing; comprehensive policy reassessment is necessary
The UN paper demonstrates replacement migration is a demographic reality structured into policy response, not a shadowy plot.
A very bad one.
Fertility rates across Europe remain well below the 2.1 replacement level. Italy's TFR sits at approximately 1.2 children per woman. Without dramatically increased fertility, these populations will shrink and age rapidly. Immigration is seen by useless politicians as the answer, in the age of the contraceptive pill and abortion – which correlate with the birth rate drop.
The question is not whether populations must be balanced—they must. The question is how.
Humane Demography Versus Ethnic Cleansing
Here we arrive at the central contradiction paralysing British political discussion. The "remigration" advocates are correct about one thing: current immigration levels are unsustainable and the demographic trajectory creates severe economic and social pressures.
The British state has catastrophically mismanaged immigration policy for decades, using mass migration as a plaster for terrible economic planning and refusal to address the structural problems of the welfare state and housing crisis.
A responsible government would implement:
- Immediate a moratorium on immigration until infrastructure, housing and public services are manageable;
- Phased, humane population reduction through natural attrition as net immigration falls below emigration and death rates;
- Generous voluntary return incentives for recent arrivals who struggle to integrate;
- Targeted retention of essential workers and those demonstrably integrated into British civic life;
- Massive investment in British workforce training to eliminate dependency on imported labour;
This would take 20-25 years, because the problem emerged over the same amount of time. It would reduce Britain's population gradually and sustainably. It would not require deportation of British citizens, forced family separation, or racial categorisation of the population.
What it would not do is satisfy ethnonationalists, because their actual goal is not sustainable demographics but the old fox of racial purity.
When Laws states he would deport Frank Bruno and Ian Wright—both working class British cultural icons who have contributed immensely to British society—he reveals the poison. When asked about the half-million Sikhs and Indians who fought for Britain in the World Wars, Laws dismisses their service: "They didn't fight for us. They fought for the empire."
This is ethnic cleansing dressed in the language of demographic policy.
The Zoomer Chewbacca Defence
Most young adherents of Generation Remigration likely have no idea they are parroting idiotic Nazi or Communist ideology. Their knowledge of 1930s Europe probably extends to GCSE-level textbook summaries of the Holocaust without understanding the intellectual framework that produced it.
In the 1998 "Chef Aid" episode of South Park parodying the O. J. Simpson murder trial, the defence lawyer posits a truly novel argument to the jury:
He asks the jury why a Wookiee like Chewbacca would want to live on Endor with the much smaller Ewoks when "it does not make sense". He argues that if Chewbacca living on Endor does not make sense—and if even mentioning Chewbacca in the case does not make sense—then the jury must acquit.
So it is with the "remigration" people and their "ethnat" doctrine. Did 6M really die in the Holocaust? Well, if that doesn't make sense, then neither do the 6M muslims and "pakis" with their stinky restaurants and rape gangs defended by the "civnats."
When asked about Adolf Hitler, Laws offers:
Some good policies. I wouldn't agree with everything. Hugely misunderstood... I'd say a lot of the stuff he advocated for in the German people would do wonders for our people right now.
Asked about the Nazi regime:
If I was in Germany in 1930s, I would have been straight behind them.
The gassing of Jews?
That's a conversation for another day... I very much doubt the credibility of all of that information. I'm not saying it's all lies, but I don't think everything's as we heard.
Holocaust denialism, even of the soft variety, inevitably accompanies Lebensraum politics. If you accept the ideological framework, you must either confront its historical endpoint or retreat into revisionism. It's idiotic when the decolonisation people do it, but entirely acceptable when the "ethnats" indulge themselves. One rule for them; another for us.
We're just asking questions...
... which have been asked and answered hundreds of times before, and you have never bothered to read about.
The alternative is accepting your ideas, which you think are "new," led directly to industrialised mass murder within living memory, which presents certain public relations challenges.
The State's Mismanagement Is To Blame
The British establishment created this monster. Decades of immigration policy imposed against the democratic will of the people, combined with total failure to integrate newcomers, resource communities properly or maintain housing stock, have produced genuine grievance.
Working-class British communities watched their neighbourhoods transform beyond recognition with no consultation, no additional resources and active contempt from governing elites who branded any objection as racism. When people in Rotherham, Rochdale and Newcastle discovered their daughters had been systematically abused by grooming gangs whilst authorities looked away for fear of appearing racist, rage became inevitable.
The liberal establishment's response—to dismiss all immigration concerns as bigotry—drove desperate people toward increasingly extreme solutions. When mainstream politics offers no remedy for genuine problems, radical politics fills the vacuum.
Labour's immigration policy under Blair amounted to social engineering through demographic change. The Conservatives' decade-plus of promising reduction whilst delivering record increases destroyed any remaining faith in conventional politics. The state created the conditions for ethnonationalist politics to flourish.
But none of this justifies adopting the politics of the Third Reich.
It Always Ends The Same Way
The historical precedent is unambiguous. Lebensraum ideology led to the deaths of tens of millions as a chain reaction. The pursuit of "racial living space" justified Operation Barbarossa. The Generalplan Ost called for the deliberate starvation of 30 million people. If certain peoples have no right to exist in these territories, the question becomes how to categorise them and remove them most efficiently.
You cannot peacefully deport millions of British citizens born on British soil because you object to their ethnic heritage. When "ethnats" say everyone non-British must go, including people whose families have lived here for three or four generations, they propose an impossibility without mass violence.
Tuffs asks Laws if he would separate a mother from her mixed-race child. Laws responds he would "encourage" both to leave. Pressed on whether he would force separation if they refused, Laws describes this as "a weird hypothetical" but eventually confirms: "Non-Europeans. I would."
This is precisely how ethnic cleansing begins—with the "weird hypotheticals" that reveal the steel beneath the rhetoric.
Europa The Last Battle: The Propaganda Garbage Behind Revisionism
To understand how British youth adopted German racial ideology without recognising its origins, one must examine the propaganda infrastructure feeding Generation Remigration. The most significant artifact is "Europa: The Last Battle"—a ten-part documentary series running over twelve hours, released in 2017 and circulating widely on BitChute, Telegram and other platforms hosting content banned from mainstream social media.
"Europa" presents itself as suppressed historical truth revealing what "they" don't want you to know about the Second World War. In reality, it is sophisticated Holocaust denial and rehabilitation of German expansionism wrapped in slick production values and affecting earnest narration. The series argues the Allies were the actual aggressors, German territorial expansion was defensive and justified, the Holocaust was grossly exaggerated or fabricated, and that international Jewry orchestrated both world wars to destroy European civilisation.
The documentary's influence on young ethnonationalists cannot be overstated. It appears constantly in their discussions, recommendations and ideological development. One finds the pattern repeatedly: a young person concerned about immigration discovers "Europa" through algorithm-recommended content or online forums. The documentary provides a complete ideological framework explaining their grievances—mass immigration is deliberate ethnic replacement orchestrated by the same forces that destroyed Germany; demographic change threatens European peoples' existence; removal of non-Europeans is necessary self-defence, not aggression.
It's "ethnocide," you see.
"Europa" explicitly rehabilitates Lebensraum. The series presents German expansion eastward as justified reclamation of ancestral territory from Slavic peoples portrayed as Bolshevik pawns (Jewish, of course). It reframes deportation programmes and population removal as reasonable "security measures" rather than ethnic cleansing. It sanitises the Generalplan Ost as defensive strategy rather than genocidal blueprint.
The documentary employs a familiar technique: begin with factual grievances (Versailles harshness, Weimar hyperinflation, genuine threats from Soviet expansion), then gradually introduce revisionist interpretations, finally arriving at complete inversion of historical reality where German aggression becomes self-defence and genocide becomes Allied propaganda.
Young people with limited historical knowledge find "Europa" compelling because it addresses real frustrations—mass immigration, cultural change, political establishments ignoring popular will—whilst providing villains (global elites, international finance, particular ethnic groups) and heroes (those willing to defend European peoples' existence).
The fact this framework precisely mirrors 1930s propaganda goes unrecognised because GCSE-level history education focuses on Holocaust horror without examining the ideological machinery which produced it.
When British advocates state they "very much doubt the credibility" of information about the Holocaust, when they claim they would have "been straight behind" the German government in the 1930s, when they advocate total removal of non-Europeans regardless of citizenship or birthplace—they are not developing novel solutions to contemporary problems. They are regurgitating propaganda from "Europa" and similar content that has convinced them everything they learned about 20th-century history was lies.
The pipeline runs predictably: legitimate immigration concerns → algorithm-recommended "alternative" content → "Europa: The Last Battle" → Holocaust revisionism → acceptance of Lebensraum ideology → advocacy for remigration. Each step appears reasonable in isolation. Together they constitute radicalisation into racial nationalism indistinguishable from ideology that led to tens of millions of deaths.
The British educational system's failure proves catastrophic here. Students learn about Nazi atrocities without understanding the intellectual tradition that produced them—the social Darwinism, the racial science, the geopolitical theories about living space and territorial rights. They can recite facts about the Holocaust whilst remaining vulnerable to propaganda claiming it was exaggerated or fabricated, because they never learned to recognise the ideological patterns.
"Europa" and similar content exploit this ignorance systematically. They present Lebensraum ideology without using German terminology, allowing viewers to embrace racial nationalism whilst believing they discovered something new. The young British advocate who insists non-Europeans must be deported because "this is our land, not theirs," who claims demographic change constitutes "ethnocide," who invokes the 14 words about securing existence for white children—he genuinely believes he is responding to contemporary immigration crisis, not recycling garbage from Imperial Germany.
This is how racial nationalism repackages itself for new generations. The ideology remains constant; only the justifications change. Where 1930s Germans cited need for territorial expansion and racial purity, contemporary British advocates cite immigration crisis and cultural preservation. The proposed solution—remove populations of the wrong ethnicity to secure living space for "our people"—remains identical.
"Europa: The Last Battle" serves as ideological bridge allowing young people to adopt politics from 1930s Germany whilst believing themselves patriots defending their homeland. It is perhaps the most effective piece of extremist propaganda in the digital age precisely because it appears to explain genuine grievances through historical revision, making racial nationalism seem like rational response to contemporary problems rather than recycled ideology responsible for industrial-scale slaughter within living memory.
A Final Solution To State Duplicity
Britain faces a genuine demographic crisis requiring honest policy response:
- First, acknowledge the problem. Current immigration levels are unsustainable. The British state has no moral or practical obligation to accept unlimited immigration, and the fiction this enriches the country must end.
- Second, accept demographic reality. Britain's population must shrink gradually over the next generation to restore sustainable balance between people, housing, infrastructure and public services.
- Third, implement humane solutions. Zero net immigration achieved through natural attrition and generous voluntary return programmes. Retention of essential workers and genuinely integrated immigrants.
- Fourth, address root causes. Massive housebuilding programme. Reform of unsustainable welfare state. Investment in British workforce rather than importing cheap labour. Prosecution of grooming gang perpetrators and officials who enabled them. Enforcement of integration requirements for new arrivals.
- Fifth, remember history. When your political programme requires you to categorise British citizens by race and mark some for removal based on ethnicity, you are repeating one of the twentieth century's greatest evils. If your ideology sounds remarkably similar to what German geographers wrote in 1901 and Hitler implemented in 1941, perhaps reconsider your thinking.
The False Replacement Vs Ethnat Dilemma
Generation Remigration presents a false dichotomy: accept demographic "replacement" or embrace ethnic nationalism. This is idiocy.
The actual choice, if one were to frame it so, is between:
- Managed, humane population reduction over 20-25 years through conventional repatriation controls, or
- Violent ethnic expulsion requiring forced deportation of millions of British citizens.
The first is difficult but achievable. The second is national socialist ideology regardless of whether modern advocates recognise it.
Steve Laws would deport a British citizen whose grandparents fought in the Second World War because his skin is the wrong colour. Eva Vlaardingerboek calls for Europeans to "claim their countries back" from people born on European soil. The movement explicitly calls for remigration—the euphemism pioneered by Austrian Identitarians to make mass deportation sound respectable.
This is Lebensraum. The fact most advocates don't recognise it changes nothing.
The British state broke immigration policy so catastrophically it brought the country to the brink of civil conflict. That failure must be remedied. But not through politics that led to Treblinka.
We can reduce Britain's population humanely, sustainably and justly. Or we can repeat the twentieth century's darkest chapter whilst pretending we discovered something new.
