Carbon Unit

A very sad announcement. I have just been convicted a second time for 'hate speech' and it is only due to a technicality that I could not immediately be sent to jail —to the judge's frustration. In an ironic turn of events it's actually thanks to my previous prison sentence (for memes in a private group chat) that I am now still free —in a physical sense, at least. Call me naive but I didn't think they would take it this far, given that this precedent criminalises many of the arguments used by even the most moderate politicians critical of mass migration. In February 2024 I gave a lecture at Catholic University Leuven wherein I linked mass migration to crime and a deterioration of our quality of life. Every single point I made was 100% the truth and based on scientific evidence. Cynically, even the judge that convicted me admits as much by writing in his verdict: “Even if all of the statements made by Van Langenhove are based on scientific evidence and statistics, it makes no difference to the criminal intent. Van Langenhove is not charged with spreading false information. He is charged with presenting facts in a way that incites hatred against persons on the grounds of one or more of the protected criteria in the Anti-Racism Law.” That's a lot of words just to say he wants to send me to prison for speaking the truth. Even the regime media write: "It did not matter to the court that Van Langenhove was quoting scientific sources. The judge argued that Van Langenhove's main message was that a big part of the societal problems like insecurity, housing shortages and lowering educational standards are due to mass migration." You may think the regime media are being sympathetic to me in the first sentence, but in reality they are warning people: even if you speak the truth, if you go against our narrative, we will crush you in every way possible. Both the public prosecutor and the judge did not present a single real argument as to how or against whom I would have incited hatred. So even if I would accept their crazy, dystopic law, I still did not break it. The only argument they present is that I created a "hostile atmosphere of us versus them” in regards to migrants. But even this silly argument (which is not even a punishable offence) is not true. To me, the deadly disease is self-hatred and one of its worst symptoms is replacement migration. My enemy is thus NOT the migrants themselves but those orchestrating the mass migration. Sadly, in Belgium, evidence is not needed and ‘vibes’ are enough to put someone in jail. Given the fact that I have another court case coming up in September and that I have a dozen active criminal investigations for hate speech, time is running out for me. I have already paid more than €420,000 in legal fees and there is no ending in sight. I have been in an intense battle of attrition for eight years and must now regroup to make sure I can still win. If you want to help me, you can do so via the links below. If you can help in other ways, please contact me via DM. If you live in a country that still has free speech, never let them touch it, however noble they make the motives sound, because this is where it leads to.

I... Can't really agree. Now, this may be N=1 autistic pedantic hair splitting, but I don't have much of an issue communicating down in IQ significantly. For context, I have an IQ around 143, and I grew up in Kansas. I was WAY out of the norm, and have always had to find a way to bridge the gap to where they are. So I did. The short version is that instead of going straight to the conclusion, meet them where they're at and walk them to your conclusion in a way they can easily follow. Make each step build on the one before it, and you can get them on the same page as you are. You don't have to lay out the whole system, the bigger picture - I still make that mistake, and I lose them every time. It can be frustrating not to be able to have conversations at that level - so we have to find a cadre that can. I find the hardest ones to talk to are the 120 IQ crowds. They're used to being the smartest ones in the room, and often put a LOT of faith in a detailed understanding of a particular framework or theory. But they rarely go deep enough to understand and question the underlying first principles and assumptions. They don't examine the boundaries of where it applies and doesn't, where diminishing returns start to creep in. And they get VERY defensive when you try to have that conversation. I'd rather spend my day to day around the 100s - 110s, and find my crew of 130s+. Helps me ground in the normal while still giving me the intellectual sparring partners I need to level up. But that's just me. Everyone has to find their own solutions.