A member of Parliament in the Netherlands named Pepjin van Houwelingen recently tweeted the following: (translated from Dutch)

This letter from Klaus Schwab to Rutte has just been made public. It is clear that the WEF is coordinating the Great Reset and the Netherlands is playing a leading role in this. “the Great Reset, an unprecedented mobilization of actionable ideas from the Forum's action groups”

Zojuist is deze brief van Klaus Schwab aan Rutte openbaar gemaakt. Het is duidelijk dat het WEF de Great Reset coördineert en Nederland daarbij een leidende rol speelt: “the Great Reset, an unprecedented mobilization of actionable ideas from the Forum’s action groups” #GreatReset pic.twitter.com/eCsrtvaS2A

— Pepijn van Houwelingen (@PvanHouwelingen) June 12, 2023

The image of the letter from Klaus Schwab to the Prime Minister of the Netherlands specifically refers to the Great Reset, which is the World Economic Forum’s [WEF] ambition to foster “unprecedented mobilization of actionable ideas from the Forum’s action groups, platforms and other initiatives to shape the post-COVID-19 world,” and Schwab praises the Netherlands for its having taken on a “leading role” in the reshaping of the world.

Twitter screengrab

The very idea of the Netherlands leading the charge of the Great Reset got me thinking.  It makes sense, you see.  We now know that the Netherlands has been the spearhead of the Great Reset before most Americans (including me) had even imagined that this global conspiracy to take over and reshape the world, orchestrated by real-world Bond villains, could be a reality.

In 2015, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia asked a lawyer arguing in favor of a federal protection for same-sex marriage if she “knew of any society, prior to the Netherlands in 2001, that permitted same-sex marriage?”

That should have been a lay-up, right? Thousands of years of recorded human history are ripe for the referencing, and Scalia just asked for one precedent, anywhere in the world, prior to 14 years before the question.  She, of course, answered in the negative, because all societies in human history, until 2001 in the Netherlands, crafted laws in a manner that would encourage the production and rearing of children who would become productive citizens.

Only mothers and fathers can produce children, and children raised by a mother and a father have the greatest chance to become productive and law-abiding citizens, and to further the strength of any community or society. 

Not long ago, this truth was recognized in such bipartisan fashion that even Barack Obama, in 2008, spoke to a congregation in Chicago and told them:

You and I know how true this is in the African-American community. We know that more than half of all black children live in single-parent households, a number that has doubled — doubled — since we were children. We know the statistics — that children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison. They are more likely to have behavioral problems, or run away from home or become teenage parents themselves. And the foundations of our community are weaker because of it.

Everyone on the planet should still be able to recognize the obvious fact that a population should be encouraged to replenish itself, and that having a mother and father in the home is a necessity of a flourishing society, just as nearly everyone in the world did until the Netherlands decided that this timeless human wisdom became somehow obsolete in 2001.

And yet, you’re considered to be a racist if you openly speak this plain truth that Barack Obama spoke in 2008.  You are considered knuckle-dragging homophobe, stuck in the ancient past, if you dare to question the unlawful codification of same-sex marriage today via Supreme Court invention.  Much like the Court accomplished in the Roe v. Wade decision (which has mercifully been overturned by the present Court via Dodd), the pre-Trump Roberts Court simply invented a constitutional right to same-sex marriage out of thin air. 

Certainly, America has changed since the twentieth century.  We’ve become increasingly tolerant of homosexuality, but tolerance of homosexuality and advocation of same-sex marriage as a society are two wildly different things.  The Pride push that is foisted upon the public every year, however, demands that one must advocate same-sex marriage, along with all manner of self-gratification, sexual debauchery, and gender fluidity, in order truly be “tolerant.” 

Ostensibly, Pride exists as a celebration of marginalized groups of people, which is itself a paradox.  How marginalized can these groups be, after all, if they are publicly celebrated in month-long global campaigns?  What makes it all the more farcical is the level at which this celebration takes place.  Children are beckoned to join the Pride celebration of peculiar sexuality and gender fluidity in elementary schools, and even on television shows and in books aimed at babies.  Woke corporations spend millions to signal their pro-Pride bona fides.  And this June, at a White House Pride event that showcased acts of sexual depravity, the newest rainbow flag, which includes additional colors to “represent people of color, as well as the transgender community,” flew alongside American flags and, in direct violation of the U.S. Flag code, centermost among them. 

That was not an accident, you can be sure.

The pushers of Pride relentlessly demand not only attention, but fealty to their cause -- and are claiming the scalps of those who refuse to bend the knee.  There is a reason for the aggressive push for Pride acceptance in Western governments, corporations, and educational institutions.  It has nothing at all to do with tolerance of marginalized groups, and everything to do with promotion of a sinister agenda to destroy the nuclear family, thereby razing the very foundation of the Western world, and, from the rubble, building a population-controlled, socialist utopia anew. 

After all, a civilization comprised of many strong, independent, patriotic citizens, built upon a belief in natural rights, such as a right to life, liberty, and property, may have been consistent with the America that our Founders envisioned for us, but it is certainly inconsistent with the aims of the WEF, whose pitch is that “the U.S. won’t be the world’s leading superpower” and “you’ll own nothing, and you’ll be happy.”