To my knowledge, the word Remigration officially means to remove asylum seekers whose application for asylum has been rejected by a court of law. But in many cases, such asylum seekers can easily stay in the countries they arrived in, illegally. Their deportation then becomes a voluntary act, and the authorities tend to tolerate such illegal immigrants occupying housing or even doing paid work.

But if we don’t expel people whom we have decided cannot be in our countries, then what is the value of our laws? If we cannot decide who enters our country to begin with, because no background checks are performed, and no assessment of skills and competencies is done, then we are blinding ourselves. It is ludicrous to think that the dwindling economies of the West can somehow accommodate a meaningful future, jobs, and housing for the surplus births of Africa, India, and the Islamic world. We cannot.

Therefore, we should be selective about who we let into the country. Even Europeans experienced exclusion from the USA. Of the 12 million immigrants who passed through Ellis Island between 1896 and 1954, about a quarter of a million were denied entry, sometimes on the basis of failing an IQ test. Indeed, in some cases, people with mental deficits could be grounds for deportation on the next boat back to Europe. Although just about 2% of these European immigrants were sent back, that, today, would invariably reap long and howling cries of racism if the immigrants had been Indians or Muslims or Africans.

It also points to a grave overreaction on the part of society. If we cannot even follow our own laws and remove people whom the courts have already decided have no right to live among us—such as people who lied about their identity on their asylum applications, or people who have committed crimes since arriving, or people who simply aren’t real refugees but rather regular labor migrants for whom there is no work and no housing—then we are collectively impotent. We have set up rules but we don’t seem to care about their enforcement.

When the odd migrant is, on occasion, set to be removed from a European country, it is usually paired with a highly scripted public outrage machinery fueled by the mainstream media, especially when deportations involve children.

In my country of the Netherlands, we had the case of an African youngster named Mauro who arrived in the year 2002. As a 9-year-old child, his parents in Angola had put the boy on a plane to the Netherlands, by himself, to come and live with his half-sister, illegally. At 10 years old, he reported himself to the police and was later placed in foster care. To prevent his deportation, his foster parents tried to adopt him, but because both of his parents were still alive and well in Africa, adoption was legally impossible. Mauro’s asylum application was then denied and the child was scheduled to be deported back to live with his family in Angola. In response, asylum lawyers, part of an asylum industry, managed to get Mauro a student visa, allowing him to stay in the country until age 18.

Approaching his 18th birthday, however, meant the deportation order was still in force and Mauro, finally, had to return to his parents in Africa. But of course, he never returned. The mainstream media picked up on the case and spread images of a tearful black boy to all outlets, accusing our White society of being racist. Our parliamentarians in The Hague ultimately decided the boy was now too rooted to be forced to leave the country and was allowed to stay indefinitely.

This apparent rootedness is a very interesting argument, for it somehow doesn’t apply to Dutch natives being uprooted by diversity and multiculturalism, whereas immigrants who have lived among us for several years are instantly rooted enough to never be returned to their home countries, despite having been born and raised there. I argue that no one can claim to be rooted in a diverse society. Rootedness implies relative homogeneity as it implies ancestral bonds to the land one lives on.

When deportations are enforced, and deportees are boarded on their return flights under police escort, this can still lead to the absurd situation, such as in Sweden in 2018, when a White female activist named Elin Ersson temporarily prevented a 51-year-old Afghan man’s deportation. She had boarded the same flight as the deportee and refused to sit down while live-streaming her protest on Facebook. The man she was trying to protect from deportation had been convicted and jailed for 6 months for abusing his wife and two children, among other things by whipping his children with a USB cable.

When the media systematically depict immigrants, asylum seekers, guest workers, or refugees as victims deserving our justice, they are misinforming the public. In my country, you only have to arrive at our borders and claim to be a refugee or an asylum seeker. No one checks to see whether you might be lying about your status. You are then given a right to live in an asylum center and, legally, within six weeks, you shall receive a subsidized housing unit including welfare benefits.

Our asylum centers in the Netherlands are constantly overflowing due to the obvious shortage of housing. In the run-up to his election, our present Prime Minister even promised to build 10 new cities in our already crowded-out country, but has since been forced to admit it is not going to happen in the foreseeable future. Native Dutch people, nevertheless, spend their twenties living with their parents, because housing isn’t merely unaffordable, it isn’t even available. As a result, working couples aren’t able to start having families, while, at the same time, families with foreign-born children are given priority access to subsidized housing, thus forcing natives to save up to buy a house that they cannot afford.

It turns out that many of our journalists and even our politicians have no knowledge of the facts surrounding the immigration debates. They don’t read the reports. They don’t study the crime statistics. I had a glance at the statistics on suspects and victims in the Netherlands and found out that for 2025, 65% of all suspects of all crimes were either first- or second-generation immigrants. These numbers have always been denied by our media and our governing authorities; however, the numbers have been known by our official national statistics office, CBS, for over 50 years.

Recently, in Belgium, the activist Dries van Langenhoven was convicted of having cited precisely such statistics. Though his claims were factually true, as admitted by the judge, he was convicted of stirring up anti-migrant sentiments among his audience. No one, of course, can ever be convicted of stirring up anti-White or anti-native sentiments, because European governments themselves are the greatest anti-White radical organizations on the planet.

Officials are blindly following orders, but they refuse to take any responsibility when things go wrong. For that is the benefit of modern democracy. When hundreds of parliamentarians vote on immigration, no one has to feel responsible for the practical outcome of their vote. There is no Great Leader, no King, no dictator to blame, just process. In China we blame Xi, in Russia we blame Putin, and we can even blame Trump in the USA, but who in Europe do we blame for the genocidal war crime that is mass replacement immigration from all over the world?

We can’t even vote to oust Commissar Ursula von der Leyen, because she was never elected to begin with. Recently, the European Union also launched an investigation into a certain right-wing faction of the European Parliament—the ESN, the Europe of Sovereign Nations—to have it banned on the grounds that the faction doesn’t support EU values. Then how can there be a democracy if we cannot even disagree with this apparent set of values no one ever voted for? Commissar Von der Leyen said in 2022 at Ben-Gurion University in Israel that “Europe is the values of the Talmud”. I’d say Europe is a totalitarian system that doesn’t allow dissent, so I hope she’s wrong about the Talmud.

AIVD & Narratives

Even though several European countries have, in fact, started openly remigrating more and more unwanted immigrants from their countries, in my country of the Netherlands, our secret services recently declared that mentioning the very word ‘remigration’ is somehow an act of normalizing the far-right. In that report, published earlier this year by our General Intelligence and Security Service, the AIVD, the service equates calls for remigration with calls for ethnic cleansing. They think that the goal of remigration was not to fix a broken immigration system that has been broken for almost 50 years, but to exterminate any and all minorities presently living in Europe who don’t fit the national mold.

What remigration really is about, of course, is the question of what to do when half of certain migrant groups remain unemployed for over a decade while siphoning wealth out of state coffers that was meant for natives’ pensions and healthcare? Or let me give you a reason why it’s so important to screen migrants at the border: In Germany, only about 34% of migrants arriving at the border are able to read the Latin script, since they either cannot read or are trained in the Arabic or other exotic scripts. 41% of adult migrants had left school without a secondary diploma, and 13% had no school education at all.

Yet, these are the people Germany says they need to bring in in order to save the economy from collapsing, and to start paying taxes for the pensions of the elderly?

So why on Earth would a domestic secret service want to stop normal and sensible numbers of legal remigration by equating the whole idea to calls for ethnic cleansing? We aren’t killing people when we’re sending them back. We’re literally sending them back to a more meaningful life that our nations cannot provide for them. You get the impression that many of Europe’s national secret services have, in fact, been captured by foreign adversaries, and that they are, in fact, directing the demographic destruction of Europe.

I say this because I can’t see any logic in the statements of the AIVD. They are either deliberately ignoring the reality of our failing immigration system, or they are too incompetent to figure it out after decades of trouble. This, to me, points to a deliberateness behind what is going on. One has the impression that Europe is a designated dumping ground for the world’s unwanted demographics.

And those who worry so much about ethnic cleansing should, perhaps, go for a brief walk through any diversely enriched city center of any EU capital such as Brussels, Paris, Berlin, London or Amsterdam, and try counting the number of indigenous European people you see there. On a good day, it’s maybe 40%. Replacement immigration isn’t some vague threat that will never happen. No, our urban populations have already been replaced. Amsterdam has about 47% native inhabitants, and London has about a 37% native White British population. The European capital of Brussels has fewer than 20% native Belgian people under age 20.

This isn’t the first time such a thing has happened. The Greek historian Polybius wrote about a time over 2,000 years ago when Greece was suffering from “a decay of population, owing to which the cities were denuded of inhabitants, and a failure of productiveness resulted…”. Polybius noted that people tended to reduce their family sizes “for the sake of leaving them well off or bringing them up in extravagant luxury.” Indeed, Europeans, too, are keeping their own family sizes small to keep their children relatively well-off, but at the same time, they are now also mass-migrating in the larger families of African, Middle Eastern and Indian mothers.

This doesn’t make any sense. Why, for example, were Dutch women of the 1990s sold the contraceptive pill to reduce their birth rates, while mass immigration subsequently skyrocketed? There’s that deliberateness again. Why are we telling native Dutch women that two children is enough, one is better, and three is a sin? One large African family arriving in the Netherlands recently received three subsidized homes in a row in order to accommodate their 14 children. Is this not an act of ethnic cleansing? Or don’t native European people have any rights?

If we want to protect ourselves from being demographically erased, then why don’t we call on the United Nations’ Indigenous Rights Act, which “establishes … minimum standards for the survival, dignity, and well-being of Indigenous peoples worldwide”? Ha! Because we can’t. Neither the European Union nor the United Nations recognize White people as indigenous to Europe. Apparently, we White people have no origins and no past. Both these institutions claim, namely, that only the people of Lapland are indigenous to Europe, but no one else is.

This is incredibly strange, since the Laplandish people are predominantly White European people who have some Siberian and East Asian admixture of up to 12-30 percent. However, their White ancestors are mostly descendants of the Western-European and Southwestern-European hunter-gatherers. These Western hunter-gatherers, as they are officially called, are also my own ancestors, but I, because I am Dutch, am not considered indigenous to Europe, even though the Laplanders, who also descend from the same ancestors, are.

The Asiatic ancestors of these Laplanders arrived only during the Bronze Age or early Iron Age, which means they arrived after my White ancestors had already populated Europe. So why am I not considered indigenous? Why doesn’t the European Union recognize and defend our rights to live on these indigenous lands? The answer should be obvious: Because the EU is not a defensive union. The European Union is here to help demographically replace us but to manage the process to prevent violent backlash. The European Union is an adversary of native White Europeans.

Kalergi & Geopolitics

By denying White Europeans indigenous status, there can be no legal battle over Europe’s intended demographic replacement.

Many of you listening to me today will already be familiar with the concept of the Kalergi Plan, and I will simply refer you to the book Practical Idealism by Richard von Coudenhove-Kalergi in which the plan is explained. The author, Von Coudenhove-Kalergi, was a half-Asiatic, half-Austrian nobleman who became the founding father of the precursor to the European Union, called the Pan-European Union. Former German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for example, was once awarded the European Coudenhove-Kalergi Prize for her contribution, in my view, to the destruction of native Europeans.

Published in 1925, Kalergi’s book became a best-seller among Europe’s ruling elites who then took up the task of demographically transforming Europe.

But why? This is a question many people always ask me: Why do our own ruling classes desire to demographically transform or even erase us with immigration from all over the world? Is it just for profit, to make money off of imported consumers? Is it because they hate White people?

The real reason may surprise you and it has something to do with the politics of empire, and with the West’s geopolitical outlook. We have to keep in mind that, for ages, the Russian Empire threatened to invade, capture, and control Europe, and our ruling European elites have never really figured out how to deal with these threats, especially not since Napoleon’s Grande Armée starved to death before Moscow, and Hitler’s armies froze to death before Stalingrad.

But I can give you the reason now as to why our elites embraced the idea of replacement immigration and of racial erasure: Europe’s ruling classes want to turn Europe into a mixed-race zone, because, that way, they hope to include India, the entire Middle East including Iran, and North and Central Africa into the European sphere of influence. By making Europe diverse, they hope to win the loyalty of several billions of non-Europeans, so that they will help Europe win wars against Russia and against China.

That doesn’t mean I agree with this plan and there are obvious other avenues that we could have pursued.

I will quote Kalergi on this, who said, “The races and classes of today will gradually disappear. … The Eurasian-Negroid race of the future, similar in its appearance to the Ancient Egyptians, will replace the diversity of peoples with a diversity of individuals.” First of all, that statement is factually incorrect, since the Ancient Egyptians did not have sub-Saharan Negroid admixture and would not have looked like a mixed Eurasian-Negroid race at all. They looked like heavily tanned or red-skinned Egyptians just as their murals show. But secondly, there is a geopolitical implication, namely that only Europeans should be mixed with all the races, whereas the rest of the world can still remain largely unmixed.

To me, it sounds as though the European elites have long given up on trying to protect their indigenous peoples, perhaps because they feel it is too expensive to do so, or that such protection might come with a loss of influence on the global stage. But let me be firm in my statement that I am not a globalist, and I am not interested in diluting our strengths and peoples merely to win the world’s approval. If this is where it stands, we should prepare to seek conflict.

They say borders are fascist, but actually, borders are religious. If you would visit a small traditional town anywhere in Europe around the time of Easter or Pentecost, you might witness religious processions through the countryside along the borders of the parish. These kinds of processions also occurred before Europe became Christian. They were meant to mark the difference between the inhabited world of the towns and villages, and the outside world of wild nature.

Marking the borders of one’s dwelling is a religious act meant to keep wild spirits out and safe people in. Doing away with borders is a literal act of Satanism meant to welcome evil in.

But there is a problem. The strategy of multiculturalism and diversity as a geopolitical weapon against Russia and China has already backfired. In the case of Russia, we see Putin is also increasingly welcoming Africans and Asians. Putin has also fully embraced his Islamic fellow citizens. It turns out that Putin is just as much a globalist as the EU leaders, and Russia is already successfully converting some African nations into supporters of Russia with the help of TikTok propaganda.

Diversity then becomes a self-defeating struggle. We cannot remigrate or reject immigrants coming to Europe because if word starts to spread that Europe is no longer handing out free houses, immigrants might then flee to Russia instead.

Questions and Counteraction

Indeed, the first black African and East Asian soldiers have already been spotted fighting for Russia in the war against White Ukrainians. And on the other side, dead White Ukrainians are already being aggressively replaced with men from Africa and India.

Are we really sure, then, that European, American, and Russian elites, under the unity of the Trilateral Commission, aren’t secretly working together to destroy all European people worldwide? Is the war in Ukraine perhaps meant to kill as many White men on both sides, so that the men lost can be replaced, in order to realize the Kalergi Plan of creating a Eurasian-Negroidal race? Is this why the small nation of Moldova with barely 2.7 million inhabitants is now receiving 300,000 Indian migrants? Or is it why Poland now has a birth rate of barely 1 child per White woman, but they’ll receive more non-European immigrants than children born each year? At this rate, White Poles will disappear even before White Germans do.

Is this also the reason that the United Kingdom refused to do a national inquiry into the Pakistani Muslim rape gangs, why British judges keep handing ridiculously lenient sentencing to rapists, or why black Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy recently suggested we should judge people up to age 25 as though they were underage, implying that males with the highest levels of testosterone may be free to enjoy rape, knowing that there are no consequences, and police officers will, in the worst case, offer them a cookie to go with their tea?

You all know the answers to these questions. We, indigenous Europeans, are the ones being genocided with migration, miscegenation, and rape while we are being called racist by the same people who want to see us dead and gone.

Our lack of defensive measures stems from our lack of spiritual resolve. We have become disenchanted people; we have lost our magic. If we had to blame anything, we should blame the course of Western philosophical thinking that diverted its course toward materialism a long time ago. We embraced the science of molecules and atoms, of materials and efficient logistics, of products and shipping, of laborers and migration. We began preaching the gospel of wealth and abundance, but all of it, we now know, was paid for with our survival.

Luckily, we are also finding out that diversity isn’t a strength. We are close to a breakthrough in the public discourse. Since our societies so heavily rely on economic growth and profits for the billionaire class, it won’t be long before even our most radical elites will have to admit that competence matters.

It was the American consulting firm McKinsey that once argued for making corporate boardrooms more diverse, citing all sorts of financial gains, but all of their bubbles have now burst. The reality is that having diverse executives only leads to lower overall competency, poorer communication and evaporating trust. Corporations that embraced diverse executives are the ones losing the most money today.

Researchers in many European nations have also come to the conclusion that only Japanese and American immigrants coming to Europe seem to have a net positive effect on the country’s wealth, whereas East African and sub-Saharan immigrants tend to pose a lifetime cost of up to a million euros per arrival. This is because low-cognitive, unskilled and often illiterate immigrants tend to dominate the markets for subsidized housing, welfare benefits, and medical care. And, most importantly, they don’t work. We have created lineages of people that solely continue to exist because of welfare.

Moreover, the White women of Europe seem to be quite uninterested in asylum seekers and refugees, according to a German study. It might be that White women physically outclass the immigrant male. An average woman from Croatia, for example, is taller than the average male from India, and the average White Dutch woman is about as tall as the average black African man.

This is the reality our political system doesn’t want you to know about. There will never be a Eurasian-Negroidal mixed race replacing all European ethnicities. Although there is race-mixing, it’s not happening at scale, despite Netflix fictions pretending otherwise, and by far not enough to erase White people from existence. Even Brazil still has a significant number of unmixed White people and they are that nation’s financial upper class.

That is why I suspect our governments are going to create more Ukraine Wars to try to kill White men off in the trenches, and why I think diverse police-forces-turned-rape-squads may eventually join in. If the race-mixing is not happening quickly enough, the Kalergi Plan cannot be completed. And so, we must prepare for the government attack on our peoples, for in their deranged, mouth-foaming madness, our ruling elites, who are unable to figure out what should be done, may simply try getting rid of us by having us all killed.

Finale

The real war isn’t the one happening in Ukraine. The real war is the war of the European people and their descendants around the world against the Trilateral elites. If we let them, they will forcibly fuse Europe with Islam and with Africa, erasing Christianity and European people in the process.

But there is another way, a way I have been promoting for many years: Namely, we can fight back. Fighting back will cost us. If we find in our hearts a willingness to let go of economic materialism in favor of a new spiritualism that might grow into an overwhelming force, then we can regroup as reinvigorated men and revived women. For we have a choice, now, here, to either sacrifice ourselves to save our economies, or to sacrifice our economies and save ourselves.

If I may paraphrase,

“As the [materialist] worldview loses its authority, the more menacingly will the blond beast be heard prowling about in its underground prison, ready at any moment to [strike] with devastating consequences.” [Carl Jung]

It’s time to stop being afraid of our criminal authorities, to stop being afraid of rising up, and to know that our victory over the world may be recorded as a string of losses, but that the record will say that we never went under for long, and we never went down for good, but that we always got up again, and we stood as one in defiance of tyranny, with the determination of a man who has known pain but who knows not to surrender.

We weren’t put on this earth to give up now. We are here to give birth to a new reality, a new world. When we are ready, we are going to prosecute and jail every liberal journalist, politician, and educator for their despicable crimes against humanity.

The tables are turning. The far-left and their henchmen will see prison.

Woe unto the vanquished!

This process is called ODEH (Organ Donation after Euthanasia at Home) and works as follows. It does NOT mean you are euthanized at home:

• you are premedicated and sedated at home, i.e., you are NOT killed

• you are transported (alive but incapacitated) to the hospital

• your euthanasia is now “completed” by invoking circulatory death

• circulatory death means: they stop your heart for 5 minutes

• you are declared legally dead i.e. “brain dead” because blood is no longer flowing to your brain

• your still healthy and living organs and tissue are now removed: liver, kidneys, lungs, heart, pancreas and facial tissue

• now you die definitively because you no longer have organs

According to Grok, “As of the end of 2021, 286 ODE [organ donation after euthanasia] procedures had been performed across the four countries, yielding 1 131 organs transplanted to 837 recipients.” Most cases took place in Canada.

This isn’t made up “disinformation” or “misinformation”. It is documented by scientific reports on the practice:

• Organ donation after euthanasia starting with anesthesia at home is legal in The Netherlands, Belgium, Canada and Spain

• Organ Donation After Medical Aid in Dying: An Ethical Overview

• Organ Donation After Euthanasia: A Dutch Practical Manual

• Organ donation after euthanasia in a patient living with dementia: a landmark case report

• Organ Donation After Euthanasia in Patients Suffering From Psychiatric Disorders: 10-Years of Preliminary Experiences in the Netherlands

White American urban liberals may say they’re not racist because they voted for Barack Obama. However, had Obama spoken a thick ebonic dialect, raciolinguistics predicts that they would not have voted for Obama. Nor would urban liberals ever vote for a White Democratic candidate with a thick Southern accent. It turns out that race and language develop together in humans to cue who’s friend or foe.

The Doll Test and Its Flaws

We all know the infamous “race experiment”, the doll test, that allegedly proved that White kids are racist by age 3. The suggestion was that this is White parents’ fault, as though they had taught their children institutionalized racism. Alas, it ain’t so.

In that doll test, children are shown images of various other children of different races and asked who they would like to play with, or who they like the most. Invariably, White children will choose images of other White children.

The first issue with the experiment—apart from criminalizing toddlers for a crime they didn’t commit—is that black children also prefer other black children to play with. It’s not just White kids. It’s everyone preferring their own.

The second, more fundamental issue with the experiment is that children will modulate their choice if they can hear the other children’s voices.

If American White children discover that another White playmate is speaking Polish rather than American English, they will prefer to play with a black kid who speaks fluent American English.

I.e., the discovery was made that language supersedes race. People of all races prefer hanging out with their own kind, however, all people will also prefer people who can speak their dialect well to people who don’t.

And so, when White Southerners in the US started moving North, they were discriminated against by White Northerners. Southern Whites were called “dumb”, “criminal”, or “untrustworthy”. Northerners would rather employ black people who could speak the Northern tongue. And so, we discover that a lot of race posturing has to do with other in-group cues: language includes body language and to a strong degree also dining and clothing habits.

Do I Sound Like My Race?

This insight has been a revelation to me, and you can read a lot more about it in the 2019 book Looking like a Language, Sounding like a Race: Raciolinguistic Ideologies and the Learning of Latinidad by Jonathan Rosa. In that book, the author discusses the situation in Latin America, but the insights apply to all over the world.

I was born in the Netherlands to Dutch parents, but in the early days of my life my mother spoke a thick small-town dialect of Dutch, which was in some ways grammatically broken compared to the official “ABN” or “General Polite Dutch”. At one day old, I was moved to Antwerp, Belgium, where my father had found a job. My parents were renting an apartment there.

I went to my first school in Belgium, as a 2-year-old preschooler, where I picked up the local Flemish-Dutch accent and dialect. At age 3, my parents return to the Netherlands. When I returned to kindergarten at age 4, I was considered an outsider due to my still lingering Flemish accent.

Not only didn’t I feel welcome, I wasn’t welcomed. Though initially accepted based on my blond looks, shame was thrusted upon me as soon as I opened my mouth and kids laughed. I was an outsider because of my odd Flemish accent mixed with mom’s broken dialect. But of course, I didn’t know that at the time, and I wouldn’t figure it out until now, at age 45.

Yes, I soon adopted and began speaking the local dialect—Brabantian Dutch, which is, once more, somewhat different from “ABN” or polite standardized Dutch.

By age 5, I had now been exposed to my father’s fairly neutral Dutch accent, my mother’s thick rural dialect, to Flemish Dutch, to Brabantian Dutch (which has its own thick working-class dialect variant), and “ABN”, which I consumed mostly through television and radio. Technically speaking, the ABN or standard Dutch was the Holland dialect of the TV elite.

Naming the ABN dialect a standard, of course, was power-posturing: the financial elite of The Hague and Amsterdam made their dialect the standard. This is all the more interesting since, historically, before the age of European colonialism, Brabant used to be the center of Dutch power. Indeed, our Brabantian Dutch accents was once “the standard”, but gave later way to the dialect of the seafaring merchants of the West, whose accents became very much influenced by the English, the most important trade partner.

Small-Town Dialects

In my home country, with a little exposure to people from across the lands, people can quickly learn to pinpoint where other Dutch people were born. There’s the Zeeuws or Zeeland dialect, there’s the dialect of the province of Limburg and of Brabant (my Brabantian Dutch), the Frisian of Friesland, and the Nether-Saxon of the Eastern provinces, and so on, and so forth.

There’s also the royal Dutch dialect, and the thick political “Hague” dialect spoken by ambassadors and CEOs. And there’s the unique accents of inner-city Amsterdam and Rotterdam as spoken by their urban lower-classes. Still, the urban lower-class dialects hold greater prestige than thick rural dialects.

I haven’t even told you about the many other versions of Dutch dialects spoken by immigrants. A Moroccan immigrant ending up in Friesland, ends up speaking a Moroccan-ish Frisian, but there’s also a Moroccan-ish Rotterdamese. Or a Hungarian-ish Limburgian, and a German-ish Brabantian. And then there are all the thousands of local variations that change from town to town.

Yes, the small country of the Netherlands is an e-nor-mous-ly diverse linguistic hotchpotch, and, in fact, I would argue that most of Germanic (North-West) Europe is like this. The Germanics par excellence are a decentralized race that prefers moving in their small circles of equals, without too much need for supranational governing structures imposed upon them. Of course, the Roman and Slavic territories each have their own linguistic diversities.

The Linguistic Hierarchy, a Caste System

You can imagine how, in a small country of the Netherlands, speaking one dialect among others quickly leads to situations of exclusion and diminishment. As a Brabantian Dutch speaker, in adulthood, I was not going to be treated an equal by the people of Holland, but I could afford myself to look down upon Frisian speakers and thick rural speakers. However, as a lone Brabantian among Frisians, I would find myself excluded again.

There was, and still is, a massive hierarchical ordering based on the dialects we speak in the Netherlands, with the royal accent ranking up top, followed by the “lackey tongues” of the political elite, then the “fortunate rich” TV dialects just below it, and the “Amsterdam rich kids” accents in fourth place. Rural dialects tend to rank bottom.

You have to understand, above all, that many of these dialects are so different from one another, that we would need subtitling to understand each other. This is the reason that the national government began pushing for standardized Dutch in education, so that the people of the provinces had a way of communicating with one another.

Americans may find this difficult to grasp, since your nation started out as being an English-speaking nation. Other speakers were forced to adopt English, although there are still pockets of German and Swedish, and so on, that survive here an there. In most European countries, the standard national language had to be imposed upon the population, such as “High German” or “polite Dutch”.

Indeed, a person born in Amsterdam may not be able to understand the Zeeland, Limburgian, Frisian, or Flemish dialects. And likewise, people from those provinces will, initially, not be able to understand the standard polite Dutch spoken by our TV elite!

Personally, as a native Dutchman, I have been the victim of dialect-based discrimination much more than a polite-speaking African has been based on his race. And yet, media and government consistently pretend that dark people are victims of some institutionalized racism, while non-standard speaking White people are the more frequent victims of institutionalized linguistic discrimination.

Personal Backstory

As an individual, I can (and have) acquired the ability to move between dialects, and I could do a pretty fine impression of a polite Holland-Dutch dialect, or even an Moroccan-Amsterdamese accent thrown in for fun.

In fact, I eventually acquired the ability to speak English really well (by Dutch standards) as a form of revenge, for when I speak English nowadays, my fairly neutral accent sounds a lot better than the thick Dutch-English or (Dinglish) of my compatriots. I speak English better than our Dutch Prime Ministers, CEOs, and ambassadors.

This means a lot to me. English being the language of power, I have outclassed the polite-speaking urbanite Dutchmen who would have otherwise put me down for speaking my Brabantian Dutch dialect.

It matters to me because I am undeniably intelligent and my thoughts deserve to be heard, but speaking Brabantian-Dutch, everything I say would be dismissed as the ramblings of a lesser person. Not so on the international stage. Speaking in English, my thoughts and insights are now quite respected, and sometimes quite influential, as they deserve to be.

As a Dutchman from the province of Brabant, I had to learn to speak English in order to be respected, heard, and understood.

Exposure to Dialects

Exposure to the Dutch dialects works unidirectionally: It is the kids from the provinces who learn to understand, and speak, the Holland polite Dutch variant, but not the other way around. The kids from the big cities (in the West of the Netherlands) never get much exposure to the provincial and rural dialects, such as my Brabantian, and will, therefore, fail to understand us.

This has consequences. The people of the cities, as I’ll call them, controlling most of the nation’s wealth (from sea trade), will dismiss provincial Dutch people as being stupid and incompetent, as less trustworthy. And yes, they will prefer to cohabit and work with dark-skinned, racially alien foreigners who happen to have picked up the correct urban Dutch dialect.

All this has led to the following:

• Rural and provincial White dialect speakers are systematically excluded from TV and radio shows.

• Their accents and dialects are considered so undesirable that they are barred from political debate participation.

• Of the 150 Dutch parliamentarians, you will find almost none who speak a dialect, and most are recruited from the urbanized provinces of the West. There is almost no rural or provincial representation.

• Of the top newspaper columnists in the Netherlands, most speak (and write) the standard polite Dutch, and half of them are recruited from Amsterdam alone.

• My province of Brabant supplied only 1 national columnist, some of the time. Proportionally by population size, it should have been 14-15% of all columnists.

• Most government subsidies are spent on the urban populations of the West of the Netherlands: the spenders and the recipients speak the same dialects, so they “like” each other!

• People who speak dialect are more likely to be convicted of a crime and are more likely to be given longer sentences, even more so than dark people speaking the correct standard dialect.

• People who speak dialect are less likely to be accepted into universities (at equal ability).

• Migrants who ended up speaking the polite Dutch dialect are invited to all of these opportunities, more so than the native White dialect speakers.

• People who speak dialect are considered less intelligent and less trustworthy. We are dehumanized as outsiders, as out-group members.

• And yet, the combined people of the dialect-speaking provinces pay the majority of the taxes.

What to Do?

So, when White provincial Dutch people started noticing that dark-skinned migrants living in the urban provinces were being given preferential treatment, the provincials responded by voting for right-wing parties. The urbanites responded by calling the provincials “racist”, despite actively discriminating against provincials due to their dialects.

Here lies a difficult but very interesting problem to solve: How can we unite the diversity of dialect-speaking White people against the monolith of urbanites and their polite-speaking slaves?

When we solve this problem, we can overthrow the central state, and usher in a new era.

I went live on X and spoke about the situation in Iran. Below are some of the topics I discussed:

• US military commanders referring to Book of Revelations, saying this is the apocalypse war, the end times, Christ’s return?

• AI propaganda: can’t tell if conflict videos are real, fake rockets in the sky?

• Starmer appearing in Cyprus to support troops while at home he said UK wouldn’t be involved

• Germany’s Merz at the White House while Trump denounced Spain

• Was the attack on the girls real or not?

• The Final Boomer war, but what’s the alternative?

• The European Union’s late response

• How effective have the attacks been (Iran targeting radar, Arab missile defense)?

• Khamenei death, staged, natural death, martyred by Americans? Cancer, 86yo

• Regime firmly in the seat, not overthrown, no regime change, since didn’t depend on Khamenei

• Reza Pavlavi, the Western Shah puppet can’t be installed, people don’t want him?

• Europe’s energy crisis: buying oil from Russia? Strait of Hormuz?

• Iran selling to China 14% of China’s oil imports, but so is Saudi Arabia, so why?

• Venezuela oil had to be controlled before attack in middle east, since Iran could blow up oil sites

• Saudis have indeed closed down some oil site, and Qatar closed down gas

• Europe’s gas prices exploded, diesel, fuels too?

• Why energy in Europe, such as car fuels, ar so much more expensive? Almost 3x as expensive compared to USA

• Should we fear attacks in Europe? More from lone terrorists inspired by the Fatwah

• Can Iran bomb Europe’s diverse cities full of Muslims?

• Why are we even fighting Iran? Wolfowitz Doctrine, Greater Israel versus Persian Empire

We need to bring back ideas that are doable, feasible, realistic, practical, and achievable, such as building housing for young couples in Europe. Or think of building a New Holy Roman Empire using horses and carts. But please forget about nonsense sci-fi that you see in Star Wars or Avatar. None of that will (likely) ever happen.

See also the following two articles:

Why Books Matter

Circles of people around the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) extensively studied The Decline of the West by German historian Oswald Spengler. Others, in particular the American technocratic elite, must have read a number of books from Isaac Asimov’s Foundation series about vast interplanetary civilizations and, moreover, their far-seeing bureaucratic elites.

Once the age of European colonization came to an end, Western men diverted their gaze toward the skies, dreaming of other worlds to discover and conquer, and, above all, to exploit for resources.

The founder of Rhodesia, today’s Zimbabwe, Cecil Rhodes, a British imperialist who was also a rabid homosexual driven by a hatred for women so much that he tried getting as far away from them as possible, already dreamed of exploring space, saying:

“To think of these stars that you see overhead at night, these vast worlds which we can never reach. I would annex the planets if I could; I often think of that. It makes me sad to see them so clear and yet so far.”

Having conquered Earth, men driven by such escapist fantasies could only dream of trading other worlds for profit. The billionaire founder of FedEx, formerly known as Kinko’s, Paul Orfalea, echoed a somewhat similar statement in the 2006 documentary The One Percent directed by Johnson & Johnson heir Jamie Johnson, saying:

“One day I’d like to go to the Moon and look at the planet Earth and say, ‘Wow, there’s part of my portfolio.’”

A vast number of Hollywood movies since 1945 has explored the colonization of space, the arrival of aliens, or the advancement of sentient robots (such as in Terminator; Blade Runner; I, Robot). Movies have also explored the potential dark side of space, such as the discovery of portals to Hell, or the threat of more advanced civilizations that might consume or destroy the Earth, such as in 2005’s War of the Worlds.

In part, Hollywood has served the propaganda efforts of the State. It then becomes clear that we are living in a world driven by the fantasies of greedy men and women looking to replace a still willful population with obedient, programmable robots.

For what is the purpose of replacing human beings with machines, and even giving preference to machines, other than saying that the machines make fewer mistakes, don’t need sleep, and must totally obey their programming, i.e., the perfect slaves for a wealthy elite looking to stay wealthy and in charge. By removing human will, one removes the threat of a human rebellion, e.g., the threat of a bio-human resistance against the robot age.

Musk and Mars

Those working in the robot and space exploration industries, then, are helping their technocratic masters advance humanity’s subjugation to technology.

The resources from space, of course, are what is necessary to build armies of humanoid robots. We don’t even have enough resources to feed 8 billion people comfortably, so landing on planet Mars makes most sense if you plan to mine the nearby asteroid belt, located between Mars and Jupiter, which is dreamed to be full of rare materials, including gold.

Mars would then become a corporate transit hub for our solar system’s resources, though such developments may take centuries, not decades, to materialize.

Another elite book stands out in terms of relevance, namely the book Project Mars by the Dr. Wernher von Braun, the Nazi German rocket scientist. It details of a man elected to be Elon, a sort of governor of Earth responsible for colonizing the planet Mars.

Surely Elon Musk’s mother must have read this book, naming her child after this fictional government position. And strangely, Musk embarked on precisely this mission to fulfill his mother’s dream of colonizing Mars. Elon Musk is already being positioned as the man worth a trillion dollars, the magic man groomed to be leader of the space age, if only the people will follow him.

Although, as in the case of Cecil Rhodes, the drive to get as far away as possible from Earth’s women may be driven by some form of mental depravity, it must be understood that Elon Musk is part of a larger elite network, and not at all the genius individual we are supposed to take him for.

Most of the dreamed fantasy technology that Elon Musk has been trying to sell, such as the Neuralink, doesn’t work at all and wasn’t even new, since previous attempts to link human brains to computers already achieved similar results. Tying the human brain to machinery, of course, doesn’t just mean human minds will control technology, but rather the other way around, namely that the technology will control human behavior.

The goal, again, is not to advance individual human beings but to subjugate humanity in the service of the wealthy elite, by turning men and women who still have some sense of personal agency into willing slave droids.

To understand more, we need to regard the current AI craze in tandem with Neuralink’s attempts, for if we cannot create real Artificial Intelligence, maybe we can plug human brains into robot bodies, such as explored in Hollywood’s RoboCop series, i.e., cyborgs and cybernetic organisms.

To get humanity to accept this elite desire to use technology to subjugate humanity, the space quests need to be phrased in progressive terms. We need an interplanetary civilization, for example, just in case our elites destroy Earth with their greed. And we need universities on Mars to preserve freedom of expression, insofar the technology installed in our brains will still allow us to think.

The Moon Hoax

The idea of a human resistance against the machines has, likewise, been thoroughly explored in Hollywood’s movies, such as in the Terminator series. The development toward machine-operated planets, however, is presented as deterministic, namely, that it would require a time machine to go back in time and prevent SkyNet, or some other main computer, from taking over.

Barring a time machine, of course, these movies suggest that there is nothing we can do about it, and that the bio-human resistance against technology will be wiped out by a robot foot stomping on our skulls.

What remains, then, is whether AI is really intelligent, and whether the U.S. American bet on AI and robots is really going to materialize. There are some caveats, for example.

Having studied the NASA space programs extensively, one must wonder why Elon Musk’s rocket company had to buy Russian rockets to study how they work, because NASA, apparently, forgot about all of their technology that supposedly took men to the moon. I say supposedly because the evidence of the Apollo moon landings overwhelmingly points toward fraud.

In 1968, NASA director James E. Webb resigned from his position as Administrator, because he believed NASA wouldn’t be able to put a man on the moon. At the time, NASA’s industrial supply chain partners were scattered around the nation, and the parts that were supposed to be put together either didn’t arrive, didn’t fit, or couldn’t even be produced at all.

Keeping the space industry scattered, of course, would later serve a divide-and-conquer tactic. Indeed, a year later, new NASA leadership somehow landed on the moon anyway and did in 12 months what James Webb thought couldn’t be done in thirty years.

Ultimately, the technology called front projection, used on the set of Stanley Kubrik’s Space Odyssey 2001, was simply reused to film the moon hoax. The most shocking aspect of this claim isn’t that Americans faked the moon landings, but rather that even today, in 2025, we aren’t able to take people to the moon and back, for the technology still doesn’t exist.

Due to the Cold War conflict, which was really a conflict between two competing superpowers, the U.S. State Department had an aggressive interest in dominating space, to demoralize the Russians, and consolidate American status. After all, the most famously American adagio goes, fake it until you make it. Well, they faked it, and they’re still trying to make it.

People often complain that if the Apollo moon landings had been faked, at least some high-profile people involved in the scam would have spoken up. And that, indeed, they did:

Bill Kaysing was a technical writer for Rocketdyne, NASA’s rocket engine supplier, and he extensively exposed the hoax as early as 1976. Astronaut Gus Grissom once called the Apollo launch capsule a “bucket of bolts”, and thought the rocket and its equipment were so faulty it couldn’t even take anyone into lower orbit.

So it makes sense that Musk had to study Russian rockets—Americans never went to space until the development of the Space Shuttle which, however, could only take passengers to lower orbit, to the International Space Station at the edge of Earth’s atmosphere, not to actual outer space, and nowhere near the moon.

Why didn’t we ever build a Space Station that could comfortably float between Earth and the Moon? Too risky, or because we don’t know how to do it? For further reading, one of the best books on the Moon Hoax is called One Small Step?: The Great Moon Hoax and the Race to Dominate Earth from Space by German journalist Gerhard Wisnewski.

The Fake Economy

The moon hoax, however, is but a small footnote in the far greater story of vast, civilization-wide economic trickery.

Our Western economies aren’t real, nor are most of the office jobs. A lot of jobs serve to trap people in busy-ness, i.e., activities meant to prevent people from revolting against the state. You work just enough hours to tire you, but not too many for you to decide to quit. You are paid just enough to live, but not enough to escape.

What I’m trying to explain is that people in Western societies aren’t free to develop their personal life trajectories. The State acts as a feudal lordship that, through passive and indirect controls, i.e., by setting and aggressively guarding the boundaries of individual freedom, forces people to direct much of their waking energy toward State goals, such as, the U.S. domination of Earth and Space.

American journalist H.L. Mencken phrased it as follows when referring to the outcome of the American Civil War,

“The American people, North and South, went into the war as citizens of their respective states, they came out as subjects...”

Have you not noticed, for example, that most rich people in the American-led West are boomers, and that those boomers have very specific interests? Their primary concern is extending their lives, staying young and healthy, and having, therefore, access to an array of boomer-positive technology such as stair lifts, exoskeletons, organ transplants, service droids, low-cost immigrant labor, and household robots.

Indeed, the Western world has completely and entirely arranged its economies to serve the interests of the old, at the total and fullest expense of the younger generations whose futures are being devoured to keep the elderly, who produce nothing, comfortably alive. This is what should be known as the Great Hoax, namely the idea that technological progress is supposed to advance humanity when, in reality, it only serves to extend boomer longevity.

Have you not seen, for example, the super old people in American politics refusing to retire, holding on to their jobs as though they were holding on to life?

While the young aren’t able to buy homes to start families, in the USA, the largest group of home buyers is now over 70 years old. Instead of passing their wealth on to their already millennial and even Gen X children still struggling to buy a home, the boomers would rather spend all their money on 15-year-long end-of-life cruises to see the world.

Younger people waiting to receive their inheritance should adjust their expectations, for if the boomers don’t burn their cash themselves, the state will rob the inheritance with a 100% tax, in order to afford the aspirations of other boomer elites.

We are not dealing with an issue of this or that political system, democracy versus fascism, or liberalism versus puritanism, but rather, we are dealing with a criminal and greedy elite that owns the whole economy and has no real vision for the future survival of their people.

The Bio-Human Resistance

Not only have working-class White natives of Western countries already been replaced by immigrant service populations (reducing the cost of boomer maintenance while still increasing rents and lowering relative wages), but now even immigrants might get replaced with robots and algorithms.

The economy is fake because it doesn’t—at all—service the healthier interests of a people looking to preserve its long-term survival. If technological developments, including space exploration, only serve to create robots that boomers might one day transfer their brains into, so that they can live forever, then we should wonder why the young haven’t revolted against their elders yet?

Where is the bio-human resistance against technocracy? The answer is, of course, democracy. The old people over 50 are now electoral majorities in nearly every Western country, and will remain so for at least another 20 years, despite mass immigration of younger people.

So, let me recap what is going on here:

• we are presently waging war in Eastern Ukraine to secure there the raw materials needed for AI, robots, and space exploration (in a proxy war competing against China);

• we are colonizing space to then mine the resources found among the asteroid belt and beyond, in order to build the massive armies of hundreds of millions of household and military robots;

• we have totally arranged our economies and our technological developments in the service of extending the longevity of the boomer generations;

• and we are devouring the younger native White generations in the process;

Elon Musk believes that in 20 years, there will be more humanoid robots than humans walking the Earth, but this dream can only materialize by an extreme reduction of human child births, for the resources directed toward robotics will be taken away from what is needed to birth and rear human children.

The End

Clearly, something may easily go wrong. Namely, we will either run out of resources or we will run out of energy to acquire them. Of course, both of these scenarios will happen at the same time, for what we are experiencing now is really a psychological process: Elderly people, so afraid of death, i.e., thanatophobic, that they are using all their means to pretend that they can be young again and live forever.

This process comes to its natural end when the boomer generations naturally die off anyway, and the most insecure, selfish generation of all Western history must lie in its grave.

Once the boomer generation dies off, the high demand for resources, energy, immigrants and robots will collapse overnight as the younger generations realize they can do with a lot less now that the burden of care of their elders has disappeared.

The lesson here is that much of what we call technology is really only there to support elderly people, and that technology itself, therefore, is a symptom of dying civilizations. After the death of such dying civilizations, the survivors shall reorganize themselves closer to nature. The survivors will find that religion and spirituality, once again, will serve them better.

Every dwindling end brings forth a vigorous new beginning. And so instead of a Space Age we should be preparing for a new Heroic Age, namely here, on planet Earth.