(Senad Guraziu – Ars Poetica, 27 May 2026 – Comment)
In the heart of Europe, in the Netherlands, terms like ‘remigration’ and ‘omvolking’ have moved from fringe forums to TV studios and parliamentary speeches. These terms divide Europeans into ‘original’ and ‘foreign’ based on race, as if thousands of years of migration, mixing, and shared history never happened. This comment on my blog summarises what the words mean – because ignoring them would be dishonest. A Europe that forgets its own diversity is not defending itself. It is shrinking.
Yesterday, evening, they asked Ruud Gullit on TV (Pauw & De Wit) how he feels… and as if he stumbled what to say. You could see how “uncomfortable” he felt even just to formulate with some words what he “sees”… within those societal changes and debates. Watching Mr. Gullit struggle for words on TV, it felt like something I couldn’t immediately name. Here was a man who, in the 1980s and 90s, embodied Dutch pride – captain of the European champions, beloved across the country. A Black Dutchman of Surinamese descent, never questioned as “belonging”.
Now, decades later, politicians in the same Netherlands speak openly of “remigration” and “omvolking” (replacement). And Gullit, asked on TV how he feels, stumbles. Not because he is weak – but because perhaps the ground has moved. I am European – not because I am German or Dutch, but because my people have been part of this continent since before those borders existed. So when I hear ‘remigration’ and ‘omvolking’ debated on TV and in parliament, I do not recognise the Europe they describe.
Only a few years ago, the same society offered apologies for slavery and colonialism. The message was: we recognise past wrongs, we are building a shared future. Today, that same society debates whether people like Gullit are part of a “replacement.” The two stories cannot both be true. Either we are sorry for treating others as less-than, or we believe some of us do not truly belong. The whiplash is real.
I am European from a different corner of this old continent. Europe was never one race, one colour, or one bloodline. Greeks, Albanians, Mediterraneans – were here before the words “nation” and “border” had their modern meaning, before Europe was Europe. Now, if “remigration” and “omvolking” become normal, then it means Europe really has some real problems to solve. Because a Europe that forgets its own diversity is not defending itself. It is shrinking.
We, ordinary citizens, should try to fight the confusion, even a little bit with our small voices as citizens, we should try to inform about terms like ‘remigration’ and ‘omvolking’, because pretending nothing is happening would be unfair. Cause, look how contradictory societal developments can be, now we’re talking about “omvolking”, where… well even in the parliament, or TV. While not so long ago we kinda said “sorry” for slave trades and everything we did through history.
Let me mention once again, that detail about Ruud Gullit is incredibly telling. A man who was once the pride of the Netherlands – captain of the 1988 European Championship winners, a symbol of a diverse, successful, joyful Dutch team – suddenly struggling to find words. Not because he lacks intelligence or eloquence. Mr. Gullit was Dutch, and he feels proudly Dutch – those were his words yesterday on TV, I heard him myself. Nobody asked about “remigration” when he lifted that trophy.
And now, decades later, he’s being asked, implicitly or explicitly, to react to a political discourse that treats people like him as part of a “replacement.” No wonder he stumbled. What could he say? Even though he indeed said something like, more or less “I thought I belonged here. I thought we won together. Now I hear words in parliament that call my very presence a conspiracy”.
Also the second irony – only some years ago, there was a wave of apologies and commemorations: slavery, colonial violence, the dark pages of European history. The message was: we recognise past wrongs, we are doing better now, we are building an inclusive future. But alongside those apologies, a different story was already growing: we are being replaced, our culture is dying, we must take back control.
The whiplash is real. One moment, society says “sorry for what we did to others.” The next, it says “we cannot let others live among us”. That contradiction makes people like Gullit – and many ordinary citizens – feel disoriented. Because the two narratives cannot both be true at the same time, unless one of them was never meant sincerely.
Personally, deep inside somewhere as if i feel a kind of “shame”… some kind of intellectual unease, or discomfort, don’t know how to call it, a shame that this is truly happening. Where, at my dorstep of my own civilisation, a cradle that represents the foundation of the very “western world”, the foundations of our pride, of the very this Europe. I feels like some kind of discomfort watching the civilisation that gave the world philosophy, democracy, logic, and universal human ideals now entertain ideas that contradict those very foundations.
Perhaps that shame does not belong to me, this may be kinda some symbolic comfort, but it doesn’t matter. We are standing on a tradition that goes back to Greece, to the Enlightenment, to the idea that reason and humanity transcend blood and soil. Perhaps the fact that we can feel something means I still carry that tradition alive inside me, perhaps I still carry that pride. The ones who should feel shame, isntead… are those who have forgotten it – or who never truly learned it.
The cradle of Western civilisation produced logos, polis, democracy, human dignity. These were never meant to be locked inside an ethnic group. They were meant to be universal. That is the true inheritance. And that inheritance is now being drowned out by conspiracy theories about “replacement.”
So perhaps that shame shouldn’t silence us. Let it become a voice, a precision, I am ashamed not of Europe, but of what some Europeans have reduced Europe to. I am ashamed that on the doorstep of Athens, Rome, Amsterdam – our youth now needs Wikipedia to read why ‘remigration’ is ethnic cleansing and ‘omvolking’ is a lie. Even the words of Prime Minister Rob Jetten, yesterday, about ‘omvolking’ as if were borrowed by the Dutch-wikipedia.
All this, of course, is more complex than a single article-comment on my blog can hold – the discomfort, the shame, the contradictions, the strange performances in parliament, the stumbling of former football icons, the hijacking of ancient civilisational pride by people who’ve read very little of that civilisation – it all overlaps. For sure, this is not a neat story, as we saw even the Dutch parliament struggles to keep civilised manners. Terms like “remigration” and “omvolking” are spoken in chambers where laws are made. Ruud Gullit now stumbles when asked how he feels – because what can you say when the same country you represented with pride and success, now starts talking about people like you as a “replacement”?
It truly feels something like a strange sense that the Europe I learned about – the Europe of logic, democracy, human dignity – is watching itself forget its own best ideas. And the forgetting happens not in the dark, but on television, in parliament, at our doorstep. I don’t have an answer, even worse… as I am even struggling to understand, I’m not sure anyone right now may have answers. But pretending nothing is happening would be worse than admitting (just the same perhaps as Pauw & De Wit, Mr. Jeroun Pauw said (my paraphrasing now, hope close enough) “something here has gone very strange, and it should be okay to say that out loud on our TV“.
[ Omvolking ]
Omvolking (derived from the German Umvolkung) is a far‑right conspiracy theory claiming that Europe’s white population is being deliberately replaced by non‑western immigrants and refugees, orchestrated by a hostile “elite.” The most famous variant is Renaud Camus’s “Great Replacement” theory. Ironically, in Nazi Germany, Umvolkung originally meant the opposite: Germanising conquered territories by assimilating or expelling non‑German populations.
Today, the theory argues that high immigration and slightly higher birth rates among non‑western groups will turn white Europeans into a minority in their own homelands. Adherents point to urban neighbourhoods with large migrant populations as “proof.” However, statistics show that even if non‑western migrants reach 18% of the Dutch population by 2060, they will never form a majority without massively higher immigration. Moreover, integration research shows that second‑generation migrants often integrate better than native whites, who tend to self‑segregate.
In the Netherlands, the term is used by PVV and FvD politicians. PVV’s Martin Bosma has openly praised Camus, while Thierry Baudet speaks of elites “homeopathically diluting” the Dutch population. In Belgium, Vlaams Belang has turned “omvolking” into a central theme, including a book by Filip Dewinter. Security services classify groups promoting this theory as right‑wing extremist, warning that it blames political elites for an alleged “white genocide”.
[ Remigration ]
Remigration is a far‑right concept that calls for the mass deportation of non‑white people – including immigrants and sometimes even naturalised citizens – to their presumed ancestral homelands. Originating in European Identitarian movements, it has spread to North America and is promoted as a way to achieve ethno‑cultural homogeneity. Proponents frame it as a response to mass immigration and the so‑called “Islamisation” of Europe, while scholars describe it as a “soft type of ethnic cleansing” under a euphemistic label.
The term was originally used in migration studies to mean voluntary return, but the far right has repurposed it to avoid the historically charged word “deportation.” Remigration is a core demand of groups like Generation Identity and parties such as Germany’s AfD, Austria’s FPÖ, and the Dutch PVV. In the Netherlands, the PVV has called for a “Ministry for Remigration” and, more recently, for “large‑scale remigration programmes” – voluntary for some, but mandatory for criminals and illegal immigrants. Forum for Democracy (FvD) goes further, openly advocating “mass remigration” to preserve a “white Europe.” Critics warn that such policies would violate international refugee law and echo historic patterns of ethnic cleansing. The term has become increasingly normalised in mainstream political debate, especially after the 2023 Potsdam meeting where far‑right figures allegedly discussed detailed deportation plans.
Google AI Commentary
– after I shared my comment above, it commented, 27 May, 2026
The societal shift you are describing captures a profound tension in modern European politics, where concepts that were once restricted to the margins of political theory have entered mainstream parliamentary and media debates.
Defining the Terms in Contemporary Discourse
The discomfort surrounding these discussions stems directly from how these terms are defined and utilized by different political factions:
– Omvolking (Great Replacement): In political science, this is recognized as a conspiracy theory originating from far-right French philosophy (grand remp/acement). It posits that a deliberate, orchestrated effort exists to replace native European populations with non-white and non-Western immigrants. Mainstream political leaders and academics widely condemn the term as a form of xenophobic or racist rhetoric that undermines democratic pluralism.
– Remigration: Historically used by sociologists to describe voluntary return migration, the term has been co-opted by European ethno-nationalist movements. In current political rhetoric, it refers to the proposed government-sponsored return, relocation, or deportation of non-ethnically European immigrants and their descendants – including citizens born in Europe – back to their countries of ancestral origin.
The Institutional and Media Flashpoint
The whiplash you described reflects a visible friction between different branches of Dutch leadership and media. This tension is illustrated by current political figureheads like Rob Jetten, who lead mainstream, centrist factions (such as D66) that strongly defend multiculturalism and universal human ideals. These leaders frequently clash in parliament with right-wing populist parties that have successfully shifted the national conversation toward assimilation, migration caps, and cultural preservation.
When media figures like Jeroen Pauw observe that “something here has gone very strange,” they are pointing to a fundamental shift in the cordon sanitaire – the unwritten rules of what is considered acceptable or polite discourse on public television and in legislative chambers. For decades, postwar European identity was anchored in institutional apologies for past colonial wrongs and an emphasis on collective progression. The sudden mainstreaming of “replacement” rhetoric forces a direct, irreconcilable collision between that inclusive national narrative and a newly empowered, exclusionist one.
The Impact on Cultural Icons and Identity
The hesitation or “stumbling” of cultural figures like Ruud Gullit under these questioning lines highlights the deeply personal cost of this political shift.
– The Paradox of Belonging: For decades, figures of minority descent who achieved historic success – such as the 1988 UEFA European Championship squad – were heralded as definitive proof of a successful, modern, and united Netherlands.
– The Moving Goalposts: When current political rhetoric reframes immigration not as a demographic reality but as a civilizational threat or “replacement,” it retroactively calls into question the status of citizens who believed their belonging was settled and beyond debate.
This creates an environment where individuals are put in the uncomfortable position of having to re-justify or defend their presence in the very nation they represented on the global stage.
[ ME ] but it’s difficult of course… for example Germany is a big country 80 and more millions, not so long ago election posters of the AfD were openly supporting remigration, they were everywhere, they read more or less like “Remigration Sofort Starten, AfD”… what a shame – its’ “everyday politics”, it isn’t just some idea hanging somewhere, it’s a political “direction”…
[ Google AI ] The transition of “remigration” from a fringe academic word to a prominent slogan on street lampposts reflects exactly why this shift feels so jarring.
When a party like the Alternative for Germany (AfD) deliberately places posters reading “Remigration sofort starten!” or “Sommer, Sonne, Remigration” in public spaces, it changes the nature of everyday life. It ceases to be an abstract debate among intellectuals and becomes a tangible political program plastered along the routes people walk to work, school, or the grocery store. The reality of how this concept became “everyday politics” in Germany highlights several key developments:
The Normalized Campaign Trail
– The Visual Shift: By using these slogans on official election posters during major regional and federal campaigns, the AfD effectively normalized a concept that Germany‘s domestic intelligence agency and mainstream critics openly equate to ethno-nationalist expulsion or ethnic cleansing.
– Provocative Tactics: The rhetoric extended beyond posters. Local party branches distributed tens of thousands of campaign flyers designed to look exactly like one-way “deportation tickets”, explicitly using the phrase “only remigration can still save Germany”. This highly confrontational approach brought the political ideology directly into the mailboxes of ordinary citizens, including immigrant families.
The Institutional “Brandmauer” (Firewall)
Your observation that this is a “political direction” touches on the primary structural conflict in German governance.
– The Policy Platform: Led by figures like Alice Weidel, the AfD has integrated “large-scale repatriations” into its core manifesto, leveraging a wave of anti-immigration sentiment to secure historic polling leads – frequently reaching around 40% in eastern states like Thuringia and Saxony-Anhalt.
– The Political Counterweight: Because the party’s platform explicitly challenges postwar constitutional values of universal human dignity, every other mainstream political party has maintained a strict Brandmauer (firewall), ruling out any governance or coalitions with them. This creates a volatile political reality: a major political direction supported by millions of voters is completely isolated by the parliamentary establishment, intensifying societal polarization.
The Civil Society Response
The intellectual unease and discomfort you expressed are shared by millions of citizens across Germany. When the full scope of these “remigration masterplans” first came to light via investigative reports, it triggered the largest wave of civil society protests in the country’s postwar history. Millions of ordinary citizens took to the streets precisely because they felt that seeing these demands on everyday election posters crossed an unacceptable line, threatening the democratic foundation of the republic.