Transgender From San Francisco Who Fled Trump’s America Now Begs to Come Home From Knife-Filled Dutch Asylum Hell

A biological male who calls himself Jane-Michelle Arc packed up his life in San Francisco, ran from the United States after Donald Trump’s return to the White House, and claimed asylum in the Netherlands. Now he is begging to get back.

The reason? The “safe” European refugee camp he landed in is so violent that the Red Cross pulled its workers out, stabbings are routine, and the men around him from North Africa and elsewhere make no secret of what they think should happen to people like him.

According to a Daily Mail report, Arc told Dutch outlet Pow News: “The situation I have in the US as a trans person, not good right, but here, I will be hurt or killed.”

He described yellow-vested security everywhere because of the constant stabbings and said the area outside the center is filled with “Moroccans or Bulgarians or whatever that think queer people should be beaten.”

This is the same Arc who once admitted fleeing America was “the dumbest thing” he had ever done. Turns out he was right the first time.

Arc, a 48-year-old software engineer who transitioned in 2012, claims street abuse and a close call with a truck driver in California drove him out. After Trump’s reelection he feared losing the legal fiction of female identity on passports and other documents. So he chose the nuclear option: asylum.

He estimates 35 to 50 other Americans who identify as transgender have done the same. Dutch officials do not even track the category. The odds of success are near zero. Leiden University professor Marlou Schrover has said American claims would only work if the United States started locking people up solely for their gender identity. That has not happened. About 20 failed American applicants were already deported back in 2025.

Instead of the progressive paradise he imagined, Arc was dropped into Ter Apel, the Netherlands’ largest asylum center. The place houses roughly 2,000 people, many from cultures that treat sexual deviance as a capital offense.

Keep reading

Rotterdam Officially Creates A No-Go Zone — Dutch City Bans Nighttime Entry To De Esch Neighborhood After Years Of Migrant Gang Disorder

The city of Rotterdam has taken an extraordinary and, by its own admission, unprecedented step: imposing a nighttime exclusion zone on an entire residential neighborhood, making it a criminal offense to enter the De Esch district between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. without a demonstrable reason for being there. The order took effect Thursday evening and will run for three months before evaluation, according to Remix News and the Dutch public broadcaster NOS.

Under the new rule, anyone stopped in De Esch during nighttime hours who cannot explain their presence to police is liable for a fine and a criminal record. Residents, workers, visitors attending events or dining at local restaurants, and people visiting family homes are exempt. Everyone else — which in practice means the large groups of outsiders who have descended on the neighborhood after dark for nearly three years — is not.

The backstory is a familiar and depressing one across Dutch and Western European cities that have been slow to name what is happening. Locals told NOS and the regional broadcaster Rijnmond that since shortly after the Covid pandemic, outsiders — identified in Dutch press coverage as predominantly young men of migrant background — began gathering in De Esch on evenings and weekends in numbers that sometimes reached into the hundreds. Activities documented include street racing, drug use, horn honking, prostitution, intimidation of residents, littering, and aggressive responses to anyone who objected. One resident told Rijnmond she had stopped walking her dog alone at night because of the danger; her parents were nearly struck by cars being driven on the sidewalk.

Rotterdam Mayor Carola Schouten authorized the exclusion zone under existing public order powers. “Calm must return to De Esch, and residents must feel comfortable and safe. That is why I am using this power,” she said. Previous interventions — concrete barriers, increased police patrols, community outreach, direct talks with those causing the disruption — had all failed. The first night of the ban was described as immediately and dramatically quieter. “I slept wonderfully,” one resident told Rijnmond. “Now, the street is completely clean.”

Keep reading

American Man Who Insists He’s a Woman Flees ‘Trump’s America,’ Finds Out

Leftists have their views of President Donald Trump and the state of the nation during his second term, but reality has its ways of breaking through, and they aren’t always pleasant. For over ten years now, the allegedly rational and tolerant among us have been working themselves, and anyone else they can get to, into a hysterical froth about Trump, in large part because of his determination not to allow the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave to become a borderless free-for-all place of sanctuary for all of the world’s criminals, psychopaths, and terrorists.

That hysteria has led numerous leftists to vow to flee the country rather than suffer one more minute of Orange Man Bad’s reign of terror, and some, albeit far fewer than have threatened to do so, have actually left. Many who have loudly announced that they’re leaving this benighted, proto-fascist land are still here because, deep in their heart of hearts, they know that what they’re saying about Trump and America is about as plausible as the claim that Old Joe Biden, while he was pretending to be president of the United States, was sharp as a tack.

Some, however, have actually bid farewell to our fair shores and shaken the dust off their feet, seeking a better life in lands that are more tolerant, inclusive, multicultural, and all the other words that the left uses as synonyms for “culturally suicidal.” One of those who fled Trump’s racist, insufferable Amerikkka was a big, bluff guy who insists he’s a woman and has a cute little ponytail to prove it. Having found refuge from Trump in the peaceful hamlet of Ter Apel in the Netherlands, the big guy has found himself facing problems that (could it be possible?) are even worse than the man leftists consider to be the focus of evil in the modern world.

video shows the big guy talking with a female Dutch interviewer, over whom he towers, as if he were a… man, which, of course, he really is. As they chat, a group of much younger men lurk nearby, looking dangerous. The video opens with the man who thinks he’s a woman talking about those young men: “Between here and there is a bunch of Algerians and Moroccans or whoever who think that queer people should be beaten. I think that this system where you have people just living out here that are unhappy is not good.”

Keep reading

Transgender Person Who Fled the United States for the Netherlands Now Complains About Being Harassed by Muslims There

A transgender person who was born a male but now identifies as a woman, fled the United States of America for the Netherlands, apparently believing there would be greater freedom there. This same person was recently interviewed and complained about being harassed by Muslim migrants in the Dutch country.

How many times have we seen something like this before?

People on the left who flee the United States of America looking for something better, almost never find what they are seeking. In fact, they usually end up learning a hard lesson about how much better life is in the United States.

John Nolte writes at Breitbart News:

The Dutch town of Ter Apel has a population of just 10,000 and was just sabotaged by its own government.

Over 2,200 asylum seekers were dumped on this town, most of them young, Muslim men. The center used to house asylum seekers tops out at 2,000, so, according to local news reports, “between 40 and 100 asylum seekers have spent their days outside the centre.”

Naturally, this influx of hostile foreigners who are not interested in integrating has deteriorated conditions. Violence has become enough of a problem that the “Red Cross and the Dutch Council for Refugees… have withdrawn their aid workers from the grounds around the Ter Apel asylum reception after rising violence, culminating in two stabbings last week, have left the area too dangerous to continue operating in.”…

“It’s scary. It’s legitimately scary. I decided that my mental health is degrading so substantially, being here, that I just need to get out,” the dude in a dress said. “The situation I have in the U.S. as a trans person — not good, right? — but here I will be hurt or killed.”

Keep reading

Child under age of 12 euthanised in the Netherlands for the first time after law change

A seriously ill child under the age of 12 has been euthanised in the Netherlands for the first time after a law change two years ago.

In a letter to parliament, Dutch health minister Sophie Hermans said that the child had died last year but did not clarify their age, date of death or the illness that they suffered, according to broadcaster NOS.

The law in the Netherlands was changed in 2024 to extend euthanasia to children under the age of 12 to allow them to “die with dignity” if there was no route to escape extremely severe pain or suffering.

Previously the procedure had only been permissible for newborns and children aged over 12. Patients under the age of 18 require the consent of a parent or guardian.

Under euthanasia laws, a person must be in a state of intolerable suffering with no realistic hope of relief and it should only be applied in exceptional and extreme circumstances.

In order to undergo the procedure, a doctor must persuade the authorities that euthanasia is appropriate and that there is no humane alternative. The threshold is extremely high when applying the legislation to young children.

Hermans said that the review committee has examined the case and spoken to the doctor involved, according to NOS.

The committee’s judgment has been forwarded to the Public Prosecution Service (OM) who must ultimately determine whether the doctor acted in accordance with the law. The recommendation of the review committee will be made public shortly, she explained.

When the rule was changed it was expected only to apply to around five children every year.

“Euthanasia is only allowed for patients whose unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement has a medical dimension,” government guidance says.

“Termination of life is only allowed if a child is terminally ill and is suffering unbearably with no prospect of improvement.

“This means the child is in constant, severe pain. And that there is no cure, and no reasonable alternative to relieve the child’s suffering, even through palliative care.

“In this situation, the doctor may decide, together with the parents, to terminate the child’s life. This decision is always made in consultation with the parents and, if possible, also with the child.”

In the UK, a bill to allow adults in England and Wales with fewer than six months to live to apply for an assisted death – subject to the approval of two doctors and an expert panel – will return to the House of Commons this September.

Keep reading

“White Time”: Dutch Professor Argues That Time Itself Is Racist

We have previously discussed how many professors seem to compete in finding new forms of racism in every facet of society and education. Astrophysics, math, runoffs, science, statistics, and meritocracy have all been denounced as racist. In this academic cottage industry, professors secure publications and speaking opportunities by identifying racism in the expressions, images, or entire fields. It was, therefore, only a matter of time before time itself was declared racist.

Zakia Essanhaji, a professor of “organizational ethnography” at Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, is the latest to make the case against “white time.”

Her recent paper titled “Academic time theft: stealing time, producing racialized inclusion in Dutch academia” builds on prior work condemning time as racist.

Rutgers Women’s and Gender Studies/Africana Studies Professor Brittney Cooper has also written about how time is racist. Mainstream media has positively cooed at the suggestion, including an interview with NPR. Cooper claimed that “white people own time” after framing the concept of time in “histories of European and Western thought.”

There is also apparently black time: “Time has a history, and so do black people. But we treat time as though it is timeless, as though it has always been this way, as though it doesn’t have a political history bound up with the plunder of indigenous lands, the genocide of indigenous people and the stealing of Africans from their homeland.”

Likewise, in The Chronopolitics of Racial Time,” Jamaican academic Charles W. Mills described the  “Euro-chronometer” as a Western-centric, linear timeline.

These works are often heavily laden with jargonistic narratives. In one study from Brazil, academics argue that “thinking of time outside and against the Euro-chronometer requires decolonial epistemologies that have the potential to disrupt racist chronologies.”

Professor Essanhaji continues this scholarship by “drawing on critical race theory and decolonial scholarship on chronopolitics and white time.” She applies with earlier work “to academic time theft to theorize how universities extract, fragment and defer the time of academics of colour through racialized institutional processes.”

“White time is not simply the time of the privileged, but the power to define temporality and progress itself. It is the colonization of time, known as the system of modernity/coloniality. As Vazquez […] argues, this system is maintained by erasing cyclical or relational understandings of time, ensuring that time is perceived as racing towards unattainable, more modern futures. In that sense, white time is both prescriptive and pre-emptive, foreclosing alternative futures and experiences of the past by delegitimizing other temporalities.”

Academics have long argued that non-white histories and figures are often “erased’ in scholarship. Such arguments have led to a move away from Western works or classics in favor of non-Western sources in higher education. However, the time scholarship suggests that the very construct of time has been shaped and furthers white domination and privilege.

In Professor Essanhaji’s work, this scholarship is used to challenge the demands placed on minority academics in publishing and other measures of academic achievement. Again, the work is heavily layered with jargonistic language. Here are her findings:

“The analysis identifies three mechanisms of academic time theft. First, prolonged uncertainty operates through racialized precariousness that keeps academics of colour in a condition of academic probation through insecure contracts and housing precarity. Second, ongoing disruption emerges through everyday racism that fragments attention, diverts emotional and intellectual labour, and interrupts academic continuity. Third, recursive evaluation operates through the continual resetting of inclusion and promotion criteria, producing perpetual states of “not yet” recognition and deferred academic futures. Together, these mechanisms sustain racialized temporal regimes in which academics of colour are positioned as perpetually “almost there” while white institutional time remains uninterrupted.”

These authors largely cite each other with little attention to countervailing viewpoints. It becomes a closed, self-perpetuating system as academics invite one another to speak at their universities and feed off one another. Few academics are willing to challenge such scholarship. Indeed, as we have discussed, departments have largely purged their ranks of conservative or contrarian voices.

As shown in this latest scholarship, the work in this area jettisons such “colonial” or “white” forms of analysis in favor of storytelling:

“I depart from a critical race perspective, employing counter-storytelling to construct (counter)narratives grounded in the lived experiences of people of colour. This method recognizes the connections between the historical impacts of colonialism and contemporary exclusions within organizations. By highlighting the experiences of people of colour navigating the university’s racism, I seek to provide rich accounts that reflect on how time is racialized and experienced in Dutch universities.”

Keep reading

Netherlands Euthanizes Child Under 12 for First Time After Law Expansion Allowing it for Children as Young as ONE YEAR OLD

A terminally ill child under the age of 12 was euthanized in the Netherlands last year, marking the first known case since the country expanded its euthanasia laws in 2024 to include children aged one to 12 who are terminally ill with no prospect of improvement.

Dutch Health Minister Sophie Hermans disclosed the case in a June letter to parliament alongside the annual report from the committee reviewing late-term abortions and medically assisted deaths of children.

Prosecutors are now reviewing whether the doctor followed all legal requirements.

The government has not released the child’s exact age, gender, or specific medical condition, citing privacy.

The euthanasia was said to have been carried out because the child faced “unbearable suffering with no prospect of improvement” that had a clear medical dimension.

Dutch rules allow euthanasia in such cases for diseases like cancer, as well as certain psychiatric disorders or complex conditions.

It remains prohibited for people who simply feel that their lives are “finished” or “completed” without a medical basis.

For children under 12, parental or guardian consent is required. The government has stated that in these cases, ending the child’s life is considered “the only reasonable alternative to the child’s unbearable and hopeless suffering.”

The Netherlands became the first country in the world to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2002.

Doctors who fail to follow the rules can face up to 12 years in prison.

Children aged one to 12 were previously barred from assisted suicide.

Dutch officials estimated the change would apply to approximately five to 10 children per year.

In 2025, the Netherlands recorded 10,341 deaths by assisted suicide, a 3.8% increase from the previous year.

Since the mid-2000s, the Netherlands has allowed euthanasia for severely disabled or terminally ill infants under one year old when suffering is deemed “unbearable and untreatable.”

Keep reading

The Dutch Covid Inquiry Is Not Looking for the Truth

Across the world, the response to Covid looked strangely alike: the same lockdowns, the same shuttered schools and businesses, the same insistence that there was only one responsible course and that to question it was to put lives at risk. Country after country moved in near lockstep. 

To me, that uniformity remains one of the most troubling features of those years. Measures so similar, so sweeping, and adopted so quickly are difficult to explain as dozens of governments independently reach the same conclusion. Whatever the truth behind that coordination, the Covid era cannot be understood one nation at a time. What was done to people’s freedoms — and how each country now chooses to examine it, or to look away — concerns us all. What follows is one country’s reckoning.

From a distance, the Netherlands can look like an open society settling its accounts with the pandemic.

A civil case is moving through the court in Leeuwarden. Seven citizens — one of whom has died since the case began — are suing seventeen defendants for harm they attribute to the mRNA Covid shots. The defendants are not minor figures: the former prime minister, Mark Rutte; the former health minister, Hugo de Jonge; Marion Koopmans, the virologist who sat on the team of experts advising the cabinet; Jaap van Dissel, who as head of infectious-disease control at the national health institute chaired that team — the Outbreak Management Team (OMT), which steered the country’s Covid response from January 2020 until 2022 — and was the public face of the lockdown advice; the chief executive of Pfizer, Albert Bourla; and Bill Gates. Gates argued that a Dutch court had no business judging him. The court disagreed and kept the case.1 It continues, slowly.

To a foreign reader, that reads as a country with room to ask hard questions.

It is worth pausing on what became of the man who brought the case. Arno van Kessel, one of the two lawyers behind it, spent 260 days in pre-trial detention. He was arrested in June 2025 — the day after he filed papers in the case — in an investigation into a network of self-described “sovereigns,” people who reject the authority of the state. To my mind the label sits oddly on him: his whole method was the courtroom. He is a lawyer who took the government to court, not a man who denies that courts have power over anyone. No criminal court has convicted him of anything; he remains a suspect, and a suspect only. In late February 2026 the judges suspended his detention, in part because the prosecution’s case was moving so slowly.2 By then he had been struck from the bar and could no longer stand beside his own clients. And so the lawyer who had brought that suit against Rutte, De Jonge, Koopmans, and Gates had himself been shut out of the courtroom.

Then, on 29 May 2026, the inquiry into the Corona policy opened its public hearings. And a similar picture appears.

Keep reading

Amsterdam Bans Meat Ads as the War on Food Expands

Amsterdam’s decision to ban meat advertising should be viewed as part of a much broader trend that has been unfolding for years. Politicians insist this is about climate change. Every new restriction is presented as a noble sacrifice for to save the environment. Yet the target is almost always the same: farmers, ranchers, livestock producers, and regular people who are forced to sacrifice their health and livelihood for the globalist agenda.

The Netherlands has already spent years battling its own farming community through nitrogen regulations, forced buyouts, and restrictions that have pushed many family farms to the brink. Massive farmer protests erupted because people recognized that this was never merely about emissions. Agriculture was being redesigned from the top down. Now the campaign has moved beyond production and into culture itself. If citizens cannot be persuaded to abandon meat voluntarily, then governments will gradually make meat less visible, less available, more expensive, and increasingly stigmatized.

Many people dismissed concerns years ago when international organizations began discussing alternatives to traditional meat consumption. The World Economic Forum published articles exploring insects as a future protein source and repeatedly promoted dietary shifts away from actual meat. The argument was always framed around sustainability, carbon reduction, and environmental goals. They attempted to normalize chewing on bugs as an alternative to a steak. They claim it is our duty as global citizens to sacrifice essential nutrition to save the planet, despite knowing well that these measures would not make a meaningful dent in anything.

Keep reading

Carbon Neutral, Speech Negative: Amsterdam Bans Ads Featuring Meat & Fossil Fuels

In The Indispensable Right: Free Speech in an Age of Rage,” I write about how censorship often becomes an insatiable appetite once countries go down the road of speech regulation. There is no better example than the Dutch and their recent ban on public ads for meat and fossil fuels. Activists have imposed similar limitations on advertising for products in the United States, from alcohol to tobacco. However, the Dutch law reflects how this tendency can metastasize into shielding citizens from unhealthy choices or influences.

It appears that Dutch painters such as Pieter Aertsen (with his work A Meat Stall with the Holy Family Giving Alms, above) were promoting harmful imagery in their work. As for Rembrandt’s “Slaughtered Ox,” the Dutch master is now little more than a climate change denier.

Starting on May 1, the ban on such images became part of Amsterdam’s push to achieve carbon neutrality by 2050. While purportedly neutral on carbon, it is manifestly negative on free speech.

As with other anti-free speech measures in Europe, this push again came from the left. The GreenLeft Party’s Anneke Veenhoff explained “I mean, if you want to be leading in climate policies and you rent out your walls to exactly the opposite, then what are you doing?”

The answer is engaging in free speech.

This is, of course, commercial speech, which is often subject to a lower level of protection. However, this shows the danger of using the differential standard to target products or industries viewed as unhealthy or ill-advised for consumers.

In Amsterdam, the ban will cover industries such as airlines, including KLM Royal Dutch Airlines, one of the largest employers and revenue generators in the country.

Notably, activists compare this to cigarette advertising bans, confirming the very slippery slope danger that those companies raised when they were targeted.

Hannah Prins, a paralegal at Advocates for the Future, is quoted as saying, “I don’t think it’s normal to see murdered animals on billboards. So I think it’s very good that that’s going to change.”

Other Dutch cities are now following suit, including Haarlem, Utrecht, and Nijmegen.

Of course, prostitutes still advertise live in Amsterdam and marijuana is a major industry for tourists.

If you want drugs, there are ample choices.

However, if you want a steak, you will have to rely on word-of-mouth directions.

Keep reading