Europe is Burning. We are Next By Dr Naomi Wolf

       When Will Everyone Notice a Mercenary Army of Occupation?

Sometimes I bore myself: because what is so obvious to me, which I convey in messages I try to scream from various metaphorical rooftops, is often not obvious at all to many others; and then, history almost inevitably bears out my creepy, Cassandra-ish warnings.

I am bored by the heartbreaking impulse that I try to stifle, to say "I warned you" and "I told you so".

I am also saddened by the many times interviewers have praised my "prescience" — long after what was obviously about to happen has duly taken place.

No one wants to be right over and over about having predicted awful things, and I didn't opt for the role of wild-eyed Old Testament prophetess, hair continually aflame, roaming around the city walls screaming, "The end is near!"

But it is.

Since about 2022, I have been cautioning anyone who would listen, in every venue that would have me — and again I must credit Steve Bannon and his podcast WarRoom for having taken this seriously before anyone else would — that militias were being deployed into Europe. I also saw, during the Biden era, militias crossing North over our Southern border.

Maybe I am lucky in having reported in conflict areas around the world; and maybe I am lucky to have read a lot of history, just before the history books were censored or turned into right-on gibberish.

I have reported from formal war zones and from civil wars. I know what soldiers look like, and what combat looks like.

I have also reported from refugee camps. I know what genuine refugees look like.

For all of those reasons, I knew from the start that the narrative about "refugees" seeking "a better life" in Western Europe, Britain and the US (under the Biden administration), was hogwash.

How could everyone not see this right away?

Real refugees come with their families; as many others have noted, soldiers leave their families at home.

These hordes flooding in, via NGO, UN and Biden-era State Department sponsorship and these transnational entities' 360-degree management, as I reported in my 2024 essay What is a Culture? were and are overwhelmingly, military-age young men without families.

They hailed, and hail, disproportionately from notably violent, religiously extremist, tyrannical or failed states; thus they are sourced, bizarrely enough, unless the goal for the West is to import its own cultural and physical destruction, from countries that are not the traditional, constructive sources of immigration for Western nations. Someone is choosing the worst places on earth, from which to source new "Westerners".

I pointed out that many of these "refugees" arrived at the US Southern border from brutal, authoritarian Communist China — which transit involves CCP-level coordination to accomplish.

Afghanistan, another source of millions of recent "refugees" imported to the West, is a nation in which half of the population believes that it has the right to kidnap, beat, rape and hold hostage the other half of the population.

The numbers that total the arrival of Afghani "refugees" to the West, are staggering. A spigot is essentially draining a part of the population of Afghanistan and directing it Westward. About 300,000 Afghan "refugees" live now in the US; 515,000 in Germany, the largest concentration of such nationals in Europe. In Canada, 132,000 Afghanis have arrived; in the UK, 93,000; in France, 125,000; in Sweden, 68,000; and in Australia, 60,000. There are about 150,000 Afghanis in England and Wales.

So now there in total are about 928,000 Afghanis in the West.

The total population of Afghanistan is only 45,440,000. So Afghanistan has exported one in every 46 of its people to the West. Or: out of every 100 Afghanis, two plus are now living in the West.

And the proportions of Afghanis in the "host countries" is dramatic: almost one person in 300 in the US, for instance, is an Afghani "refugee". And I have called attention previously to the extraordinary fertility of Afghani people — a rate of childbirth that you can count on if your wife has no legal rights at all (that's not me talking, that's the UN) — and no access at all to a life outside of her subjugation to forced sex and forced reproduction:

I have spoken about the oddness that other recent main sources of "refugees" are the most violent of failed states: Somalia, for instance, has provided almost 260,000 "refugees" to the United States. Somalia's GDP was the second lowest in the world in 2020. It is typically ranked among the five lowest GDPs in the world. 7.7 million Somalis in Somalia, according to the UN, require humanitarian assistance. Somalia has seen a recent rise in violent extremism.

How do women do in Somalia? "Somalia ranks fourth lowest for gender equality globally, maternal and infant mortality rates are some of the highest in the world, and early marriage is prevalent. The Somalia Health and Demographic Survey (SHDS) shows that Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C) in women aged 15–49 is high, at 99.2%which has both short-term and long-term physiological, sexual and psychological repercussions. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (GBV) is one of the most prevalent human rights violations faced by people, particularly women, all around the globe."

So: Somalia is a hellhole by objective NGO standards, and one that year upon year can't manage to create a functional economy, or to stop mutilating almost all of its girls and women.

However, it does contribute something: humans. According to Macrotrends.com, Somalia has one of the fastest growing populations in the world.

Ask why we are importing millions of people to the West, from two of the most brutal and oppressive, but most fertile, nations on the planet.

When 50-72,000 "migrants" invaded North African Spanish town of Ceuta on July 31, 2026 — in a move that was clearly, to me, a test run for later rampages which have now, three months later, taken place — the legacy media insisted that these were spontaneous population movements driven by "social media rumors".

Again, I read these headlines and thought, How can anyone believe this nonsense?

Legacy media described the men storming the beaches and flooding into the town of Ceuta, abusing women and girls as they congregated, as "Moroccans."

It took one glance to see that many if not most of these rioting, fighting-age men were obviously not Moroccans. They were visibly sub-Saharan Africans.

A very few reporters actually did journalism - that increasingly archaic practice — and asked some of the invading men, where they were from. Mali, Chad and Sudan were some of the replies that reporters received.

The reporters' curiosity ended there, though these replies made it clear to anyone paying attention that someone with money and resources had coordinated the movement of hundreds if not thousands of fighting-age men from those nations.

Chad, Mali and Sudan are many thousands of miles' journey to Morocco, let alone into Ceuta. How can a reporter not ask a followup question about this transcontinental movement?

From N'Djamena, Chad to Ceuta, Spain is 1807 nautical miles, or 3,503 driving miles; that is to say, it is almost the distance across the entire United States. You have to cross five borders to travel overland from Chad to Ceuta. Indeed legally you have to cross the Mediterranean into Spain, then take a ferry from Spain to Ceuta, located on the coast of North Africa. See Google Maps' directions.

A one-way ticket from Chad to Ceuta costs $590-$1200 USD. Again — this is important — legally you have to go to Malaga and enter from the Spain side. The average monthly income in Chad is about $300 USD. So a plane ticket to Ceuta would cost a couple of months' income for the average Chad national. To drive from Chad to Ceuta requires at least four days, and you would need an advance Canet de Passage en Duane or else multiple temporary import permits; you will be crossing active conflict areas, long stretches of desert, and border closings requiring massive detours. You will definitely need a modified 4x4 vehicle.

Did tens of thousands of nationals from four days' journey away, just decide all at once illegally to storm from Morocco into Spanish territory?

Some conditions you can face in driving across Chad, according to Lastplaces.com:

I think you get where I am going with this.

No Chad nationals, Sudanese or Malian nationals simply felt like up and spending two or three months' pay for a plane ticket, or scampering via automobile over five borders four days' journey across desert conditions and conflict areas into Morocco, there spontaneously to swim a barrier and get themselves unlawfully into Ceuta.

This movement of military-age men required meticulous and massive funding and planning, and it demanded movements across five nations; so these men arrived from Chad, Mali and Sudan either in private planes or in private equipped vehicles, facilitated by paperwork provided by transnational, deeply-funded and well-connected third parties.

Duh, as they say.

Am I the only person to whom these thundering problems in "the narrative" are not crushingly obvious?

Now we get to the burning of Europe, and the fact that in my view the UK and America are next.

Obviously, military-age men are being transited with meta-national assistance from this collection of violent, tyrannical and failed states, to France; and from France onto military-type dinghies that you certainly can't get at a sporting goods store, to England. "Migrants" are also arriving in the Republic of Ireland.

There they are being housed all together, in what in Ireland are bizarrely called "plantations" and in hotels or — yes — hello! Hello! — in actual military barracks.

Irish military bases' accommodation for "migrants": Gormanston Camp in County Meath:

Soldiers are also arriving to Britain on boats.

About 46,000 people a year arrive in England in "small boats", or military type dinghies, loaded in Gravesend, France, according to Migrant Observatory. A total of 216,000 people have thus arrived and there is no sign of a slowdown in arrivals. Where are these people from?

Again, bizarrely, the vast majority of these "small boat" illegal arrivals to England, are from tyrannical or failed states. The failed or tyrannical states of Afghanistan and Somalia, that we have discussed already above, are joined by "migrants" from some of the worst places on earth.

Eritrea now has a starring role, exporting the vast majority of "small boat migrants" to England.

What is happening in Eritrea? Eritrea is a full-on authoritatian state, led by one strongman, Isaias Afewerki, according to Human Rights Watch.

"The Eritrean government maintained an iron grip on its population at home and abroad. It continued to repress the population's human rights, including freedom of opinion, religion, and expression, and forced some children and much of its adult population into indefinite military/national service. Abroad, Eritrean forces committed ongoing abuses in Ethiopia's Tigray region and the government further restricted its citizens' rights.

Eritrea has had no elections since independence in 1993, and the unelected president, Isaias Afewerki, in power since independence, has not implemented a plebiscite-approved 1997 constitution guaranteeing civil rights and limiting executive power. Since 2010, no legislature has met. No political party except the Isaias-controlled People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) has been allowed to exist.

Unlawful detentions and enforced disappearances, notably of perceived critics, government officials, journalists, and alleged draft evaders, is widespread. In August, the former minister of finance, detained incommunicado since 2018 after he published a book calling for democratic reforms, died in detention.

The government also severely restricted religious freedoms and unlawfully detained individuals of 'non-recognized faiths,' including children." Child marriage is rife in Eritrea. Sunni Islam is the religion of half of Eritrea — but Christians face repression.

Six days ago, rebel Eritrean troups tried to invade Ethiopia. Eritrean soldiers have subjected Ethiopian women and girls to sexual assaults and abuses.

That's who is coming to England in "small boats", by the tens of thousands.

Of course, the British government could end the French facilitation of these "small boats," in a heartbeat. Or simply use its coastal patrols to turn them away, as President Trump is doing in US waters. But that would violate what seem clearly to me to be deployment orders of an occupying army.

Duh.

Other star nations sourcing "migrants" to England via these boats, include Iran and Iraq. In Iran, since 2024, women can be fined, imprisoned or flogged for "indecent" dressing, including for showing a few inches of their hair; and veiling — the hijab — is legally compulsory. Of course, in Iran, there is no democracy, but rather a single Supreme Leader.

In Iraq, a 2025 Personal Status law gave clerics the deciding powers over domestic decisions regarding marriage, family life and divorce — as opposed to secular judges. Women in Iraq now fear losing further legal rights under this new law. Twenty-eight per cent of minor girls in Iraq are married. Polygamy is permitted with the consent of a judge. And if you are a divorced woman — forget it: "[U]nder the Ja'afari school, a divorced woman has no right to the marital home, spousal maintenance, or her dowry, and her children would continue living with her for only two years, regardless of their age, contingent on her not remarrying."

So — these are the men who are on the boats coming to England. And these are their worldviews.

Obviously, these men have had to fly or drive overland traversing many countries, to get to Gravesend France, from Eritrea and Ethiopia, from Iran and Iraq, from Afghanistan and Syria.

Obviously their transit is being assisted by more than individual initiative.

So now — such men from such countries are placed by NGOs and governments in common barracks, like military units; or, as in France, they are assembled in certain towns and neighborhoods.

Images of British "newcomers", arriving from boats, and being transported to or living in "migrant hotels".

Do you see an army yet?

The "migrants" are positioned around Europe and England and Ireland strategically; like no genuine refugees in the past, they arrive in the "host countries" with no baggage; they know that their needs will be met on arrival. They wear uniformly clean clothing; they are given new shoes, phones, winter coats. Their housing costs are covered, as is their food. The natives look on in baffled astonishment. The natives are told that it is "racist" to object.

Labour governments in the UK arrange migrant hotels' contracts for them. They are housed together for years at the expense of the host nation — — as no group of refugees has been in the history of immigration. (Certainly my grandparents fended for themselves, as did yours.)

These "migrants", in contrast, are positioned in units — in divisions - strategically, throughout Western Europe and Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

Why must "the countryside be decolonized" in England and Wales? Why are "migrants" being repositioned in such sites as rural Piddington, UK?

Because an army needs geographically to be situated to cover and subjugate the entire occupied nation.

So now — duh — the signal has gone out, as I have warned since 2022, it would.

So now — duh — France is burning. Of course it would.

And if the next signal is for a war that doesn't end until the native population is in legal chains — well, what then?

What will the disarmed men of Europe and England, of Canada and Australia, even do?

The narrative from legacy media is that these European crises are "student riots". Once again almost no one is actually reporting to see who these men are. Legacy media show European protesters and French flags; on X and in citizen journalism, it is crowds of migrants, carrying Palestinian flags.

Right wing leaders in Europe highlight the fact that immigrants are disproportionately ransacking the cities.

The police have been told to stand down, say citizens in French cities. You can see for yourself, blazes with no firefighters visible or present.

Why would all this be?

Because the army is doing what the army was brought in to do.

Because these aren't random angry "French people". These aren't random angry immigrants, even.

These are battalions.

Icons of French culture are being targeted. Of course they are.

Sprinkler systems in church after church, in majestic structure after majestic structure, somehow don't work. Twenty-first century firefighting somehow never arrives in time. Steeples collapse in picturesque flames and national heritage treasures are reduced to rubble, just as buildings used to burn to the ground in the 19th century, before sprinkler systems and modern firefighting methods were invented.

Which means high-level collusion.

Paris goes, then Lyon, then Amsterdam, then Brussels.

Why would police, firefighters, stand down? Why would cities erupt all at once?

Because that is how armies operate. They get orders.

To my absolute amazement, Europeans are believing "the narrative" — that these are spontaneous riots led by disgruntled students.

I don't know when their denial will fall apart. These are soldiers in civilian clothing.

One problem with European denial is that Europeans (and North Americans) think that there is a clear divide between a soldier and a civilian; or between a law-abiding citizen and a criminal, or between a group of law-abiding citizens, and a criminal gang.

But in Eritrea, in Sudan, in Somalia — as in Sierra Leone, where I first witnessed this —

That is not the case.

Gangs in sub-Saharan Africa are run by local strongmen; and they are often no different from militias.

These armed groups of young men, in turn, can bleed into armies. Law-abiding youths and young men in sub-Saharan Africa regularly get swept up into forced gang or militia activity, and they must go along with committing that group violence, just in order to survive. Villages and tribes make war on other villages and tribes. Groups of young men form to commit acts of violence together, or to fight other gangs, or to loot and rampage; and then they disperse back into the civilian crowds.

Just as these groups are doing, and as we are seeing, reflected in the eyes of stupefied, disbelieving Europe.

In sub-Saharan Africa, this kind of activity is common; and being willing and able to commit group violence, can be what can make the difference between a young man's survival and his death.

That is not a racist observation. NGOs have studied gang or militia violence in these regions, for decades. These gangs are an important obstacle to development and the economic advancement of these countries. Somalia? Ranks near the top of the list of most developed networks of gang violence. (Now do you get it?) Chad is facing escalating gang violence: "Militia-like movements." Mali faces "severe" militia and mercenary violence. South Sudan is disrupted by mass arrests in an anti-gang violence crackdown.

Almost every impoverished sub-Saharan African nation has a horrific problem with mercenaries, informal militias and gang violence (which, again, is a set of distinctions that are often meaningless in those regions). Young men assemble and disperse under the leadership of gang members, to commit together, or to defend against other groups', rioting, looting, massacres, mass rapes; and the kidnapping of children and young women of other tribes, gangs or villages.

This is exactly who we in the West are importing, and this is exactly how some of them work.

Do we know if NGOs are actually intentionally importing gangs, mercenaries, militias?

These spontaneously violent groups are certainly acting like coordinated gangs, militias, mercenaries.

I reposted a social media comment that explained that most people — especially Western people - misunderstand the word "culture".

Culture, wrote the commentator, is not "clothes and curry". It is worldview, ideology.

Transnational entities have flooded Europe and North America with young men from nations whose core worldviews and ideologies are violent, tyrannical, brutally subjugating of women and homosexuals, and rape-oriented.

These are nations that endure gang, mercenary or militia activity as a painful part of everyday life.

These young men are being positioned strategically as the new soldiers of a new Europe.

They are burning Europe — and next, they will burn Britain — exactly as their sponsors and funders have instructed them to do.

It is the grace of God and the presence of the Trump administration, that has so far prevented the burning, looting and rape of the United States.

These soldiers or militias or gangs in Europe, have their orders.

It is not racist, but rather "culturist," fully to understand this.

Insisting that this group of young men is not an occupying army, and insisting too that these are men who share our Western worldview, is naive and self-destructive. I would say — and I have said before — indeed, that this position, in its blindness about other places in the world and in its Eurocentric assumptions, is actually racist.

And when the next memo arrives and the next set of battalions is activated to do its worst — and it will, and it will —

Oh French, Belgian, Dutch, British man —

Oh Canadian man, Australian man —

What will you possibly have left in your hands?

What can you possibly do

To protect your home, your women and your children —

And your native lands?

https://naomiwolf.substack.com/p/europe-is-burning-we-are-next