We would be here if, for some reason, Joe or any other progressive won in 2024. Obama was all in with globalization and the censorship of the truth, which is only half of the issue. The other half is our justice system, and we have seen how that has been corrupted with activist Judges, all of whom need to be removed.
Europe would own the globalized world, and that would be bad. Look at England and the other European nations with open borders, where they protect the pedophile rapists over the protection of girls and women. They are sick to allow this to happen, almost daily, with no effort to squash those who don’t want to assimilate. Europe has been destroyed for now, and it is questionable if it will ever come back from this progressive ideology.
We are under attack by the same ideologues in Europe, and thankfully, we have a roadblock for now, and that is Trump. But the progressives are on the move in the big cities, where all they have to do to win is promise freebies. Mamdani is a great example, and all you have to do is match his promises to actual deliveries, and he is already a failure. Beware of sheep in wolves’ clothing. All IMO.
https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/22595/belgium-criminalizes-truth
“Here is the most revealing passage from the judgment, as quoted by Van Langenhove and reported across multiple outlets:
“Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law.”
The judge does not dispute the accuracy of the data. He concedes the statements are factually supported. Yet this veracity is declared “irrelevant.” What matters, according to the court, is the intention inferred from creating an “atmosphere of hostility” or an “us versus them” narrative.
This turns justice on its head.
Since when does presenting verifiable facts about crime rates, IQ distributions, or fertility differentials constitute “criminal intent”? Where is the evidence of incitement to violence? There is none. The “proof” is the speech itself — and the judges’ subjective interpretation of its potential emotional effect on special protected groups.
In liberal democracies worthy of the name, truth has always been a defense against charges of defamation or incitement. In 21st-century Belgium, truth is now aggravating evidence.
A Symbol of Broader Repression
This case is Van Langenhove’s second conviction. It follows earlier proceedings against him and his Schild & Vrienden (”Shield & Friends”) movement for private chats and memes. European elites have made him a repeated target precisely because he articulates what growing numbers of citizens observe daily: mass migration from culturally distant regions correlates with parallel societies, higher welfare dependency, and spikes in certain crimes.
The deeper meaning is clear. Across Europe — from hate speech laws in the UK and Germany to “disinformation” monitors in the EU — authorities are not merely restricting expression. They are punishing the acknowledgment of reality when it contradicts the multicultural narrative. Facts about integration failures, no-go zones, grooming gangs, or group differences in outcomes are treated as heretical, regardless of their empirical basis.
This Wonderlandian Inquisition is enabled by what philosopher Curtis Yarvin has termed “the Cathedral“: the decentralized yet ideologically unified complex of media, academia, NGOs, and judicial bureaucracies that enforces progressive orthodoxy. Judges, feeling shielded by this moral and institutional consensus, act with impunity. They believe themselves not mere arbiters of law, but guardians of the faith — a faith in which biological realities, cultural incompatibilities, and demographic arithmetic must be denied lest they undermine the sacred project of diversity.”