Dutch “Deplorables”: How Mass Migration is Viewed in the Netherlands

Joost Niemöller is a Dutch journalist with a long-standing career in that country’s media. He faces severe censorship by focusing on subjects deemed controversial by the European establishment. These subjects range from the crash of flight number MH17 in the summer of 2014 over wartorn Donbass—which was instantly blamed on the Kremlin in a massive propaganda campaign and was used to undermine the diplomatic relationship between Europe and Russia—to his criticism of mass migration from predominantly Muslim countries into the European Union. Recently, Joost published a series of interviews with Dutch citizens of all walks of life in a book called Kwaad: Nederlanders over immigranten (Angry: The Dutch on Immigrants). The following is Joost’s exclusive interview for about his new project.

Follow Joost on Twitter.

Joost Niemöller. Source: ForzaTV. Please tell our American readers a little bit about yourself.

Joost Niemöller: I am a Dutch journalist. I worked for the mainstream media for the longest part of my life. After getting more and more critical about Islam and immigration, and writing books about it, after my criticism of the official MH17 cover-up (“the rocket came from Putin”), and, especially, after getting more interested in the science about ethnic differences and the question of IQ, I was turned into persona non grata by the media and banned from radio and television. So now I write books and have my blog, De Nieuwe Realist (The New Realist).  Happy being free. Your new book, Kwaad: Nederlanders over immigranten (Angry: The Dutch on Immigrants), documents public perception of immigration—or, rather, mass migration—from predominantly Islamic countries into the Netherlands through a series of extensive interviews. What were your main goals for publishing this work?

Joost Niemöller: The Dutch media does not document the reactions of the native Dutch people about immigration imposed onto them. So I decided to go to these “normal people” and ask them open questions about their lives in this “multicultural” world. (A myth, of course.) Now this book is the first of its kind in the Netherlands in which you can read the voice of the people. Old people, young people, men, women (even more so), highly-educated, less-educated, from big cities and the heartland, homosexuals, Jews, etc. Your book came out just before the elections in the Netherlands and was positively reviewed in public by a prominent political leader Geert Wilders. Was the timing strategic in order to let the public know that their sentiment on mass migration is widely shared?

Joost Niemöller: Yes. All the journalists in the Dutch media speak about these people calling them the “Boze Blanke Man”—“the angry white man”—which is the Dutch word for “the deplorables” hated by Hillary Clinton and the mainstream media in the U.S. In Germany, where the word “Volk” (people) is forbidden in the media, they call them the “Wütburger.” They always refer to white, “racist,” older men who cannot deal with the so-called “modern times” in the new globalized world. In reality, a third of the young people is going to vote for Wilders, as well as the majority of the highly-educated. Those people are afraid to lose their jobs and are silent about their views. Angry is not the first book of its kind to question mass migration into Europe. For instance, our American audience is familiar with a well-publicized, best-selling 2010 project by Thilo Sarrazin on the comparable situation in Germany. How is your book different from other recent works on this subject?

Joost Niemöller: This very good book by Sarrazin (also because he was brave enough to write about the genetic and ethnic factors in Germany!) has been an enormous inspiration. But Mr. Sarrazin wrote an analytical book with his views. My book is journalistic: I wanted to hear about the personal experiences of different people. Did anything about your research or the interviews you’ve conducted for your project surprise you?

Joost Niemöller: What surprised me was how important personal experiences were, and the fact that everybody saw big ethnic differences with immigrants. Nobody had any problem with the mostly black people from the old Dutch colony, Surinam. (More than 300,000.) They saw them as Dutch and have many Surinam friends. As for the Turks, they said they couldn’t get in contact with them. Their problems were with Moroccans: violence, robbery, sexual assault, etc. They praised Iranian immigrants (mostly highly-educated, non-Muslim). And the biggest problems were with the Somalis. Please describe the reception of your work in the Dutch national media and beyond (if applicable).

Joost Niemöller: I did get a big response on social media from the Dutch people. After a week, the book is already in third print. It is almost ignored by the mainstream media. Have you received any negative attention as a result of releasing this work that some may consider controversial?

Joost Niemöller: Yes. Some journalists said the people in my book were racists, because they don’t want to sit on the metro system with immigrants. A lie! Nobody said this. All the “angry” Dutch people do have contacts with immigrants, or at least they try to. Journalists were also very critical because most people in my book are anonymous. They say it would be very easy to talk to them in the open, so I asked them, “Please, try.” Of course, they don’t do this because they don’t know them, and the higher-educated people and the young, especially, are too afraid to talk in the open. You are well-versed in geopolitics and international relations. How do you view the relationship between the current foreign-policy trajectory undertaken by the EU and its respective domestic situation?

Joost Niemöller: Do you have an hour? The EU is a total disaster. They stated over and over again that Europe needs 60 million immigrants because of the aging problem. There is no aging problem in Europe. We already have too many people. Everybody in my book wants out of the EU. How do you envision the future of the Netherlands and that of Europe?

Joost Niemöller: The people in my book say that Europe and the Netherlands will descend into a situation of a prolonged civil war—a chaotic situation—and this will lead to the end of Western civilization. I agree with this. With no end in sight to open-border policies, there is no reason for optimism. The biggest problem is the upcoming illegal migration from sub-Saharan Africa, not so much Islam itself.

The Editors
the authorThe Editors
Founded on January 16, 2017, brings together the best writers and analysts from Alt Right, in North America, Europe, and around the world.


  • Great article, some of the highlights
    -European Union is not only a disaster but the main reason for the “Open border” policy destroying Europe by letting in millions of Europe hating non Europeans.
    -Population of Europe is around 770 million. Issues revolving birth rates fluctuate and are not uniform across all of Europe. Reasons range from economics, liberal regulations that penalize parents, unfair tax laws, cost of raising a child, etc. It is not due to infertility among Europeans.
    -“Outsourcing” can be done within Europe by moving companies and jobs from high cost places such as big cities to nations with a higher cost of living to smaller cities and nations with a lower cost of living
    -Overall cost of living has been made much worse due to the European Union. That too contributes to not having children or a family.
    -In all of the above they are European issues that need European solutions by Europeans, whatever problems the many nations of Europe have will get worse with infusing millions of Europe hating non Europeans. they are part of the problem, not the solution.

    -Those who support open borders for Europe must face questions why the rest of the developed world including Japan who also has birth issues, is not solving them by bringing in millions from the rest of the world
    or why even in the Developing world with massive problems do not solve them by importing aliens.

    -On a personal note. I have seen Americans come out on the streets in support of the end of Apartheid in South Africa when Nelson Mandela led that movement. That system dealt with imported black Africans from other parts of Africa & alien to S. Africa dealing with Europeans who also settled in S. Africa. both the Africans and the Europeans were not native to that part of Africa but it was the Europeans who were forced to leave while the (imported) Africans claimed the land.

    I could say the same about Rhodesia to some extent (now Zimbabwe) where the European settlers were forced to leave even though they built that nation. Same under Idi Amin in Uganda who expelled anyone who was not Ugandan even when it caused that nation to collapse.

    These were blatant racist acts fully endorsed by the same liberals so willing to call a simple ban by Trump as ‘racist” or those in Europe wanting their nations back as “racist” . This kind of two faced double standard hypocrisy of the liberal left is one of the reasons for the appeal of European nationalism.

    Finally Trump’s ban on 7 majority Muslim nations applies to all from those nations. A Christian from one of those nations faces the same ban.
    His ban never said “Muslims are banned” but that is how the liberal left twists the facts around to suite their own bias.

  • As the dumbass Orcs take over the Netherlands, do you think they’ll have the ability to maintain that country’s flood-control system? No, the North Sea will eventually reclaim the land.

  • “There is no aging problem in Europe.”

    I don’t understand this strand of denialism which I am encountering more and more frequently in the alt right. Birthrates in europe among natives are indeed well below replacement rate, and that’s a big problem from a demographic, economic, political standpoint. This means the alt right should be more focused on the formation of European native families with multiple children, and the conditions which are preventing this — instead of acting as if there’s no problem at all.

    • Yes, it’s incorrect to say that the changing age structure doesn’t pose certain problems, but it’s absolutely correct to argue that importing huge masses of foreigners is not a solution to it.

      • The age structure and low fertility rate are not a huge problem IF there is not mass immigration. Japan has a low fertility rate and aging population but its identity as an ethno nation is not threatened because immigration is severely restricted. In the age of automation and robots, will we really need third world nurses to care for Senior citizens?

        Japan and Western Europe are essentially full. Japan is the size of California and has 120 million people, Germany the size of Pennsylvania with 80 million people. If these nations choose to decline a little in population, that is fine so long as immigration to their lands is non existent.

        • The aged population structure which looms on the horizon is really uncharted territory. While I totally agree that without immigration Europeans would find some way to muddle through it, it doesn’t mean that it’s no cause for concern.

          • That article is very short on specifics. It fails to address the economic issues related to a declining workforce having to support a burgeoning class of retirees. Perhaps it will all work out fine, but the fact that no one really knows makes it “uncharted.”

          • Worries about supporting a large generation of old people are going to prove unfounded.

            Old people will have self driving cars, extending their independence. There will also be myriad amounts of machines and innovations in the field of medicine that improve the quality of life for the elderly without requiring them to have human caregivers.

          • Or they will drop dead and no one will care. I’m speaking of the old who had no children that grew up willing to provide for them.

          • Not going to be an issue with robots that will care for old people. Japan is already working on that.

          • In the factories, yes, robots will be making the robots. People will still be designing them. People probably won’t be changing oil on anything in the future.

          • You have a point to make or you are going to keep following me like a little puppy, stupid moron?

          • Just making another comment on altright. Yoyoing with a clueless plebe. Who imagines a future that will never be.

          • Have you ever been to Japan? Seen all the gloomy salarymen on the metro, the alienated youth among whom transgenderism and nihilism are rampant, the clear loss of shared sense of purpose, the memories of the wild technological optimism of the 80s all fading into nothing? Or is it a make-believe country which only exists in your mind?

          • Postmodern nihilism isn’t exactly unique to Japan. But unlike Western Europe or the USA, the Japanese never let in millions of low skill immigrants so they will probably be able to get out of this mess better than the West.

          • I think they’ll be gone in a half-century. They already have 10 trillion USD in foreign debt (which is how aging first-world countries actually pay for the old, not with “robots”). After a certain tipping point, Chinese plutocrats will starting buying up the whole country. The “last” Japanese will be the very few being born now; their children (of whom there will be even fewer) will learn Chinese instead of Japanese and will look at the Japanese language as the Irish look on Gaelic.

          • Japanese debt, like American debt, will continue to be serviced. No reason to blow up the global economy because it takes longer for debt to be paid.

            China itself is aging and will have a mature labor force. Forecasts predicting that the Chinese will buy up the world are as ridiculous and wild as forecasts about the Japanese menace in the 1980s.

          • Even if your fantasy where robots solve the problem comes true, the fact is you wind up with an outcome where society is structured around the old and not the young, towards death and not life, towards the present and not the future.

          • Economic thinking is part of the problem. The economy exist to serve the nation not the other way around. After the Black Death there were loads of opportunity for those who survived. Post war Germany where millions perished thrived. Homo Econonimus is part of what got us in the situation we are in.

          • I agree that the economy should exist to serve the nation, but that doesn’t explain how a nation is supposed to economically or socially function when 50% of the population is over 65. To me that sounds like a nation which is not going to survive the century.

          • And the nation should serve the individual – ie individuals should get something out of it. If not, there’s no point to supporting the nation. If it’s a choice of having individual freedom but losing the nation or having the nation but losing individual freedom, for me that’s easy – the nation can go fuck itself. So I’m sorry, but you can’t just throw economic caution to the wind on the basis that, hey, it’ll all work fine in the end, so who cares; or by telling people that the “interests” of the nation (as if those are obvious and god-given or something) take precedence over individual wants in all cases.

          • No nation ever has or ever will exist with absolute unrestrained individual liberty. That is the leftist (though they latch onto the right) hoax of Libertarianism. More pie in the sky.

          • I don’t care about “unrestrained” liberty. The point is, if “the nation” disregards the interests of individuals there’s no good reason to support it. It’s just another way of saying “there’s more to life than belonging to the nation,” which means that treating economics with the seriousness it merits is not some “homo economicus” fallacy that is the root cause of all present racial difficulties.

          • Compare with articles that discuss a burgeoning workforce in the age of automation and you reach a conundrum.

          • Japan’s economy has been stagnating since the early 90s. And that can be directly correlated with the unwillingness of Gen-X and Millennial Japanese to have children. No new generation means no new markets, no innovation, no dynamism — nothing.

          • They exist for something, or, after a generation or two, they won’t exist at all. They’re currently on demographic track to arrive at the latter outcome. Why do you think this is a good model for the West?

          • For a country like Japan to reduce it’s population to a sustainable level could be good as long as they keep immigrants out. As it is now Japan is dependent on imports for survival, not to mention their affect on the natural environment. So for countries like that and the planet it could be a good thing. The affect that childlesness has on the individual is another thing as well as the deadness of spirit that comes with an aging, youth lacking society. You should see China! It is frightening. Another nation in population overshoot. As far as people aging as long as they are not infirm they can work. Quiting work at 65 to go play at the beach is a modern phenomena.

          • Neither Europe nor Japan are the cause of planetary overpopulation. Look at Africa if you want to tackle that problem.

            Even if we allow that Japan is currently overpopulated, that further suggests that it’s no model.

          • Japan and now China use a lot of the world’s resources, marine resources being a major one. Africa is huge! The problem with a growing African population is that they are not producers/farmers and become dependent on us as well as colonizing our nations for freebies. Some European countries like the UK and the Netherlands are way overpopulated.

            Let’s say the UK dropped it’s population in half from the current 60 million. Would that be a bad thing? They would still be massively overpopulated. The main problem is the non-white immigration not a low fertility rate. Except for the fact that women without children or with one are more easily recruited to left/liberal causes. A woman with a brood to protect moves more towards the right.

            Other countries like Russia need a growing population to secure Siberia from the Chinese.

          • There are enormous swathes of empty provinces in japan. It suffers from no jobs in the provinces and all jobs in tokyo osaka like USA does

          • The Japanese won’t cease to exist with a 1 child Total Fertility replacement anytime soon. No one said its a good model, just that negative population growth can be overcome in a society if immigration does not exist.

          • Perhaps the Gen X and Millennial Japanese didn’t have children because of the huge real estate bubble that caused Japan to have a lost decade in the 1990s? Not because Japanese people are “transgender nihilists.”

          • The bubble burst because the investor class realized that family-formation was a bad bet as a long-term centerpiece of Japanese society. They took all their capital out of Japan and put it in Chinese factory growth, thus betraying their own people. This is not a good model.

          • It wasn’t all put in Chinese factory growth. The Japanese were investing and overvaluing all sorts of bullshit properties like Pebble Beach Golf Links and Columbia Tri Star in the late 80s and early 90s

          • the 1985 accord had much to do with mal investment. Reagan should have instituted tariffs but friedmans snake oil was around

          • It’s also work culture. Women want freedom of singlness and men don’t want the salaryman burden. Hence media is an equal influence to declining living standards

        • I don’t think societies have to grow demographically forever, but the goal should be keeping the current population stable (through a 2.1 fertility rate) and using smart urban planning and transportation so that mroe people can live in cities without spoiling the countryside.

          A country should only decline in population if some of its people are leaving to colonize another area. Otherwise it’s simply not a valid way of facing the future.

          • There are incentives a nation can offer to have a stable population, but if a society like Hungary or Japan falls below replacement fertility rates it really is not a problem so long as immigration is restricted.

          • You seem to be assuming that Japan or Germany’s population will decline until the population hits something like the optimal “carrying capacity” of those countries, and then people will starting having kids at replacement rate again. But this simply isn’t how the history of social reproduction works. What tends to happen is, once a culture loses its built-in fertility mechanism (values passed on from generation to generation), new generations simply resist having children of their own — regardless of whether there’s more space, and more resources, per capita. This was how Rome collapsed. Thus I seriously question any nationalist program which does not make replacement fertility its top priority (with restricted immigration a top priority as well).

          • Germany is screwed, no way around it.

            Rome collapsed due to political instability more than anything else, which was a cause the low birth rates.

            Japan hasn’t let in immigrants, so its society will be preserved. Due to the decreased population, After a period of time, there will be more open space, better job opportunities, cheaper land, higher quality of life. All of these factors are incentives for people to have children. This was true in Europe after the Black Death, and it led to Guilds, labor specialization, and the Renaissance.

          • No my argument is that a declining population sometimes is not the end of a society, as was the case in the late Middle Ages after the Black Death. Peasants had the ability to demand higher wages and leave their manors, which indirectly led to the Renaissance.

            OT, is your Name a reference to the late 80s Norwegian film?

          • Ofelas is a great movie, I actually found an old VHS copy from my library about a year ago.

          • Re birthrates, my issue with your argument is that the Black Death was basically the apocalypse for the Medieval culture. Did something equally worthy come after? Yes. But it was extremely good fortune that a more aggressive culture didn’t conquer Europe during the collapse of the medieval order. A black death wiped out the American aboriginals and the result was simply that they disappeared.

            I’m not ready to bring about the apocalyse and hope we get lucky again, it strikes me as insane. If we can get birthrates back to replacement levels, then that’s what we should do. The local environmental concerns are sound, but that issue can be mitigated through urban planning and transportation technology.

          • I guess we just disagree. Nietzsche said if it doesn’t kill you, it will make you stronger. Evola called it Riding the Tiger, a way to steel your soul to the tragedy of modernity. White people have overcome a lot, and they will overcome the trials and tribulations of today.

          • I suspect the reason islam didnt conquer Europe during the Black Death is that muslims were also not immune to the disease. However, they do seem to be immune to this culture of infertility which afflicts the West. Collapsing birthrates arent just part of the problem — they *are* the problem. I am perplexed that so many alt righters don’t see this. Is the movement actually made up a lot of commitophobic men who don’t want to start families, is that it?

          • Islam was preoccupied with dealing with Golden Horde, although the Middle East did see a large decline in population.

            Rat fleas don’t like horses,so the Mongols were mostly immune.

          • So that too was good fortune for Europe. More reason not press our luck by recreating the demographic conditions of the Black Death, as Y F was advocating we do.

          • Finklestein is spot on. The only space of contention is that Demography also is based on culture. Commercialization has sapped female psychology for reproduction.

            Japan has started to ease its borders and many of its restrictions are easily circumvented by third worlders, eg marriage and entertainer visas. Japanese are even more naive than us and are lambs to the slaughter.

            Are jews lack of understanding that they are next after whiteys dead based on blood feud Middle East mentality or atavistic inertia. I see very little anecdotal concern with jews to the destruction of the West

      • Silvio silver and gold
        won’t buy back the beat
        of a heart grown cold
        Silvio I gotta go
        find out something
        only dead men know

    • The aging problem might be generational. Todays youth might decide that having a bunch of kids is, you know, like, cool.

      Also you have to recognize that welfare statism instead of family structure is the main burden on society not declining population. If you and your children are responsible for you in your old age how is that a state problem?

      • What does welfare statism have to do with anything? The welfare state is small in the US compared with France, and France has a higher birthrate.

          • Yes I think so. They are certainly not a model. But welfare statism doesn’t appear to have a consistent effect of bolstering or undermining birthrates. Israel has a generous welfare state, and the highest birthrate in the developed world.

          • Demography in Israel is impossible to study because the Bedouin and ultra Orthodox have two of the highest birth rates in the world. Both populations double every 15 years.

          • I read that even among secular israelis, fertility is 2.6. 2.6! And unlike the rich sunni countries, they’re not doing it by pushing their women into marriage at age 13.

          • That’s not surprising. Israel would cease to exist within a generation or two if Jews did not have children.

          • There are about as many Jews in the world as there are Netherlanders. Why don’t you perceive the Dutch demographic situation as being every bit as fragile?

          • I do, sorry if I haven’t been clear. The Dutch demographic situation is disastrous because the Dutch have low fertility rates AND open borders.

            My point is that a country can have low fertility and survive IF there is no immigration into that country. That obviously isn’t the case in the Netherlands. The Dutch need to grant Citizenship to every Afrikaner that wishes to immigrate to Holland.

          • But wouldn’t you agree that if Israeli fertility rates fell to European levels (1.7 or so, rather than 3.1), that Israeli society would quickly collapse? Regardless of whether they prohibited 3rd world immigrants (which they already do, of course).

          • Yes, Israel would quickly collapse because 20 percent of Israel is Arab. But their situation is also unique, because Israel is surrounded by hundreds of millions of hostile Arab Muslims. So Israeli Jews have a siege mentality. The Jews also are allowed to be Zionist Ethno Nationalists, if the Dutch or any other White nation tries that, they’re called Nazis. Many White people in Europe haven’t woken up to the demographic reality and still think Ethno Nationalism and preserving their ethnicity is bad and racist. Jews don’t suffer this taboo, in fact their whole religion revolves around whether something is good for the Jews.

          • Europe’s situation is also similar to a siege. Not as extreme as Israeli’s — but I’m not proposing a 3.1 fertility for Europe, I’m proposing a healthy, autarky-friendly 2.1.

          • Israel is literally under siege, there are armed IDF soldiers with machine guns in every bar or meeting place.

            Much of Europe is still White outside the major cities, so Europeans don’t think the situation is as dire. Of course, these liberal Europeans are mistaken.

          • It seems we’re just going to disagree. Maybe you’ll change your mind over the next decade of your life though.

          • Israel’s state is concerned with demography so it pays a fecund population to breed and absolves them for all responsibility towards society. I think we all know what Israel has isn’t going to last as well because this isn’t a sustainable model.

            If Israel were run as a western country the Orthodox Jews would be required to get regular jobs and be taxed at the maximum amount that the market could bear. The tax revenue would be put into family courts and social workers to interfere with these same people’s traditional family dynamics and subvert their communities by delegitimizing authority of the Rabbis.

            Which is to say Israel isn’t a welfare state. Welfare statism is explicitly a socialist project, founded upon a moral philosophy originating in liberalism. Israel’s concern isn’t equity so ipso facto it has little “welfare” to speak of.

        • The US breaks out demographic data. France conceals this same data which should tell you all you need to know about who is having children.

          As for welfare statism it’s a psychological issue. If individual white people don’t have a future they don’t breed. A small thumb on the scale has a massive impact. Most middle class adults can’t comfortably have children because their income is not secure, has never been secure, and in many cases they grew up with parents who did not have secure income.

          There is no notion in people’s heads that their living arrangement could survive losing their job, they are already in debt, and are living paycheck to paycheck. High time preference people will breed while living off of welfare (and this is who is breeding in France). Low time preference people are bred to earn and save and invest and our system of state capitalism is designed to bleed these people for their livelihood. The entire tax structure is designed to ensure these people do not accumulate capital.

          The “market” will adjust to these people if they lower their living standards, as the tax target is based on who is capable of producing “excess” wealth. Likewise if there is a lasting boom cycle. There is advantage for trendsetters here, but not trend followers. The whole basis of “welfare statism” is that the state will invest your capital for you, which even if this were beneficial would still have pernicious psychological effects on large swaths of people whose emotional well being is based on the capacity for some kind of productive, forward looking activity. Which for most people is going to require capital.

          In the current climate what these people get is drudgery with no end in sight. No one is going to breed organically under these conditions. The vast majority of millennials will never do anything in their lives but work retail jobs. Our societies are arranged so that the vast majority of people capable of doing for themselves and accurately perceiving ‘the ladder’ are picked losers. Half of their shit is taken and given to people in their own neighborhood who are born losers. Of course they aren’t having children.

          Beyond that many of the actual policies pursued by the state are themselves seeming directly attacking organic family formation as well, but those are obviously well discussed all over the alt-right.

    • So the groids from Suriname are the beloved house nigger of the Dutch? Still an ape and needs to be physically removed from the human population. Whether or not it makes the Dutch all tickley inside to patronize their house niggers is beside the point. Separation is the goal and we will attain it. The world is large. There are plenty of places (Blackfrica being one very large continent) for the mud people to live. Though they have to learn to feed and house themselves without Whitey providing everything for them. Good luck!

    • The “good immigrant” argument is the Trojan horse through which multiculturalism, open borders, and hostile immigrants becomes the norm.

        • How do you propose that “good immigrants” stops becoming the norm? The only way to nip “good immigrant populations” arguments in the bud is to restrict all immigration and advocate for a Japanese or Zionist type ethnostate.

          • Restricting immigration is the easy part. Even people who like certain immigrants can agree that there should be no more of them. Dealing with the people who are already here (and well established and well liked) is the hard part. It just doesn’t seem to me that advocating blanket hatred is an effective means of mobilizing people.

          • This is where the European altruistic tendency is a negative.

            The Japanese had a very negative experience with their own diaspora population of Japanese Brazilians. The Brazilians were not welcomed, did not succeed, and were paid to return home.


            I would say European nations should do the same thing with immigrants and their descendants, but European countries should offer much more money to rid themselves of foreigners. For example, offer $250,000 to a Turkish German if he agrees to return to Turkey.

          • Well, I would have no problem with that at all. But notice that you’re already deviating from the “but don’t you just hate these inferior non-white scum” line that WNs tend to advocate? I believe the relatively soft approach you promote in this post is vastly more likely to attract support than the hardcore WN attitude.

          • “But notice that you’re already deviating from the “but don’t you just hate these inferior non-white scum” line that WNs tend to advocate?”

            I never advocated that. My position and arguments are based on love of all cultures and the belief that they should be preserved in their own lands. It is why I advocate peaceful ethnic cleansing such as offering large monetary sums to non White immigrants so they return home.

          • That’s good to know. I was only pointing out that most WNs reject that approach in favor of something far more forceful and – dare I say it? – hateful.

          • Humane is your favorite word. We know. Your definition of humane is “what can whitey do for blacky.” We need a humane ideal that considers white people first.

          • Are you sure you’re addressing that comment to the right person?

          • Education is key. That the “good” immigrant receives tax breaks and foreign funding that gives him advantage over the native born could be the start.

      • True enough, but the problem is that the “good immigrant” isn’t merely an argument, it’s many people’s lived experience.

    • Actually Wilders (PVV – the anti-islam and anti-immigration party) seems to be quite popular among Surinamers and Antillians (Carribeans). Before Wilders’ “fewer fewer fewer Morrocans”, allegedly even many pro-Western Morrocans had secret Wilders sympathies.

  • This delineation between “cultural” peers and foreigners – without consideration of race – is a residual cost of colonialism and consequent White guilt. Whites look for any excuse to feel the warm-and-fuzzies when non-Whites “assimilate”, but we are different peoples. We should stay that way, and ultimately, we will.

    For my part, I never use the term “radical Islam.” The use of that term signals a welcoming attitude toward Muslims in European countries… An attitude in which I am severely lacking.

  • Blackfricans are Blackfricans, no matter how well they can fool you. Don’t be a fool. More chest thumping self righteousness from Northern Germanics. The Nordics, the Germans, the Dutch…all the Northern Germanic peoples love their self righteous chest thumping. This kind of thinking must be purged or we will go down and down for good.

  • I agree with other commenters. Europeans must get out of the habit of arbitrarily classifying some foreign nationals as good and their kin bad. They are all inferior to Europeans in virtually every respect, and they will only drag down into the gutter the European populations’ high IQ; gorgeous looks; natural ability; practical sense; vast fund of knowledge; and civilized habits, customs, and ways of thinking.

    • Europeans preferring some non white foreigners to others is a legacy of colonialism.

      Black Britons who immigrated from countries like Jamaica do have many British customs and habits, and likely assimilate into British society better than Paki child rapists. It is difficult to reject people who are close to your society culturally, but Europeans must do it.

    • Liking people is not a question of superiority/inferiority. It really doesn’t matter whether everything you said is correct or not. If whites like certain non-whites then that is a baseline political fact that you have to squarely confront. Wailing about their inferiority is not a sound strategy with which to changes people’s minds. WNs/neo-nazis have been doing that for decades, with essentially zero effect on mainstream opinion. It simply comes across as a kind of mindless hatred, which very, very few people are keen to indulge. Unfortunately, it’s very doubtful that WNs will ever change their ways. Therefore I conclude that if white racial aspirations are ever to be realized it will be in spite of WNs’ best efforts rather than because of them.

      • You don’t know what you are talking about. WN and its ideas are rising today, and there would be no “white racial aspirations” at all, much less realized, without WNs.

        • I disagree. I would have taken racial ideas seriously much earlier than I did if it wasn’t for the idiotic kind of WN that they’ve long been associated with.

          • No offense, but it doesn’t matter what folks like you think because you do not move the needle. The WNs controls the agenda on the right, just like antifa and other intersectional communists own the left’s agenda. The rest of the population has to pick a side when enough polarization occurs.

          • I have my doubts about that. Communists hardly own the left’s agenda, at least insofar as mainstream politics is concerned. Mainstream liberals might toe the line on cultural issues live faggotry and anti-racism, but there’s virtually no mainstream support for doing away the market economy in whole, which is the issue that lies at the heart of hardcore leftism.

            Similarly, WNs might succeed in encouraging whites to reject the anti-white status quo, but I think it’s supremely doubtful that WN-like boundless racial animus will ever become the norm for whites. Obviously I might be mistaken about that, but looking at WNs’ track record, I feel confident in my judgement.

          • The Far Left in the West has been defined by Fabian Socialism for about the past century, not Bolshevism, so that’s a moot point. For the most part even very doctrinaire Marxists are content with gradualism.

            Western Marxists eschewed their diamat origins and moved towards a cultural model, so by their own conception the ‘market’ is the last thing to fall so should be attacked last and standard revolutionary methods don’t produce lasting results. First you dismantle the people’s ability and desire to uphold their society’s power structures. So I’d say things are actually proceeding according to plan.

            We aren’t doing away with a laissez-faire model in whole, but we are doing away with it in part, little by little with no real end in sight.

  • ” Their problems were with Moroccans. ” ” and the biggest problems were with the Somalis ”

    Moroccans and Somalis are just nature’s way of telling us that ALL and ANY third world immigration to the West, is a very, very, very bad idea. Just as there is no such thing as a beneficial amount of poison to the human body., there is no such thing as a beneficial type of third world immigrant to a Western country., or a beneficial type of multi historical, ancestral, religious, ethnic, racial society.

  • Great that you guys pay attention to him. Too bad he gets ignored here at home.

    He’s a race realist. But he does not openly advocate for an ethnostate. I have never heard him talk about ethnocentric strategies and I always wonder why when someone does subscribe to race realism. Perhaps he is worried about what it would do to his already ostracised place in dutch journalism.

    • My experience as an American outsider looking at Dutch society is that the Dutch are liberal and cosmopolitan to a fault. Even figures like Geert Wilders and Joost Neimoeller do not reject liberal tenets like feminism and gay rights. Wilders and Niemoeller reject Islam because they correctly see Islam as an existential threat to the liberal and cosmopolitan Dutch society.

      Such values of openness and tolerance helped the Dutch become a maritime and trading power, but it also causes the Dutch to shy away from ethnonationalism for fear of antagonizing people like the Dutch Surinamese, a tiny population who no doubt assimilates well into Dutch society because these Surinamese speak Dutch and were a Dutch colony for hundreds of years.

      • Well the irony is that expat dutchmen are more patriotic and ethnocentric. When I visit meet/fellow dutch people for business who work abroad there almost always is some network of dutch that help each other.

        One might be mistaken what Niemoller says about his subjects as his own opinion. I simply do not know hs views on ethnocentrism and ethnonationalism. Too bad they did not ask.

        • BTW; Wilders culturally is very much the archetypical VVD politician. It’s a weird thing for Americans to imagine but the biggest liberal party in Holland is (in a Dutch context) right wing. He left the VVD to start the PVV. The VVD is also critical of Islam but they also were proud that christians can prosecuted for not marrying gays… They are so called conservatives in economic terms. They are utter nihilists, both the VVD (ruling party atm with labour) and the PVV. they were in full support fo the neocon agenda.

          The only party that has an interesting leader for the Alt Right is Thierry Baudet of the FvD. He wrote a semi famous book about the self hate of the westerner (oikofobie). He shared a pepified Baudet meme made by dutch alt right tweeps and has written essays on traditionalistic topics (anti modern art.architecture etc). He recently called for a right of return for South African Boers.

          Times are changing!

  • There’s zero point differentiating between Moroccans and Somali’s and whatever else. They are ALL there to try and infect European women with their mud children and perpetuate the eventual extinction of Europeans.

    Send them all back; Educated or not.

Leave a Reply