Earlier this year, I asked to speak at the Remigration Summit, which will be held in Portugal on May 30th. The organization kindly let me know there was no room for me on their roster, and I was welcome to attend if I would pay for a ticket, flight, and hotel. So I decided not to go and livestream my speech instead.
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!
