Dear friends,
Immigration is as old as humanity itself. People move—out of necessity, out of hope, sometimes out of ambition. And immigration, in the abstract, is neither good nor bad. What matters is what it does. What matters is the outcome.

In the Netherlands, immigration has, on balance, turned out poorly. Not because we are unwilling. Not because those who arrive are inherently bad people. But because, as a country, we have failed to manage immigration selectively and—above all—to face its consequences honestly. As a result, integration has failed for many. Or rather: it never truly began.

For decades, there has been a taboo in the Netherlands on naming the darker side of immigration. A reluctance—sometimes even a hysteria—to collect data at all, let alone conduct serious analysis. Anyone who raised these issues was branded “far right,” “xenophobic,” or worse. But refusing to examine the costs and benefits of immigration is unethical. Only by measuring can one correct course.

Mathematician and anthropologist Jan van de Beek—one of the very few who has examined this issue with intellectual seriousness—addressed this in his book Immigration Magnet. His analyses are rigorous; his conclusions are clear. But our policy elite listens only to the science that suits its own narrative.

That is why we are here. Not out of hatred, not out of resentment, but out of concern. Because we see what is happening. Because eight out of ten Dutch voters—across the political spectrum—voted for less immigration in the 2023 elections. Because we are worried: about our culture, our prosperity, our security—and that of our children.

It feels as though our culture is being hollowed out. Diluted. Replaced. Those who constantly point accusing fingers at the past, instilling guilt over colonialism, are the very same people who celebrate today’s demographic transformation as something noble and enlightened. But they forget one thing: we have no other homeland. THIS is our country.

A multicultural society is, by definition, a parallel society. Not a community, but a collection of separate groups living side by side—often in mutual suspicion, sometimes in open hostility. What we call “society” is becoming less and less shared. Polarization is not an accident; it is a consequence—fueled by media and administrators who frame every legitimate concern as extremism.

Why, then, this reflex—persisting for forty years—to stigmatize anyone who asks questions about immigration? This is not an abstract debate. Every city, every town, every neighborhood feels the change. And with the new Dispersal Act, which forces

municipalities to accept asylum seekers, even local autonomy has disappeared. No say, no democracy—only imposed quotas. A country that redistributes itself without closing its borders is like a captain handing out buckets while the ship is sinking.

Look at Dordrecht. Residents living near a planned asylum center were given one thousand euros per family to take security measures—paid for by the municipality. As if danger has become an accepted feature of reception policy.

I have long asked myself: how did we reach a point where universal human rights have come to outweigh national citizens’ rights? The primary duty of a government is not to care for the entire world, but to protect its own citizens. And that is not happening.

Because, quite simply, we no longer know who is entering the country or who is here. We saw this—painfully and horrifically—in the murder of Lisa.

We were promised doctors, dentists, engineers. What we received were young men, often without papers, from countries with fundamentally different cultures. The largest share comes from the Islamic world. And that culture—let us say this plainly—stands in sharp contrast to ours on many essential points.

Islam does not believe in freedom of speech. Not in freedom of religion. Not in the separation of mosque and state—three fundamental pillars of our democracy that are now under pressure.

Consider Sharia law: a legal system in which punishment depends on who you are, not on what you have done. It is not merely alien; it is incompatible with our legal system and our sense of justice. The same applies to women’s rights, gay rights, and practices such as genital mutilation. These cultural norms are irreconcilable with ours.

History teaches us that once Islam becomes dominant, it displaces the original culture. Egypt was once Coptic Christian; today that heritage is barely visible. Lebanon had a Christian majority until the 1970s; today that is unthinkable. In 56 countries, Islam now forms the majority. Every one of those countries once began with zero Muslims. And the pattern is familiar: first a minority, then a majority, then dominance.

This is not a conspiracy theory; it is demography. The Muslim Brotherhood said it openly: “We will conquer the West with the wombs of our women, through migration, and by using your own freedoms against you.” It sounds bizarre—but it is happening.

Yes, most Muslims want to conquer no one. They simply want a better life. But the structures and doctrines they adhere to collide with our values. Acknowledging that is not hatred; it is realism.

Since 9/11, more than 47,000 terrorist attacks worldwide have been carried out by Islamic extremists. No other religious or ideological movement comes remotely close. Is that a coincidence?

A society is defined by what it tolerates. And we have reached a point where tolerance has turned into capitulation. Every country is shaped by the values of its majority. And so I say: you become what you allow in.

There is not a single Western country that has become more Islamic and at the same time freer, safer, or happier. Not one. That is why I stand here. Not because I am against Muslims, but because I am for Western values. For the Netherlands. For freedom.

I do not blame those who come here seeking a better life. I blame our leaders for allowing this to happen for forty years.

Because Islam does not fit within our Western society—and Muslims themselves say so as well.

I want my children and grandchildren to grow up in the same free country in which I was raised. A country where you feel at home. Where you feel safe. Where you speak the language, share the values, and where the government protects you.

THIS is OUR homeland. And we must continue to fight for it—for our children and our grandchildren.

Thank you to everyone who is here today. Thank you, Els, for your commitment. And to all of you: speak out. Because the worst form of censorship is self-censorship.

I call on the political parties that still stand firm for Western civilization to unite. To renounce treaties that undermine us. To place national citizens’ rights back at the forefront.

Those who live here speak our language, respect our values, and contribute—economically, socially, culturally.

Participate—or leave. It is a voluntary choice.

Let us make the Netherlands a society again. A country where everyone can once more walk the streets safely. Raise the flag.

Thank you.