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.