How the EU and Supranational Organizations Made Energy Unaffordable

27 February 2025

Energy prices in Europe have skyrocketed in recent years, leaving many citizens struggling to pay their bills. While mainstream narratives often blame external factors such as global market fluctuations or the war in Ukraine, a deeper analysis reveals that much of this crisis is rooted in the policies and decisions of the European Union (EU) and its affiliated supranational organizations, such as NATO. From aggressive geopolitical stances to an ideological push for “green” energy, the policies of these institutions have exacerbated the problem rather than solved it.

Geopolitical decisions and the energy crisis

Sanctions and the Russia-Ukraine war

The EU’s sanctions against Russia following its invasion of Ukraine had a direct and devastating impact on European energy markets. Before 2022, Russia supplied around 40% of the EU’s natural gas, with countries like Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands heavily dependent on cheap Russian energy (IEA, 2021). The EU’s decision to cut off this supply without securing viable alternatives led to immediate shortages and price hikes.

While the official justification was to weaken Russia’s economy, the reality is that European citizens bore the brunt of these sanctions. Energy-intensive industries faced closure, inflation skyrocketed, and household energy bills tripled in some member states (Eurostat, 2023). Meanwhile, Russia redirected its energy exports to China and India, while Europe scrambled to secure costly LNG imports from the United States and Qatar.

NATO’s role in escalating tensions

NATO, with the EU’s backing, played a crucial role in the deterioration of relations with Russia long before the war in Ukraine. The alliance’s eastward expansion and military support for Ukraine heightened tensions, making Russia more reluctant to maintain energy cooperation with the EU (Mearsheimer, 2015). The war was not just an isolated conflict; it was the culmination of years of geopolitical miscalculations, many of which were driven by Brussels and Washington rather than Moscow alone.

The ideological obsession with “green” energy

Forcing unreliable renewables onto the market

For years, the EU has aggressively pushed for the transition to renewable energy, often at the expense of reliability and affordability. The European Green Deal, spearheaded by the European Commission, aims for climate neutrality by 2050, but its immediate effects have been disastrous (European Commission, 2019). Governments have been pressured to phase out coal and nuclear energy while replacing them with solar and wind power—despite the fact that these sources remain inconsistent and dependent on weather conditions.

Countries like Germany, which shut down its nuclear plants in favor of wind and solar, have faced frequent energy shortages, forcing them to rely on expensive gas imports (Agora Energiewende, 2022). The EU’s ideological rigidity on renewables has made the energy market more vulnerable, rather than ensuring stable and affordable electricity for its citizens.

Carbon taxes and regulations driving up costs

The EU’s Emissions Trading System (ETS) has further worsened the crisis by imposing heavy taxes on carbon emissions. The cost of carbon permits has skyrocketed, making traditional energy production—such as coal and gas—far more expensive (European Environment Agency, 2023). While framed as an environmental necessity, these regulations have primarily resulted in higher energy prices for consumers, forcing industries and households to absorb the added costs.

Financialization and market manipulation

The role of energy speculation

Liberalization of the EU energy market has led to extreme price volatility. Instead of maintaining state-controlled energy sectors, many European countries allowed private corporations and financial institutions to speculate on energy prices (Baker, 2022). This has made energy pricing more susceptible to artificial inflation, with traders profiting from market uncertainty while consumers suffer.

Privatization and lack of strategic reserves

Unlike Russia, China, or even the United States, which maintain large state-controlled energy reserves, the EU has failed to secure strategic energy supplies. Countries are left exposed to market fluctuations, relying on spot prices rather than long-term contracts that could stabilize costs (Scholz, 2022). This hands-off approach has left European citizens vulnerable to price spikes caused by external shocks.

What does this mean for European citizens?

Rising poverty and economic decline

Soaring energy prices have pushed millions of Europeans into energy poverty. Households in Spain, Italy, and Eastern Europe have been forced to ration heating, while governments scramble to introduce subsidies that only provide temporary relief (Eurostat, 2023). Meanwhile, European industries—especially those in manufacturing and heavy industry—are struggling to compete with regions where energy remains affordable.

Dependence on foreign energy suppliers

While the EU claims to seek “energy independence,” its actions have achieved the opposite. Instead of relying on Russian gas, Europe now depends on costly imports from the US and Middle Eastern states, often at significantly higher prices (IEA, 2023). The push for green energy has also made the EU dependent on China, which dominates the production of solar panels and rare-earth minerals used in wind turbines (IEA, 2022). Instead of achieving autonomy, Europe has merely exchanged one dependency for another.

Conclusion

The energy crisis in Europe is not merely the result of external factors, but largely the consequence of poor policymaking by the EU and supranational organizations such as NATO. From reckless geopolitical decisions and overreliance on unreliable renewables to market-driven speculation and punitive regulations, these institutions have played a decisive role in making energy unaffordable for European citizens. Unless these flawed policies are reversed, Europe faces a future of continued economic stagnation, energy poverty, and increasing dependence on external powers.

References

Agora Energiewende (2022). “Germany’s energy crisis: The consequences of nuclear shutdowns.”
Baker, P. (2022). “How financial speculation drove Europe’s energy prices up.”
European Commission (2019). “The European Green Deal: A vision for 2050.”
European Environment Agency (2023). “The impact of carbon pricing on energy affordability.”
Eurostat (2023). “Energy poverty in Europe: Statistics and trends.”
IEA (2021). “Europe’s reliance on Russian gas: Data and analysis.”
IEA (2022). “China’s dominance in renewable energy supply chains.”
IEA (2023). “LNG imports to Europe: Market dynamics and pricing.”
Mearsheimer, J. (2015). “Why the Ukraine crisis is the West’s fault.”
Scholz, O. (2022). “How Germany’s energy policy left it vulnerable to crisis.”

Why Negative News Beats Positive News

27 February 2025

News media are often accused of sensationalism and negativity. Many people claim they prefer to see positive news, but in practice, negative reports—such as disasters, scandals, and crises—perform much better. This phenomenon has psychological, sociological, and economic causes and is rooted in both human evolution and the dynamics of modern media.

The Psychology Behind the Preference for Negative News

Negativity Bias: An Evolutionary Survival Mechanism

Humans naturally have a negativity bias—the tendency to absorb negative information more strongly and quickly than positive information (Baumeister et al., 2001). This has evolutionary roots. Our ancestors needed to recognize threats, such as predators or poisonous plants, quickly in order to survive. Those who were alert to dangers had a greater chance of survival. This instinct is still active today, making negative reports automatically grab our attention and have a greater emotional impact than positive ones.

Stronger Emotional Response to Bad News

Negative news causes a stronger physiological reaction than positive news. Research using fMRI scans shows that the amygdala, the part of the brain involved in fear and emotions, is more active when processing negative images and stories (Carretie et al., 2009). This explains why reports on wars, economic crises, and crimes not only attract more attention but also stay longer in memory.

The Social Dynamics of Negative News

Collective Fear and Social Bonding

Negative news strengthens group cohesion. When people collectively experience a threat, such as a natural disaster or political crisis, they seek support from each other (Peters & Kashima, 2015). The media capitalize on this by continuously reporting on crises, making people feel compelled to follow developments and feel connected to others experiencing the same situation.

Social Comparison and Confirmation of Worldviews

Negative news also offers a form of social comparison: people feel better about their own situation when they read about others’ misfortunes (Taylor & Lobel, 1989). Additionally, it often reinforces existing worldviews. For example, those already skeptical of a particular government or corporation are more likely to consume and share negative news about these entities (Stroud, 2008). This explains why polarizing news performs well: it confirms the beliefs of specific groups and encourages interaction and dissemination.

The Economic Incentives of the Media Industry

Negative News Sells Better

Media companies depend on attention and advertisements. Research shows that negative headlines generate 30% more clicks on average than neutral or positive ones (Outbrain, 2013). Sensational reports about disasters or political scandals are more likely to go viral, directly influencing ad revenue and media reach.

The Competition for Attention

In a digital environment where news consumption mainly happens through social media and algorithms, the stories that evoke the most emotional responses win. Social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter promote engagement and interaction, and negative content leads to more reactions and discussion than neutral or positive reports (Vosoughi et al., 2018). This drives news organizations to increasingly use emotional triggers to remain relevant in an oversaturated media landscape.

What Does This Mean for the Media Landscape?

Addictive News Cycles and Psychological Consequences

The constant stream of negative news can lead to anxiety and stress. Studies show that excessive exposure to negative news is associated with higher levels of depression and anxiety (Thompson et al., 2017). Yet, people often remain obsessed with bad news, partly due to the FOMO effect (fear of missing out): they fear missing important developments.

Possible Solutions and Awareness

Some initiatives aim to increase the share of positive news. Platforms such as ‘The Good News Network’ and initiatives within traditional media experiment with constructive journalism, which not only discusses problems but also presents solutions (McIntyre & Gyldensted, 2017). However, it remains a challenge to give positive news the same impact and appeal as negative news.

Conclusion

Negative news naturally attracts more attention due to our evolutionary biology, social dynamics, and the economic incentives within the media industry. While media organizations continue to exploit this preference, constant exposure to bad news contributes to increased stress and societal polarization. Awareness of these mechanisms can help individuals better regulate their media consumption and find a healthier balance in their news preferences.

References

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). “Bad is stronger than good.” Review of General Psychology.
Carretie, L., Mercado, F., Tapia, M., & Hinojosa, J. A. (2009). “Emotion, attention, and the ‘negativity bias’, studied through event-related potentials.” Neuroscience Letters.
McIntyre, K., & Gyldensted, C. (2017). “Constructive journalism: An introduction.” Journal of Media Ethics.
Outbrain (2013). “Negative headlines outperform positive ones.”
Peters, K., & Kashima, Y. (2015). “The social psychology of collective fear: How negative news shapes social cohesion.” Journal of Social Psychology.
Stroud, N. J. (2008). “Polarization and partisan selective exposure.” Journal of Communication.
Taylor, S. E., & Lobel, M. (1989). “Social comparison activity under threat: Downward evaluation and upward contacts.” Psychological Review.
Thompson, R. R., Jones, N. M., Holman, E. A., & Silver, R. C. (2017). “Media exposure to mass violence events can fuel long-term distress.” Science Advances.
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). “The spread of true and false news online.” Science.

The WEF and Globalist Organizations: Communism in Disguise?

26 February 2025

For decades, globalist organizations such as the World Economic Forum (WEF), the United Nations (UN), and various non-governmental institutions have promoted policies that seek to reshape societies worldwide. While these organizations claim to advocate for sustainability, economic equity, and global cooperation, their ideological framework bears a striking resemblance to the principles of communism—at least as it has been practiced in history. From controlling land and food supply to mass surveillance and centralized economic control, their vision for the future aligns closely with authoritarian socialist regimes of the past.

Discouraging Private Land Ownership and Centralized Control

The Push Against Private Land Use

One of the hallmarks of communism is the abolition of private property in favor of state or collective ownership. Today, globalist organizations push policies that, in effect, discourage private land ownership through environmental regulations, zoning laws, and taxation strategies. Initiatives such as the UN’s Agenda 2030 emphasize dense urban development, often discouraging rural or independent land use in the name of sustainability (United Nations, 2023).

Government and Corporate Land Seizures

Large financial institutions and governments are increasingly acquiring vast amounts of farmland, reducing the ability of individuals to own and cultivate their land. Organizations like the WEF have promoted ideas such as “rewilding” land—essentially leaving vast swaths of land untouched, often placing it under government or corporate control (WEF, 2023). This mirrors historical communist policies where land was seized and collectivized, leaving individual farmers powerless.

Control Over the Food Supply

Pushing Synthetic and Lab-Grown Food

Communist regimes historically controlled the food supply, using it as a tool for compliance. Today, globalist organizations advocate for radical shifts in food consumption, pushing for lab-grown meat, insect consumption, and the reduction of traditional farming in the name of climate action (WEF, 2022). Meanwhile, large corporate entities are gaining increasing control over food production, diminishing self-sufficiency among local populations.

Regulating Small Farmers Out of Existence

New environmental laws and emissions restrictions are forcing small farmers out of business while multinational corporations dominate agriculture. This mirrors the Soviet and Maoist strategies of collectivized farming, which often led to food shortages and famine due to inefficient bureaucratic control (Lal, 2022).

“You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy”: The War on Private Ownership

The Promotion of Rent-Based Living

The WEF’s infamous slogan, “You will own nothing and be happy,” encapsulates their vision for a future in which private ownership is largely eliminated (WEF, 2016). Instead of owning homes, cars, or personal assets, individuals are encouraged to rely on subscription-based, rent-heavy lifestyles—controlled by corporations and regulatory bodies. This aligns closely with the communist model, where personal wealth was redistributed or outright banned, leaving individuals entirely dependent on the state.

Economic Control and Social Credit Systems

Many globalist proposals involve digital currencies controlled by central banks, where financial transactions can be monitored and restricted (IMF, 2023). Similar to China’s social credit system, these digital economies could be used to control behavior, denying access to services or funds for those who do not comply with government directives.

Mass Surveillance and Social Engineering

Tracking and Monitoring Populations

Just as totalitarian regimes of the past relied on mass surveillance and citizen informants to maintain control, globalist institutions advocate for widespread digital tracking. Vaccine passports, carbon tracking apps, and facial recognition technology are becoming increasingly common, all under the guise of public safety and climate accountability (UNESCO, 2023).

Censorship and Control Over Free Speech

Globalist entities are heavily involved in influencing online discourse. The European Union and the WEF have openly collaborated with social media platforms to regulate what they deem “misinformation” (European Commission, 2022). This resembles the censorship and propaganda tactics of past communist regimes, where only state-approved narratives were allowed.

Infiltrating and Influencing Governments

Placing Operatives in Key Political Positions

One of the most alarming aspects of globalist influence is their infiltration of national governments. WEF founder Klaus Schwab has openly boasted about his organization’s penetration of governments through its “Young Global Leaders” program, which has trained figures such as Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, and Jacinda Ardern (Schwab, 2020). These individuals often push policies aligned with WEF objectives, bypassing democratic accountability.

Supranational Governance and the Erosion of Sovereignty

Globalist organizations increasingly push for supranational governance structures, reducing the power of individual nations to make independent decisions. The European Union, the WHO pandemic treaty, and international climate agreements often impose policies without direct democratic input from the populations they affect (Sovereignty Coalition, 2023). This mirrors the central planning and top-down control inherent in communist governance models.

Conclusion: A Globalist Technocracy Resembling Communist Regimes

While globalist organizations claim to advocate for sustainability, economic fairness, and progress, their methods and goals bear a striking resemblance to the centralized control mechanisms of past communist states. From restricting private property to controlling food supplies, implementing mass surveillance, and infiltrating governments, these groups are steering the world toward a system where individual freedom is sacrificed for a collective agenda dictated by unelected elites. If history is any indication, such a system benefits the few at the expense of the many.

References

European Commission. (2022). “Regulating Online Misinformation: A Collaborative Approach.”
IMF. (2023). “Central Bank Digital Currencies: The Future of Monetary Policy?”
Lal, D. (2022). “The Economics of Collectivized Farming: Lessons from the Past.”
Schwab, K. (2020). “The Great Reset and the Role of Young Global Leaders.”
Sovereignty Coalition. (2023). “The Push for Supranational Governance and Its Implications.”
UNESCO. (2023). “Facial Recognition, Digital IDs, and the Future of Privacy.”
United Nations. (2023). “Agenda 2030 and the Future of Land Use.”
WEF. (2016). “Welcome to 2030: You Will Own Nothing and Be Happy.”
WEF. (2022). “Sustainable Diets: The Role of Lab-Grown Meat and Insect Protein.”
WEF. (2023). “Rewilding and the Future of Land Conservation.”

The Hidden Burden of Employer Regulations: a System of Control?

25 February 2025

Governments often justify heavy regulations on employers by claiming they protect workers and ensure economic stability. However, these regulations frequently serve as hidden mechanisms to extract wealth from businesses and workers, funneling money into government-controlled systems rather than directly benefiting employees. Mandatory pensions, insurance schemes, and rigid labor laws do little more than restrict economic freedom, reduce take-home pay, and trap workers in a cycle of low wages and dependency. This raises the question: are these regulations truly for the people, or are they another method to increase state control over labor and finances?

The Illusion of Benefits: Forced Pensions and Insurance

A System That Does Not Benefit Workers

One of the most significant financial burdens on employers is the mandatory pension and insurance schemes. Employers are required to contribute substantial amounts to pension funds and insurance programs that workers may never fully utilize. Many employees die before reaching the age at which they can collect full pensions, effectively losing out on the money they contributed throughout their careers (OECD, “Pensions at a Glance”, 2023).

Insurance contributions, including unemployment insurance, disability insurance, and health coverage, further eat into both employer and employee incomes. These schemes often provide minimal benefits relative to the amount contributed, with bureaucratic inefficiencies and mismanagement leading to a system where only a fraction of collected funds are returned to those who need them (Financial Times, “The Pension Black Hole”, 2023).

Where Does The Money Go?

Rather than serving workers, these contributions primarily fund massive state-run programs, many of which are unsustainable due to demographic shifts and increasing government debt. In reality, these schemes function as another form of taxation, where workers are forced to contribute without real choice or clear benefits (IMF, “The Future of Social Security”, 2023).

Restrictive Hiring Laws: Stifling Business andLlimiting Opportunities

A Job Market Controlled by Red Tape

Employment laws are often presented as measures to protect workers, but they create significant barriers for businesses, particularly small enterprises. High severance pay, rigid contract laws, and bureaucratic hiring processes discourage companies from expanding their workforce. In many cases, businesses opt for temporary contracts, low-wage positions, or outsourcing to avoid the financial and legal risks associated with full-time employees (World Economic Forum, “Employment Regulation and Economic Growth”, 2023).

How regulations trap workers in low-paying jobs

Due to these restrictive regulations, companies are less willing to take risks in hiring, leading to a rise in precarious employment situations. Many workers are left with temporary or gig-based contracts that offer little stability or long-term prospects. Rather than empowering workers, labor laws often lock them into cycles of job insecurity, reducing their negotiating power and career growth opportunities (Forbes, “The Gig Economy Trap”, 2023).

Minimum wage laws and taxation: making work less rewarding

The minimum wage paradox

While minimum wage laws are meant to guarantee fair pay, they often have the opposite effect. Businesses facing higher labor costs frequently reduce their workforce, automate jobs, or relocate to countries with lower wages. This results in fewer employment opportunities, particularly for young or inexperienced workers who struggle to enter the job market (Cato Institute, “The Unintended Consequences of Minimum Wage Laws”, 2023).

The silent tax on workers

In addition to reducing employment opportunities, wage regulations contribute to increased taxation. Governments impose high income taxes and social contributions, further reducing the real earnings of employees. Many workers receive only a fraction of the money their employers pay for their labor, with the majority siphoned off into tax and regulatory systems that offer little direct return (Tax Foundation, “The True Cost of Employment Taxes”, 2023).

A system designed to control, not empower

Economic dependence and government control

By mandating extensive employer contributions and overregulating the labor market, governments create a system in which both businesses and employees remain economically dependent on state programs. This prevents individuals from building financial independence and limits entrepreneurial activity, ensuring continued reliance on government intervention (Heritage Foundation, “The Regulatory State and Economic Freedom”, 2023).

Who truly benefits?

The primary beneficiaries of these regulations are not workers, but governments and large corporations that can absorb these costs while smaller businesses struggle. By controlling the flow of money through mandatory pensions, insurance, and labor laws, governments ensure they maintain influence over the workforce while suppressing economic freedom and innovation (Mises Institute, “Regulatory Capture and the Illusion of Worker Protections”, 2023).

Conclusion

The idea that heavy employment regulations protect workers is largely a myth. Instead, they serve as a mechanism for state control, siphoning wealth from businesses and employees under the guise of security and stability. These regulations reduce take-home pay, limit job opportunities, and stifle economic growth, ultimately benefiting governments and large corporate interests rather than the people they claim to protect. If economic freedom is to be preserved, it is essential to challenge these policies and advocate for a system that allows businesses and workers to operate with greater flexibility and financial autonomy.

References

OECD, “Pensions at a Glance”, 2023.
Financial Times, “The Pension Black Hole”, 2023.
IMF, “The Future of Social Security”, 2023.
World Economic Forum, “Employment Regulation and Economic Growth”, 2023.
Forbes, “The Gig Economy Trap”, 2023.
Cato Institute, “The Unintended Consequences of Minimum Wage Laws”, 2023.
Tax Foundation, “The True Cost of Employment Taxes”, 2023.
Heritage Foundation, “The Regulatory State and Economic Freedom”, 2023.
Mises Institute, “Regulatory Capture and the Illusion of Worker Protections”, 2023.

Tristate City: The Overhaul of the Netherlands at the Expense of Its Citizens

24 February 2025

The concept of Tristate City is often presented as an ambitious and futuristic urban development plan that will transform the Netherlands into a densely populated megaregion, integrating parts of Belgium and Germany. It is heavily promoted by globalist think tanks, the European Union, and multinational corporations, who argue that it will make the region a global economic powerhouse. However, behind the polished narrative lies a project that prioritizes economic expansion and mass urbanization over the well-being of Dutch citizens.

The plan envisions the Netherlands as a hyper-dense urban hub with a drastically increased population, making it one of the most crowded areas in the world. With significant backing from corporate lobbies, EU policymakers, and real estate investors, the Tristate City initiative is not just about urban planning—it is a major step toward further eroding Dutch national sovereignty in favor of a centralized European superstate (Tristate City, “Concept Plan”, 2023).

The Disregard for Dutch Citizens

Overpopulation and Loss of Open Space

The Netherlands is already one of the most densely populated countries in Europe. The Tristate City plan will dramatically increase urban density, further reducing green spaces, farmland, and the overall quality of life. The Netherlands’ unique rural landscape, known for its fields, forests, and waterways, is at risk of being replaced by a sprawling concrete metropolis (CBS, “Demographic Density and Urban Growth”, 2023).

Dutch citizens will face increased housing shortages, as real estate prices skyrocket due to the focus on high-density urban development. Instead of prioritizing sustainable housing for Dutch families, the plan caters to an influx of new international workers, many of whom will not share a connection to the country’s cultural and social values (Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, “De Gevolgen van Stedelijke Verdichting”, 2023).

Destruction of Agriculture and Food Security

One of the most controversial aspects of the Tristate City vision is the reduction of farmland to make way for more housing and infrastructure projects. The Netherlands is a global leader in agriculture and food production, yet under this plan, thousands of Dutch farmers will be displaced, and traditional agricultural lands will be repurposed for urban expansion (Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, “Ruimtelijke Ordening en Voedselzekerheid”, 2023).

This compromises national food security, increasing dependence on foreign food imports while eliminating one of the Netherlands’ most successful industries. It is no coincidence that this urbanization plan aligns with EU climate policies that are already putting immense pressure on Dutch farmers under the guise of nitrogen regulations.

Strain on Infrastructure and Public Services

With a massive population increase, public infrastructure will be pushed to its limits. Roads, railways, hospitals, and schools will struggle to accommodate the influx of people.

Healthcare: Dutch hospitals already face long wait times and staffing shortages. Increasing the population will further strain the system, reducing accessibility and quality of care (Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit, “Capaciteitsproblemen in de Gezondheidszorg”, 2023).
Traffic Congestion: The Dutch transport system is well-developed but not designed for an exponential population increase. The expansion will lead to severe congestion, increased travel times, and higher maintenance costs for roads and railways (Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, “Mobiliteit en Bevolkingsgroei”, 2023).
Education: Schools and universities will face overcrowding, with Dutch students losing educational opportunities due to the prioritization of international enrollment and foreign labor demands (Onderwijsraad, “De Impact van Stedelijke Groei op Onderwijs”, 2023).

Loss of National Identity and Social Cohesion

The Tristate City project does not account for the importance of Dutch culture, traditions, and national identity. Instead, it promotes an internationalist approach where economic interests override historical and social values.

With the massive influx of foreign workers and the prioritization of multinational corporate interests, there will be increasing social fragmentation. Dutch citizens will be expected to accommodate rapid demographic changes while receiving little benefit in return (SCP, “Identiteit en Samenleving in de 21e Eeuw”, 2023).

Who Benefits from Tristate City?

While Dutch citizens will bear the negative consequences, the true beneficiaries of the Tristate City project are multinational corporations, global financial elites, and EU policymakers who seek to turn the Netherlands into a centralized economic hub:

Corporate interests: Large multinational companies will have access to an expanded workforce at the expense of Dutch workers.
Real estate investors: Housing prices will skyrocket, benefiting property developers and landlords while making homeownership unattainable for ordinary Dutch families.
The EU and globalist policymakers: The Netherlands will be further integrated into a European superstate, losing more of its national sovereignty in the process.

Conclusion: A Project That Serves the Globalists, Not the Dutch People

The Tristate City vision may be framed as an innovative and progressive development plan, but in reality, it is a globalist blueprint that prioritizes economic expansion and mass migration over the well-being of Dutch citizens. It undermines national sovereignty, destroys agricultural land, worsens infrastructure stress, and erodes Dutch cultural identity.

For the Netherlands to remain a country where its own citizens’ needs come first, it is crucial to reject plans like Tristate City and prioritize policies that protect Dutch farmland, preserve national identity, and maintain a livable, sustainable country for future generations.

References

Tristate City, “Concept Plan”, 2023
CBS, “Demographic Density and Urban Growth”, 2023
Planbureau voor de Leefomgeving, “De Gevolgen van Stedelijke Verdichting”, 2023
Rijksinstituut voor Volksgezondheid en Milieu, “Ruimtelijke Ordening en Voedselzekerheid”, 2023
Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit, “Capaciteitsproblemen in de Gezondheidszorg”, 2023
Ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat, “Mobiliteit en Bevolkingsgroei”, 2023
Onderwijsraad, “De Impact van Stedelijke Groei op Onderwijs”, 2023
SCP, “Identiteit en Samenleving in de 21e Eeuw”, 2023

The Illusion of Independent Media: Who Controls the News?

22 February 2025

The idea of a free and independent press is a cornerstone of democratic societies. However, the reality is quite different: a vast portion of global media is owned by just a handful of corporate giants. In the United States, around 90% of all media is controlled by just six companies: Comcast, Disney, Warner Bros. Discovery, Paramount Global, News Corp, and Sony (Federal Communications Commission, “Media Ownership Report”, 2023). Europe follows a similar trend, with media conglomerates such as Bertelsmann, Vivendi, and state-funded broadcasters in the UK and Germany exerting disproportionate influence (Reuters Institute, “Digital News Report”).

In smaller countries, the situation is even more concerning. In the Netherlands, for example, over 80% of the printed press is owned by just two Belgian media corporations: DPG Media and Mediahuis (Commissariaat voor de Media, “Mediaconcentratie in Nederland”). This means that most newspapers, news websites, and magazines are managed by a limited group, significantly impacting news diversity.

Coordinated Messaging and Hidden Influence

The Role of International Institutions

It is not just media ownership concentration that is problematic but also the degree to which news outlets and publications share similar narratives. Large media groups and even public broadcasters frequently echo the same perspectives, which conveniently align with the interests of powerful international organizations such as the European Union, the United Nations, and the World Economic Forum (WEF).

These organizations influence the news through press releases, sponsored journalism initiatives, and indirect subsidies to media institutions. The WEF, for instance, has openly stated that it collaborates with media partners to “combat misinformation,” which in practice often means censoring dissenting voices on globalist agendas like climate policy and migration (World Economic Forum, “The Global Media Initiative”).

Censorship and Framing: How the Narrative is Controlled

In many Western countries, particularly in the US and Europe, dissenting opinions are increasingly suppressed or discredited through framing and fact-checking organizations that are often funded by the same elite networks. These organizations present themselves as neutral arbiters of truth but in reality have close ties to major media conglomerates, governments, and NGOs (Reuters Institute, “Who Funds Fact-Checking?”).

Voices critical of government policies, supranational organizations, or controversial social issues are often labeled “conspiracy theorists,” “misinformation spreaders,” or “far-right extremists”—regardless of the factual content of their criticism. This discourages independent journalism and narrows the spectrum of allowed opinions in public discourse.

The Situation in the United States and Europe

United States: From Press Freedom to Media Cartel

While the United States is known for its press freedom, the reality is that just a few corporations dominate most news media. The six largest media conglomerates not only own television channels but also major newspapers such as The New York Times and The Washington Post, as well as digital platforms like YouTube and Facebook, which play a crucial role in news dissemination (Federal Communications Commission, “Media Ownership Report”).

Independent media and alternative news sites are thus increasingly marginalized. Platforms like Twitter and YouTube routinely remove or demonetize content that does not align with the official narratives, while traditional media outlets collectively push the same messages (Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “The Silencing of Alternative Media”).

Europe: State Media and Supranational Influence

In many European countries, governments play a significant role in media control. Public broadcasters such as the BBC (United Kingdom), ZDF (Germany), and NOS (Netherlands) receive substantial state funding, which means their reporting rarely criticizes their own governments or the EU. In the Netherlands, media institutions receive millions of euros in subsidies, creating a journalistic climate where criticism of the government and the EU is rarely highlighted (Commissariaat voor de Media, “Mediabeleid en staatssteun”).

One glaring example is the role of the EU in media policy. The European Commission funds various fact-checking organizations and journalistic projects aimed at “combating misinformation,” but in practice, these initiatives often serve to suppress unwanted political opinions (European Journalism Observatory, “EU Funding and Media Control”). This undermines press freedom and leads to artificial uniformity in reporting.

The Negative Consequences of Media Concentration

Reduced Diversity in Reporting

When a small number of companies and governments dominate the media landscape, it leads to a lack of real plurality in reporting. Critical and alternative viewpoints receive less exposure, and journalists are increasingly discouraged from conducting independent investigations for fear of professional consequences.

Manipulation of Public Opinion

With media acting as a unified front, public opinion is systematically manipulated. By selectively emphasizing or omitting certain events, media companies shape how people think about key issues such as geopolitics, climate change, or public health. This directly influences elections and policy decisions in ways that benefit the power structures behind the media (Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “Media Manipulation Tactics”).

Censorship and Suppression of Free Speech

The rise of fact-checking and social media censorship has led to independent journalists and news organizations being increasingly censored, deplatformed, or financially penalized. This restricts freedom of speech and ensures that the only permitted “truth” is that which is sanctioned by major media companies and their political allies (World Economic Forum, “The Future of Media Regulation”).

Conflict of Interest Between Media and Politics

Many journalists and media executives have close ties to politicians and international institutions. In both the EU and the US, influential figures frequently transition between media and political institutions, leading to conflicts of interest where the press loses its watchdog role. This creates propaganda-like scenarios where critical journalism is increasingly replaced by agenda-driven reporting (Reuters Institute, “The Political Ties of Media Executives”).

References

Federal Communications Commission, “Media Ownership Report”
Reuters Institute, “Digital News Report”
Commissariaat voor de Media, “Mediaconcentratie in Nederland”
World Economic Forum, “The Global Media Initiative”
Bureau of Investigative Journalism, “The Silencing of Alternative Media”
European Journalism Observatory, “EU Funding and Media Control”
World Economic Forum, “The Future of Media Regulation”
Reuters Institute, “The Political Ties of Media Executives”

Government Employment and Its Expanding Influence

21 February 2025

In the Netherlands, the percentage of the working population employed directly by the government has seen a steady increase over the years. Currently, around 12-14% of the workforce consists of government employees, including those in public administration, healthcare, education, and law enforcement (CBS, 2023). However, when factoring in indirect employees—those working in organizations where the government is the sole or primary client—this percentage rises significantly, with estimates suggesting that as much as 25-30% of the workforce is dependent on government funding (Ministerie van Financiën, 2023).

Historical Trends and Future Projections

Historically, the Netherlands had a lower proportion of government employees in the workforce. In the 1970s and 1980s, government employment was around 8-10%, but since then, expansion in public services, regulatory agencies, and outsourced government contracts has driven up the numbers (WRR, 2022). With the increasing role of government in healthcare, education, and infrastructure, the trend is expected to continue upward. Some projections indicate that by 2050, nearly 35% of all working individuals in the Netherlands could either be employed by the government or be economically dependent on government contracts (CPB, 2023).

Comparison to Other Countries

When compared to other nations, the Netherlands’ government employment percentage is relatively high but not the highest. Countries such as France and the Scandinavian nations (Sweden, Norway, Denmark) have even higher proportions of government workers, often exceeding 25% (Eurostat, 2023). In contrast, the United States maintains a lower percentage, with only about 15% of the workforce employed directly by federal, state, or local governments. However, when considering government contractors and indirectly dependent employees, the U.S. figures rise significantly, though they still remain below European levels (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2023). In other European nations such as Germany and the UK, government employment rates are similar to those in the Netherlands, but there has been a greater focus on privatization in some sectors (OECD, 2023).

The situation in the United States is also becoming a growing concern. The expanding federal bureaucracy has led to increased inefficiency and regulatory overreach. President Donald Trump, now serving his second term, has proposed plans to significantly cut the size of the federal workforce, aiming to reduce what he considers to be “deep state” influence and excessive government intervention (Heritage Foundation, 2023). This highlights a broader global discussion on the need to balance public sector employment with economic efficiency and private sector growth.

The Negative Implications of an Expanding Government Workforce

Increased Tax Burden

A growing public sector places a heavier financial burden on taxpayers. As the government payroll expands, so does the need for higher taxation to sustain salaries, pensions, and benefits. This can reduce economic growth, discourage entrepreneurship, and place pressure on private sector job creation (IMF, 2022). Higher taxes also reduce disposable income for individuals and businesses, limiting investment and economic expansion.

Political Bias and Dependency

As more people become dependent on the government for their income, political biases can shift. A larger percentage of voters may be inclined to support parties that advocate for bigger government and higher spending, as their livelihoods depend on it. This creates a cycle where government expansion perpetuates itself, reducing political diversity and leading to a stagnation of policy innovation (WRR, 2022). The dependency on government funding can also discourage political dissent and critical debate, as individuals and organizations fear losing financial support if they oppose government policies.

Bureaucratic Inefficiencies

A bloated government workforce often results in excessive bureaucracy, inefficiency, and waste. Decision-making slows down, regulatory burdens increase, and public services become less responsive. Countries with large public sectors frequently experience higher levels of inefficiency and lower productivity growth in their economies (OECD, 2023). The lack of competition within government institutions reduces incentives for innovation and service improvement.

Private Sector Crowding Out

When too many resources are allocated to the public sector, the private sector can suffer. Skilled professionals may opt for secure government jobs rather than contribute to innovation and entrepreneurship. Moreover, businesses dependent on government contracts can become complacent, reducing competitiveness and efficiency in the economy (CPB, 2023). This also discourages small businesses and startups from thriving, as they cannot compete with large firms that have close ties to the government.

Reduced Individual Freedom and Innovation

A government-dominated economy often leads to a culture of dependency and reduced individual freedom. Citizens become more reliant on state support rather than personal initiative, which stifles creativity and economic dynamism. Countries with a large public sector often experience slower innovation cycles, as government institutions tend to resist change and prioritize stability over progress (IMF, 2022). The regulatory environment also tends to be more restrictive, discouraging bold entrepreneurial ventures and technological advancements.

Increased Corruption and Nepotism

Larger government structures can also lead to increased corruption and nepotism. With more bureaucratic positions available, political favoritism and inefficiencies can become deeply embedded in the system. This not only wastes public funds but also undermines meritocracy, discouraging talented individuals from engaging in government or business sectors where connections matter more than competence (WRR, 2022). Cases of fraud, misuse of public funds, and cronyism are more prevalent in economies with oversized public sectors.

Weakening of Democratic Processes

A population heavily dependent on government employment may also be less likely to challenge the political establishment. When a significant portion of voters rely on government salaries, pensions, or welfare programs, they have strong incentives to vote for politicians who promise continued expansion of public services. This weakens democratic checks and balances, reducing pressure for governmental efficiency and accountability (OECD, 2023). Additionally, political leaders may use public sector job creation as a tool to maintain voter loyalty, further entrenching their power.

Economic Stagnation and Declining Productivity

A large and expanding government workforce can slow down economic growth by diverting resources from more productive sectors. When government spending increases to sustain employment, it often comes at the expense of private investment and innovation. High levels of public debt due to excessive government spending can also lead to inflationary pressures and long-term economic instability (IMF, 2022). Countries with high government employment rates tend to experience lower GDP growth and reduced global competitiveness.

Conclusion

The steady expansion of government employment in the Netherlands and other Western nations poses significant economic and political challenges. While public sector jobs are essential in many areas, unchecked growth leads to financial strain, reduced economic dynamism, increased political dependency, and inefficiency. Looking forward, it is crucial to strike a balance between maintaining essential public services and ensuring that the private sector remains the engine of economic growth and innovation. The U.S. debate over reducing government employment, as seen in Trump’s proposed policies, signals that this is not just a European issue but a global concern requiring careful consideration.

References

CBS. (2023). Arbeidsmarkt en overheidswerkgelegenheid.
CPB. (2023). Toekomstscenario’s voor de Nederlandse economie.
Eurostat. (2023). Public employment statistics in the EU.
Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2023). Government employment trends in the United States.
IMF. (2022). Fiscal policy and public sector employment.
Ministerie van Financiën. (2023). Overheidsuitgaven en belastingdruk.
OECD. (2023). Public sector efficiency and employment trends.
WRR. (2022). De invloed van de overheid op de arbeidsmarkt.
Heritage Foundation. (2023). Federal workforce reduction proposals.

The Deception of Renew Europe: A Threat to National Sovereignty

20 February 2025

The European political landscape is often presented as a collection of diverse parties, each representing different ideologies and national interests. However, the reality is far more concerning. Many parties across EU member states, despite appearing distinct, are in fact part of the same political coalition: Renew Europe. This alliance, rather than fostering true democratic plurality, serves as a vehicle for increasing EU control at the expense of national sovereignty. Beneath its noble-sounding name, Renew Europe is working to dismantle independent nation-states and consolidate power under the European Union, to the detriment of citizens across the continent (Vollaard, 2018).

The Illusion of Political Diversity

Parties That Appear Different But Are Essentially the Same

A major deception in EU politics is the illusion of choice. In the Netherlands, for example, parties like D66 and VVD present themselves as distinct, often campaigning with seemingly opposing rhetoric. Yet, both belong to Renew Europe and share the same overarching agenda: increased European integration, centralization of power in Brussels, and a disregard for national sovereignty (Peeperkorn, 2020). While D66 portrays itself as progressive and VVD as center-right, their policies on crucial matters like immigration, EU expansion, and economic control are nearly identical.

This is not unique to the Netherlands. In France, both La République En Marche (LREM) and the Democratic Movement (MoDem) are members of Renew Europe and push for deeper EU federalism (Gomart, 2019). In Germany, the Free Democratic Party (FDP) aligns with Renew Europe, supporting policies that erode national decision-making in favor of Brussels’ directives (Hix & Hagemann, 2009).

Renew Europe: Not as Noble as It Sounds

The name Renew Europe suggests modernization, progress, and reform, yet its true objective is the erosion of national sovereignty. Under the guise of cooperation, the coalition advances policies that strip individual member states of their ability to self-govern, increasing the power of unelected EU bureaucrats (Schmidt, 2021). This aligns closely with the longstanding goal of turning the EU into a supranational entity where national parliaments are little more than administrative offices carrying out Brussels’ mandates.

The coalition consistently supports measures such as:

Increased EU taxation powers – reducing national governments’ financial autonomy.
Harmonized immigration policies – overriding national preferences for border control.
EU-wide regulations that undermine local industries in favor of multinational corporations tied to the EU bureaucracy.
Censorship policies – using regulations on ‘disinformation’ to suppress dissenting views on EU policies (Hollanders & Vandenbroucke, 2022).

The Consequences for EU Citizens

The Disempowerment of Voters

One of the fundamental problems with Renew Europe is that it dilutes the democratic process. Citizens may believe they are voting for different parties that represent distinct ideologies, but in reality, these parties serve the same European federalist agenda. This deception leads to a lack of true representation, as voters are unknowingly supporting policies that may contradict their national interests (Mudde, 2019).

Economic and Social Consequences

The policies promoted by Renew Europe often benefit large multinational corporations and financial institutions at the expense of local economies. The push for uniform regulations across the EU disadvantages small and medium-sized enterprises, which struggle to comply with bureaucratic hurdles designed for multinational giants (Mair, 2013). Additionally, mass immigration policies championed by Renew Europe strain social services and drive down wages in many member states, disproportionately affecting lower-income citizens (Goodwin & Heath, 2016).

Other Western European Examples

Spain: Ciudadanos, once a national-oriented party, is now a staunch advocate for European integration as part of Renew Europe (Fernández-Albertos, 2015).
Italy: Italia Viva, led by Matteo Renzi, aligns with Renew Europe despite Italy’s growing Euroscepticism (Tarchi, 2020).
Belgium: Open VLD, once considered a champion of national interests, now consistently pushes EU-first policies (de Waele & Vieira, 2010).

Conclusion: A Call for Transparency and National Self-Determination

The presence of Renew Europe across multiple national parties is not just a matter of political alliance; it is a strategy to consolidate EU control by misleading voters into believing they have a genuine choice. National sovereignty is being systematically undermined, and citizens across the continent must be aware of this reality. Without transparency and resistance to these deceptive practices, Europe risks becoming a bureaucratic empire where nations exist only in name, with true power resting in Brussels.

References

de Waele, J., & Vieira, A. (2010). Party Politics and European Integration.
Fernández-Albertos, J. (2015). National Parties and European Institutions: The Case of Spain.
Gomart, T. (2019). France and the European Project.
Goodwin, M., & Heath, O. (2016). The Rise of Euroscepticism.
Hix, S., & Hagemann, S. (2009). The Party System in the European Parliament.
Hollanders, D., & Vandenbroucke, F. (2022). EU Policies and National Consequences.
Mair, P. (2013). Ruling the Void: The Hollowing of Western Democracy.
Mudde, C. (2019). The Far Right and the European Union.
Peeperkorn, M. (2020). D66, VVD, and the Illusion of Choice.
Schmidt, V. (2021). Democracy in Europe: The EU’s Growing Power.
Tarchi, M. (2020). Italy and the European Federalist Agenda.
Vollaard, H. (2018). The European Union and National Sovereignty.

The Appointed Mayor: An Undemocratic Practice in the Netherlands

19 February 2025

In the Netherlands, mayors are not elected by the public but appointed through a process in which the municipal council and the King’s Commissioner nominate a candidate, with the final appointment confirmed by the King. While this system is often defended as a way to ensure administrative stability and quality, it contradicts the fundamental democratic principle that citizens should have direct control over their leaders. The appointed mayor is a relic of the past that no longer fits within a modern democracy (Bovens & Wille, 2017).

A System Without Direct Public Influence

The Role of the Municipal Council in the Appointment

Supporters of the current system argue that since the municipal council, which is democratically elected, plays a role in the appointment process, it provides sufficient legitimacy. The reasoning is that the council represents the citizens and thus indirectly voices their choice in selecting a mayor.

However, this argument is misleading. While the municipal council does have a role in nominating candidates, the final decision rests with the government and the King. Moreover, the process is often characterized by behind-closed-doors politics, where party interests and personal networks play a significant role (Andeweg & Irwin, 2014). Citizens have no direct influence on who becomes their mayor, which runs counter to the democratic principle of popular sovereignty.

No Accountability for Poor Governance

A fundamental characteristic of democracy is that citizens can hold their leaders accountable through elections. Since mayors are not elected by the public, they are not directly responsible to the citizens. Even if a mayor enforces unpopular policies or governs poorly, the public has no direct means of removing them from office. This creates a governing elite less inclined to answer to the people (Van Ostaaijen, 2020).

Political Party Interests Over Local Needs

Although the appointment of a mayor is officially supposed to be ‘neutral,’ political party affiliations play a crucial role in the selection process. Candidates with the right political connections have a higher chance of being nominated, even if they are less competent or popular. This results in a system where established political parties maintain control rather than the citizens (Daalder, 2004).

Counterarguments and Why They Fall Short

“The Municipal Council Is Democratically Elected, Which Is More Important”

A common argument is that it does not matter that the mayor is not directly elected because the municipal council is. The mayor, in theory, works alongside the council and implements policies set by the elected representatives.

This argument ignores the fact that a mayor holds significant power and influence. The mayor is the face of the municipality, plays a crucial role in public order and safety, and can directly impact policy decisions (Boogers & Schaap, 2012). It is illogical that a figure with such authority is not directly chosen by the people.

“An Appointed Mayor Prevents Populism”

Some proponents of the current system claim that electing mayors could lead to populist, inexperienced, or incompetent leaders. They point to countries where directly elected mayors have been controversial figures.

This argument is paternalistic and anti-democratic. It assumes that citizens are incapable of making an informed choice and that political elites should decide on their behalf. Democracy means that people themselves determine who governs them, even if that sometimes leads to less favorable outcomes. Moreover, international examples, such as in the United States and Germany, show that elected mayors often function effectively and remain accountable to voters (Denters, 2006).

“Stability and Continuity Are More Important Than Direct Elections”

Another argument is that an appointed mayor ensures stability and administrative continuity since the position is not affected by election cycles. This would lead to more efficient local governance.

This argument fails to acknowledge that democracy inherently brings change. Stability should never be an excuse to sacrifice democratic accountability. Additionally, an elected mayor can provide just as much stability, provided there are clear rules regarding reelection and term limits (Hendriks & Karsten, 2014).

How Can It Be Improved? The Benefits of an Elected Mayor

A directly elected mayor would offer several advantages:

Greater democratic legitimacy: Citizens gain real influence over who governs them.
Better accountability: A mayor seeking reelection will be more inclined to consider public interests.
Less backroom politics: The power of party elites and closed nomination processes is diminished.
Increased civic engagement: Local election turnout is often low. Direct mayoral elections could boost public participation in democracy.

Examples From Other Countries

Many other democratic nations elect their mayors directly. In Germany, mayors are elected by the public, ensuring greater transparency and accountability. The same applies to France, where the mayor is often a crucial figure in local governance. In the United States, mayors of cities both large and small are directly elected, sometimes even in nonpartisan elections.

Additionally, in the United Kingdom, some cities like London have introduced directly elected mayors, demonstrating that this system can work effectively even within parliamentary democracies (Copus, 2018). These examples show that direct mayoral elections do not destabilize democracy but rather strengthen local governance by making leaders more accountable to their constituents.

Conclusion: Time for Change

The current system of appointed mayors is an anachronism that no longer fits within a modern democratic society. The arguments in favor of appointed mayors do not stand up to scrutiny when weighed against the fundamental democratic principle that citizens should choose their own leaders. The Netherlands should move toward a system where mayors are directly elected, as is the case in many other Western democracies. Only then can local government be considered truly democratic.

Referenties

Andeweg, R., & Irwin, G. (2014). Governance and Politics of the Netherlands.
Boogers, M., & Schaap, L. (2012). De veranderende rol van de burgemeester.
Bovens, M., & Wille, A. (2017). Diploma Democracy.
Copus, C. (2018). Directly Elected Mayors in the UK: Leadership and Local Governance.
Daalder, H. (2004). Politieke geschiedenis van Nederland.
Denters, B. (2006). Directe verkiezingen en lokaal bestuur.
Hendriks, F., & Karsten, N. (2014). Lokaal bestuur in Nederland.
Van Ostaaijen, J. (2020). Lokaal bestuur en democratie in Nederland.

Dutch Universities: Prioritizing Foreign Students

18 February 2025

In recent years, Dutch universities have increasingly focused on attracting international students, both from within the EU and beyond. While this shift benefits university budgets by bringing in substantial financial gains, it has come at a significant cost to Dutch taxpayers and native students. The growing number of foreign students has placed immense pressure on housing markets, educational quality, and public services in major Dutch cities. As a result, Dutch students are often left in a difficult position, struggling to find affordable housing and facing declining quality in their educational experience.

Financial Incentives: More Foreign Students, More Money

Tuition Fees and Financial Gains

The most immediate financial incentive for universities in attracting foreign students is the substantial difference in tuition fees. Non-EU students, in particular, pay significantly higher tuition fees than their Dutch and EU counterparts. These fees can sometimes be up to three or four times the amount that Dutch or EU students are required to pay (Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap, 2023). This revenue is a major draw for universities, which are increasingly relying on these fees to fund their operations and expansion efforts.

With the allure of financial stability, universities have started aggressively marketing their programs abroad, targeting international students from countries where higher education is expensive or inaccessible. While the additional income helps universities maintain and expand their facilities, it often results in a system that prioritizes financial gains over the needs of local students. The pressure to attract foreign students also means universities must ensure that their programs are appealing to international markets, sometimes at the expense of local relevance or quality.

Government Funding Based on Student Numbers

In the Netherlands, government funding for universities is largely determined by the number of enrolled students. This means that an increase in student numbers—regardless of whether they are Dutch, EU, or international—directly translates into more financial support from the state (Algemene Rekenkamer, 2023). This system creates a financial incentive for universities to expand their student populations, often without fully considering the impact on educational quality, infrastructure, or local student needs.

However, this reliance on student numbers as a funding mechanism has led to a “growth at all costs” mentality. Universities are under pressure to scale their programs quickly, frequently opening new courses or expanding existing ones to accommodate international students. Unfortunately, this often leads to overcrowded lecture halls and overworked faculty, diminishing the overall quality of education for everyone, including Dutch students.

Housing Crisis: Foreign Students Overrunning Dutch Cities

Overcrowded Student Housing

One of the most visible consequences of the influx of international students is the growing demand for student housing in major Dutch cities such as Amsterdam, Utrecht, and Groningen. These cities are struggling to accommodate the rapidly expanding student population, and this has resulted in a severe shortage of affordable housing. As the number of international students has increased, rental prices for student accommodations have skyrocketed, making it more difficult for Dutch students to find affordable living arrangements (Nederlands Bureau voor Economisch Beleid, 2023).

The housing crisis has reached a point where many Dutch students are either forced to live with their parents well into their university years or commute long distances from smaller towns. On the other hand, international students, who often have the financial backing of their families or sponsorships from their home countries, are often able to secure accommodations more easily. This situation has created an environment where Dutch students are being displaced in their own cities in favor of foreign students who can afford the higher rents.

Displacement of Local Students

The housing crisis has led to a situation where private landlords and housing associations are more likely to prioritize foreign students for available accommodations. This is because foreign students often pay premium rents, which are sometimes subsidized by their home governments. This financial advantage has led to a shift in the housing market, with Dutch students being pushed out in favor of international students who can afford the higher costs. As a result, local students are often left competing for fewer, more expensive options (CBS, 2023).

Furthermore, this displacement isn’t limited to student housing alone. The growing number of foreign students is contributing to a general rise in living costs, which affects both Dutch students and local residents. While international students pay higher rents, the increase in demand for housing also affects local renters, further exacerbating the affordability crisis.

Declining Quality of Education

Large Lecture Halls and Overcrowded Programs

As Dutch universities expand to accommodate the influx of international students, the student-to-teacher ratio has risen significantly. In many programs, lecture halls have become overcrowded, leading to a decline in the quality of education. Professors are stretched thin, with less time to devote to individual students, and courses have become increasingly generalized to cater to larger groups. As a result, students—both Dutch and international—are receiving less personalized attention and support in their studies (Onderwijsinspectie, 2023).

This overcrowding not only affects the learning environment but also reduces the overall quality of university programs. Students are finding it more difficult to engage deeply with the subject matter, and academic performance often suffers as a result. The university experience, once known for its more intimate learning settings, is now characterized by impersonal, large-scale courses that can undermine the educational experience.

English as the Default Language

To appeal to international students, many Dutch universities have made English the primary language of instruction. This shift is not just limited to programs with international relevance but extends to subjects that traditionally had little need for English-language teaching. This move towards English-taught courses has sparked concerns among Dutch students, many of whom prefer to study in their native language. Furthermore, the shift to English may contribute to the decline in the proficiency and use of Dutch in academic and professional settings (Raad voor de Nederlandse Taal en Letteren, 2023).

The widespread use of English in universities also raises questions about the impact on the Dutch cultural and academic identity. As more courses are taught in English, the role of Dutch language and culture in higher education diminishes, potentially diminishing the country’s educational uniqueness in favor of a more globalized, but less locally grounded, system.

Unfair Burden on Dutch Taxpayers

Public Funding for Foreign Students

The financial impact of international students goes beyond tuition fees. EU students, who pay the same tuition fees as Dutch students, also benefit from Dutch student loans and grants. This means that Dutch taxpayers are indirectly subsidizing the education of foreign students who may not contribute back to the Dutch economy once they leave the country after graduation (CPB, 2023). While the influx of EU students does have some economic benefits, such as attracting talent and fostering international collaboration, the long-term financial burden on Dutch taxpayers is becoming increasingly unsustainable.

This situation is compounded by the fact that many of these foreign students do not stay in the Netherlands after completing their studies. They often return to their home countries, taking the skills and knowledge they gained in the Netherlands with them, but without contributing significantly to the Dutch tax system. Dutch taxpayers, in effect, are funding an education system that benefits foreign students who leave without giving back.

Strains on Public Services

The presence of a large number of international students in Dutch cities has placed considerable strain on public services. Healthcare systems, public transport networks, and municipal services are all under pressure as the student population increases. The high concentration of foreign students in major urban centers means that local residents must share these resources with a transient population that does not contribute to funding these services through taxes in the same way that permanent residents do (SCP, 2023).

While universities may generate income from international students, the wider infrastructure and services required to support them often fall on the shoulders of Dutch taxpayers. This creates an imbalance where the costs of hosting large numbers of foreign students are not adequately shared by those who benefit most from their presence.

Who Really Benefits?

Universities and Private Landlords

The primary beneficiaries of the internationalization of Dutch universities are the institutions themselves and private landlords. Universities see their budgets boosted by the higher tuition fees paid by non-EU students, which allows them to fund expansion projects and enhance their global standing. Meanwhile, private landlords capitalize on the housing shortage by charging premium rents to foreign students who are willing and able to pay more for accommodations.

These groups stand to gain financially from the growing presence of international students, but the benefits do not extend to Dutch students or taxpayers, who bear the hidden costs of this strategy.

Dutch Students and Taxpayers Left Behind

Meanwhile, Dutch students are left to cope with overcrowded lecture halls, rising living costs, and an education system that increasingly caters to international students at the expense of their own needs. The competition for housing is fierce, and the declining quality of education is a growing concern. Dutch taxpayers, too, are burdened with the costs of supporting a system that increasingly prioritizes foreign students, while local needs and interests are sidelined.

Conclusion: An Unsustainable System

The financial dependence of Dutch universities on international students has created a series of structural issues that negatively affect Dutch society. The prioritization of foreign students over Dutch students is contributing to overcrowded universities, unaffordable housing, and an unsustainable financial burden on taxpayers. Unless these issues are addressed, the situation is likely to worsen, with Dutch students continuing to face disadvantages in their own country.

References

Algemene Rekenkamer. (2023). Overheidsfinanciering van universiteiten en studenteninstroom.
CBS. (2023). Woningmarkt en de invloed van internationale studenten.
CPB. (2023). De economische impact van EU-studenten in Nederland.
Ministerie van Onderwijs, Cultuur en Wetenschap. (2023). Onderwijsfinanciering en collegegeldverschillen.
Nederlands Bureau voor Economisch Beleid. (2023). Effecten van de internationale studentengroei op de Nederlandse economie.
Onderwijsinspectie. (2023). De gevolgen van massale instroom van studenten voor de onderwijskwaliteit.
Raad voor de Nederlandse Taal en Letteren. (2023). De impact van Engelstalig onderwijs op de Nederlandse taal.
SCP. (2023). Druk op publieke voorzieningen door internationale studenten.