After the major interview by American journalist, Tucker Carlson, with political commentator, Nick Fuentes, discussion in the US has flared up about the identity of the MAGA movement.Critics say that people like Nick Fuentes should not have a platform because their identitarian view of politics goes against American values. Supporters emphasise the role of absolute freedom of expression. They argue that thinking about identity and self-interest is of fundamental importance for the MAGA movement.&nbsp; Even President Donald Trump felt compelled to respond. According to him, everyone deserves a platform and it is ultimately up to the voter to determine which voices they want to listen to. Yet prominent Republicans such as the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Mike Johnson and Senator Ted Cruz continue to criticise Fuentes sharply - especially his view that American foreign policy is influenced by Israeli lobby structures which push the American national interest into the background. This is an important topic which has been explored in depth by political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt in their book,&nbsp;The Israel Lobby. That criticism touches on a broader debate within the Right about power, identity and what to do about the political liberal order in which politics is conducted nowadays.&nbsp; With this internal struggle on the Right, it is becoming increasingly clear that a culture war is taking place on a deeper level than simply between Left and Right. The differences within the Right seem to be just as great as between the Left and the Right. A new term is increasingly making its appearance in this debate: the ‘woke Right’&nbsp; This article aims to help the reader understand what is meant by this term, and to show that it is theoretically incoherent. To do this, it is necessary to go back to the philosophical framework of the man who coined this term: James Lindsay.&nbsp;James Lindsay, critical theory and Cultural Marxism&nbsp; Lindsay is known for his dissection of Marxism and his thesis that aspects of (Cultural) Marxism, including critical theory and contemporary ‘woke-thinking’, are variants of an ancient metaphysical tradition: gnosticism. Lindsay does this both with articles and in lectures.&nbsp;The core of gnostic thinking is that man can reinvent himself, that he can detach himself from history, nature and material limitations and that a future, Utopian society is possible when existing structures are broken down. Lindsay recognises in this the contours of Marxism: the (cultural) class struggle becomes a liberation project, hierarchies are regarded as artificial power constructions, and a new man will appear once the old order is destroyed. It is thus the belief that it is man's task to escape from the material prison of things. Dialectical change ensures that the collective consciousness of man will reach a new level: post-material and post-dualist, man as a united world soul.&nbsp; Despite his harsh statements against left-progressive and woke movements, Lindsay identifies himself with classical liberal values. In his worldview, individual rights, freedom, political equality, property and privacy are the most important values. He emphasises rationality, objective truth and reason, as a counterweight to what he sees as relativistic tendencies in postmodern and cultural Marxist ideas.&nbsp; He also regards the “woke Right” as a threat to these individualistic values. According to him, these people use the same group-orientedness, identity rhetoric and power politics as do woke groups. The ‘woke Right’ according to him, places moralistic purity and group loyalty above individual autonomy.&nbsp;What Lindsay sees as the ‘woke Right’ can better be described with the terms identitarian or anti-liberal Right. The current anti-liberal Right can best be seen as a group of right-wing people who do not simply accept the foundations of the liberal order, as developed in the post-war era. Although there are many flavours in the anti-liberal Right, and although the different groups do not agree at all on how ‘deep’ the ‘rot’ in the system is, there are also similarities. In contrast to the liberal order, which has become an increasingly universalistic doctrine, the anti-liberal Right wants to go precisely in the other direction. In times of universalism, traditional core values and self-interest should again become the foundation. The systematic peeling away of the liberal illusion of the post-war world order is central here: it is not a moral order. This idea which has been sold as a new paradise has turned out to be an illusion. Human nature never changes, whatever system there is, and universal values and human rights are precisely used in this order to strengthen the real power pyramid in the world. This is now under the guise of democracy, but in reality nothing has changed in the world. Power is still a top-down phenomenon and the rest exists only to keep people docile. The liberal system is not real.This is not surprising either. The post-WW2 world order is (certainly after the fall of the Berlin wall) a mish-mash of, on the one hand, the economically liberal capitalism from the United States and, on the other, cultural Marxism. This is called progressive liberalism and all our institutions have this ideology as a starting point. Globalism is an expression of this ideology.Lindsay's theory that the anti-liberal right possesses the same qualities as gnostic ‘parasitic Marxism’ is therefore quite wrong. On the contrary, the system which is criticised by the anti-liberal Right itself possesses the same parasitic qualities as Marxism.It may be true that the anti-liberal Right in action uses critical theory to criticise the power of the liberal political system. But it also stops there. The epistemological and metaphysical position of the anti-liberal Right is of a totally different nature from that of cultural Marxism.The anti-liberal Right precisely attaches value to identity. Identity is even its foundation. The goal of cultural Marxism is the opposite: cultural Marxism undermines the self, and the order of things, by dismissing fundamental concepts as social constructions (think of the gender discussion). With this, critical theory subverts the rootedness of a society. A man is a man and a woman is a woman because, besides the fact that it is biologically a fact, in nature everything is built up from aspects of masculinity and femininity. The traces from eternity confirm that this has been the case since the fall from paradise (and the introduction of the state of things as they are now) (in whatever cultural form you look at this).Gnostic cultural Marxism is in essence a liberation doctrine. Gnosticism focuses on liberation of the oppressed (classes, identities) from a corrupt world. The ‘woke Left’ deconstructs hierarchies for this Utopia. The ‘woke Right’ wants to restore hierarchies, for example the Christian-nationalist hegemony. This is not gnosis, but reactionary dualism: 'us vs. them' for dominance, not for decolonisation. Lindsay himself implicitly acknowledges this by linking the ‘woke Right’ to Alexander Dugin or post-liberalism, which is reactionary, not gnostic-liberating. Gnosticism promises a 'new heaven on earth' through self-criticism and self-undermining: the ‘woke Right’ offers no spiritual redemption in the world, only restoration and unmasking.Lindsay is therefore quite right about Cultural Marxism. But how can he be so wrong when it comes to the anti-liberal Right? The answer lies in his own classical liberalism.Lindsay's mistake: classical liberalism is also Gnosticism&nbsp; Lindsay claims, as previously indicated, that the ‘woke Right’ engages in group thinking. But groupthink also within classical liberalism. After all, an individual can only be free when everyone has equal rights. Classical liberalism is also an ideology and therefore already collectivistic in nature. The revolution must first take place before the individualistic Utopia can dawn.&nbsp; Now we go a step further. Lindsay’s own position is ITSELF not coherent with his own criticism of (cultural) Marxism. To illustrate this, we return to Lindsay's previously mentioned criticism and the concept of 'gnosticism'.&nbsp; Classical liberalism is itself also an heir to a gnostic way of thinking. It detaches the individual from the natural and divine connections in which it was always rooted - family, people, church, kingdom - and elevates him to a kind of abstract bearer of rights. The world thus becomes disenchanted: reduced to matter and contracts. Money and trade almost acquire the status of sacraments.&nbsp; In this liberal dream, flesh, birth and death fade into the background. It becomes a kind of market-gnosis, in which man thinks to liberate himself by abolishing everything that binds or limits him.&nbsp; Look at John Locke with his theory about the ‘tabula rasa’. Man is at birth a ‘blank slate’ who will explore the world unprejudiced. This is precisely a gnostic idea. Things have no origin and core and every generation can go into the world unrooted, detached from what binds him or her to previous generations. The individual is a person who, detached from his environment, can shape the world to his hand through his own actions. In this way, the material prison is also dissolved. Man can transcend his nature because it hardly influences him. It is therefore logical that more progressive-liberal philosophers such as John Rawls, with his theory about the ‘veil of ignorance’, base a theory of moral equality on the concept of ‘tabula rasa’.&nbsp;According to the Alexandrian gnostics, the true man has no nature, no flesh, no ancestors; he is pure potential which liberates himself from the ‘prison’ of the body, the family, the people, history. Locke secularises this and makes it the foundation of liberalism: man born without bonds, only rights, and the state as an artificial contract. That is the Alexandrian parasite (which Lindsay himself names in this way) that has disguised itself as ‘the Enlightenment’.The Enlightenment: Rome, Judea and the parasite from Alexandria Both liberalism and Marxism can be seen as two sides of the same ‘enlightened’ coin. It is the idea that we can create paradise on earth. This idea is as old as the story of the Tower of Babel.The current world order, which we can see as a coming together of economic liberalism and cultural Marxist thinking, packaged as globalism, is an order in which both worst points come together. Globalism is, on a worldwide level, the implementation of the new gnostic consciousness structures. It is a worldwide uniformisation of values and cultures.Marxism breaks down constructions in a very explicit way but liberalism does the same less explicitly. Take as an example the concept of government. A government was historically always an expression of self-interest, something which had a historical basis. Very long ago, this was the interest of the monarch. The monarch could make a historical claim to his right to rule from his birth and from divine right. When the centre of gravity shifted and the bourgeoisie emerged, the first governments arose from a very simple concept: the government should look after interests. This was lost with the further liberalisation of state structures. Self-interest gave way to universalism. This followed from the liberal value of equality. Often in the debate, it is claimed that liberalism assumes only freedom, but as Locke already noted, the condition of freedom for everyone is equality. This is where it went wrong. Governments increasingly behaved as guardians of universal liberalism. Further cultural and economic integration have ensured that universalism has made itself the goal. Borders matter less and less, the interests of people abroad are rarely subordinated to people at home. Liberalism works mainly through psychological nudging: small steps over a long period of time; however, the result is the same as with Marxism.The whole world will, with the advent of a universal progressive-liberal order, enter a new stage of evolution, as already noted by Francis Fukuyama after the fall of the Berlin Wall. The world will with this moral new social order break free from the oppression of traditional structures. This ideal could not be more gnostic!Conclusion&nbsp; In conclusion, the term 'woke Right' is more a rhetorical weapon than a serious analysis. It obscures the profound differences between movements which criticise the liberal order. Where progressive liberalism and cultural Marxism indeed approach reality as something that can be rebuilt according to gnostic insights, the anti-liberal Right precisely emphasises that an objective order exists - biologically, historically and culturally – and that it cannot simply be wiped away in the name of an abstract ideal. The worldview of the anti-liberal Right thus stands not next to, but diametrically opposed to the gnostic tradition which Lindsay describes, and to which ‘woke Left’ belongs. It is not aimed at liberation from the world, but at a revaluation of the world as it is, including the borders, identities and nature which define it.

large_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

medium_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

small_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

thumbnail_Flammarion_Colored-scaled.webp

‘Woke right’? A Discussion On Liberalism And Identity Politics

“La propriété, c’est le vol,” declared the French socialist, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, in 1840. “All property is theft.” The idea, soon after elaborated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels in their famous&nbsp;Communist Manifesto, is that everything ultimately belongs to “the community”; that we all live, work, and exist within the same society; and that it is impossible to claim that one person “deserves” more than another. Since we are all equal, so the argument goes, claiming something as your own property means you are effectively “stealing” it from the collective.At least, that is what the socialists believe. Opposed to this is an equally widespread notion, expressed for example by the libertarian, Murray Rothbard, in 1982, that “taxation is theft”, in other words any form of taxation is a violation of property rights. In this view, all things are ultimately private property, and there exists no collective which is greater or more important than the individual’s right to dispose of the fruits of his own labour.Who is right? And what does that mean for politics, taxation, and the economy? During the parliamentary debate on the Tax Plan on Thursday 20 November, Jimmy Dijk (SP) and I touched upon this age-old question of political philosophy. Although a concrete proposal was on the table concerning the taxes for 2026, levies on businesses, VAT on groceries, and so on, the discussion suddenly went much deeper.This is how it unfolded: the leader of the Socialist Party argued that under the current tax system, the so-called “rich” still managed to remain wealthy too easily. The system, he claimed, simply was not “fair”. So I asked him what his definition of “fair” actually entailed. When are taxes “fair”? When is it legitimate to take money or earnings from people, and when is it not?His answer was that “the people who do the work” should “earn the money”, and not “the lazy shareholder”. For Jimmy Dijk, “capital”, private property, is therefore the problem. This is exactly what the socialists of old (from Proudhon to Marx and Engels) argued.In a world where the cards are dealt entirely at random, a board game in which one person receives great wealth by sheer luck and another receives almost nothing, that view might even be true. But how do rich people actually acquire their wealth? Roughly speaking, there are two possibilities:<ol><li>through hard work, or &nbsp;</li><li>through inheritance. &nbsp;</li></ol>If you acquire wealth through hard work, then you belong to the very group Jimmy Dijk claims to favour, so if work has paid off, it would, by his own definition, be unjust to confiscate it afterwards. That is where the contradiction already begins. But if you acquire wealth through inheritance, the same logic still applies. After all, your parents or loved ones once earned it themselves through hard work and choose to give it to you. Why should they not be allowed to dispose of the fruits of their labour as they wish? Again, you end up trapped in an internal contradiction.On what, then, is the socialist argument against capital actually based? It seems, for Dijk, mainly to revolve around the extent of the differences: a small difference is acceptable, he implies, but not too large a one. But why should the differences not be too large? If someone works twice as efficiently as another person, or ten times, or a hundred times, should they not also be allowed to earn twice, ten times, or a hundred times as much?At root, the Socialist’s conviction is perhaps that such large differences between people simply do not exist. But how does the Socialist know that? Indeed, how could one possibly know or measure such a thing? There is, unfortunately, no objective criterion for this - except the free market. Thus, logically considered, the Socialist position turns out, unfortunately, to be entirely untenable, and one is always led back to the correctness of the capitalist.<hr>

large_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

medium_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

small_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

thumbnail_01KAK1ENNP1JSEQR10B8R517D5.webp

What Are ‘Fair’ Taxes?

The government wants to double defence spending over the next ten years from 20 billion to nearly 40 billion euros. This is in line with the new NATO standard stating that 3.5 percent of gross domestic product must go directly to defence expenditure. In theory, this astronomical investment could contribute to economic growth, innovation and the strengthening of Dutch security. But new research by the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB) shows that these billions in investments in reality yield hardly anything for the Netherlands. The vast majority of the new investments will flow abroad, leaving the Dutch economy behind.It is estimated that 61 percent of the new defence investments will be spent on importing equipment such as aircraft, weapon systems and vehicles. Dutch companies simply do not benefit from this. In addition, the CPB warns that the higher spending may even have a negative impact on the economy. Labour shortages will increase further, as defence wants to hire more staff. In fact, the economy will shrink as a result, because defence exacerbates labour shortages in sectors that&nbsp;do generate economic growth. Furthermore, other investments will be crowded out. More money for foreign manufacturers logically means&nbsp;less money for other sectors that&nbsp;do contribute to the growth of the Dutch economy.Although the cabinet claims that these billions generate employment, innovation and growth, the facts show a very different picture. To obtain clarity about these contradictions and to make the real consequences of the billions in spending visible, Peter van Duijvenvoorde is submitting parliamentary questions to the Minister of Defence.<hr>Written questions from MP Van Duijvenvoorde (FVD) to the Minister of Defence regarding the economic impact of additional defence spending according to the Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (CPB).<ol><li>Is the minister aware of the NOS article – based on research by the CPB – about the limited economic impact of additional defence spending? &nbsp;</li><li>How does the minister assess the CPB study indicating that most defence investments will not generate economic growth in the Netherlands? &nbsp;</li><li>What is the minister’s plan to prevent additional investments from merely leading to budget stacking without operational improvement? &nbsp;</li><li>Why does the cabinet choose to spend Dutch investment expenditure abroad on a large scale? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to develop a plan to strengthen the Dutch defence industry so that less Dutch taxpayers’ money leaks abroad? &nbsp;</li><li>How will the minister prevent further labour market shortages caused by defence attempting to recruit additional personnel? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister rule out that the additional defence spending will be financed through tax increases which may negatively affect the Dutch economy, as the CPB warns? &nbsp;</li><li>Why does defence invest relatively little in so-called ‘dual-use’ technology, which also strengthens civilian innovation? &nbsp;</li><li>How does the minister explain that the cabinet presents defence expenditure as if it will generate economic growth, while the CPB now clearly shows that this is barely the case? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to be more transparent about the limited impact that additional defence investments will have on the Dutch economy? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister share the view of Forum for Democracy that defence investments – where possible – should benefit the Dutch economy and the Dutch defence industry as much as possible? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister provide insight into the consequences for the labour market when defence focuses on expanding its workforce? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to focus primarily on Dutch production and industry rather than on foreign suppliers? &nbsp;</li><li>Can the minister compile a transparent cost-effectiveness analysis clarifying to what extent additional spending actually contributes to the resilience and security of the Netherlands? &nbsp;</li><li>How do investments in equipment such as weapon systems and vehicles relate to what is considered mainly a digital threat? &nbsp;</li><li>How does the minister justify that Dutch tax funds mainly strengthen foreign defence industries – and thereby their resilience? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister see possibilities to deploy Dutch tax funds more for the Dutch defence industry and Dutch resilience? &nbsp;</li></ol>How will the minister ensure that defence spending is maximally effective?

large_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

medium_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

small_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

thumbnail_01KAK798CWG61MJ0MY589PEAWD.webp

Peter Van Duijvenvoorde MP submits parliamentary questions about the tens of billions of euros leaking away to foreign defence industries

For decades, the Netherlands and many other European countries have been governed by coalitions hammered out behind closed doors, after parties horse-trade parts of their manifestos to gain this or that ministry. Only FVD sees through this monstrous charade. Lidewij de Vos explained with devastating clarity recently that there were big majorities in the new parliament for certain policies – on immigration, on nuclear power, on health care. Yet the tradition is that electoral promises disappear once the long process of government formation starts. Why not hold a vote on those policies, confirm the majorities and then create a technical government under a chairman-prime minister to implement them?&nbsp; That would at least respect the voters. The idea is brilliant and simple – but will it be accepted? Don’t hold your breath.Watch Lidewij’s speech&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OfMka-S00sw">here</a><img src="/uploads/image_827aa0fa26.png">Unfortunately we did not have to wait for a new government to see these promises disappear like the morning mist. Lidewij put down motions on the various policy areas for which, according to the very recent election manifestos, there are majorities in the Lower House. On migration; on mortgage relief; on nuclear energy; on healthcare – one after another, her motions were rejected by the very parties which had just got themselves elected on these issues. Can there be any clearer illustration that the current democratic system is a con-trick?<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/the-election-outcome-deserves-immediate-substantive-action-not-months-of-coalition-bargaining">Read about Lidewij’s motions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_4d306c5dae.png">Meanwhile, the Dutch government – on autopilot, apparently, because the new government has not been formed yet – is preparing to demolish a village in the name of energy transition. It is surely the height of climate madness to destroy a centuries-old village in the name of ecology. Can there be any harsher symbolism of the cruelty and inhumanity of the climate industry than this? It appears that the decision was taken by the local council without even consulting the inhabitants of the village, who learned about it in the media. FVD’s newest member of parliament, Peter van Duyvenvoorde (above), director of FVD’s cultural think-tank, the Renaissance Institute, who was sworn in to the Lower Chamber recently, has taken up the cause of the village and, together with Pepijn van Houwelingen, put down a number of questions to the government about this scandalous and terrible decision.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/fvd-submits-parliamentary-questions-about-the-plan-to-destroy-the-village-of-moerdijk-in-the-name-of-energy-transition">Read the article about Moerdijk here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1f13361743.png">Stephen Baskerville was our guest on The Forum this week, with a tantalising thesis – that feminism is at the root of all revolutions and that the sexual revolution is a racket to emasculate men and promote female bureaucrats. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://x.com/FVD_Intl/status/1991159632841310485">Listen to The Forum here</a>

large_unnamed (6).jpg

medium_unnamed (6).jpg

small_unnamed (6).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (6).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 21 November

Following the Dutch general election, MP Lidewij de Vos (FVD) warns that Parliament is failing to act on the clear mandates given by voters. Although the election results reveal substantial policy majorities, the House of Representatives is already shifting decision-making to negotiators and backroom talks. This undermines democratic accountability.The recent elections in the Netherlands produced clear majorities on several major policy issues. When comparing the different party manifestos, it becomes evident what direction voters want the country to take. This is precisely the moment for the 150 newly elected MPs to honour that result. They should vote on these issues directly, rather than sidelining themselves for months of coalition bargaining, and then instruct the new government to turn these majorities into concrete policy.<h3>Migration: a majority on paper, but no political courage</h3>One of the most pressing topics is migration. Parties such as the VVD, CDA, GroenLinks-PvdA and ChristenUnie all campaigned on the idea of limiting annual net migration to around 60,000 people. FVD argues for a negative migration balance, but even this proposed limit would mark a significant improvement compared with the numbers of the past decade. With support from migration-critical parties, a solid majority should be within reach.Yet the opposite occurred. Many parties that campaigned on this issue voted against De Vos’s motion. The gap between campaign promises and parliamentary behaviour becomes immediately visible once the formation process begins.<img src="/uploads/image_e60cb867a2.png"><h3>Mortgage interest relief: promises abandoned after polling day</h3>A similar pattern emerged on the question of mortgage interest relief. The VVD openly campaigned in favour of maintaining it but still voted against the motion intended to secure this position. This is a prime example of what is going wrong: the post-election debate is no longer about the choices of the electorate but about political manoeuvring behind closed doors.<img src="/uploads/image_bd9ff68b74.png"><h3>Nuclear energy, healthcare costs and tax relief: clear majorities ignored</h3>On issues such as the expansion of nuclear energy, maintaining the current level of the healthcare deductible, and providing tax relief, there are also clear majorities based on party manifestos. Nevertheless, all of De Vos’s motions on these subjects were rejected last Thursday.This shows, she argues, that Parliament hands over control almost immediately after the election. Instead of acting on the voters’ mandate, decisions are deferred to negotiators and informants. According to De Vos, this represents a serious democratic deficiency.<img src="/uploads/Health_charge_275839c374.png"><h3>Restoring democratic leadership</h3>At the heart of democracy lies a simple principle: elected representatives should make decisions on behalf of the electorate, based on substance and accountability. If Parliament stops deciding and transfers authority to a formation process shielded from public view, the core of that democratic promise is weakened.Lidewij de Vos therefore calls for a political culture in which the House itself takes responsibility - directly, transparently and in line with the election outcome. Only then can the gap between voters and politics truly be bridged.<img src="/uploads/image_51acb376f9.png">

large_Motion nucl.png

medium_Motion nucl.png

small_Motion nucl.png

thumbnail_Motion nucl.png

The Election Outcome Deserves Immediate Substantive Action, Not Months Of Coalition Bargaining

13 November 2025The centuries-old Brabant village of Moerdijk - a community of more than 1,100 residents – is in danger of disappearing to make way for new energy infrastructure. The municipal council of Moerdijk has decided that demolishing the village is “the only option” to create space for high-voltage stations, pipelines, and other components deemed necessary to continue the energy transition. Forum for Democracy finds this completely unacceptable.Villages and communities are not bargaining chips for climate madness or abstract transition plans, according to FVD MPs Peter van Duijvenvoorde and Pepijn van Houwelingen, who were sworn in to parliament today. The idea that residents should give up their homes, history and social ties for an ideological green dream defies all moral and political sense.Immediately after their inauguration in the House of Representatives, Van Duijvenvoorde and Van Houwelingen submitted written questions to the Minister for Climate and Green Growth. They are demanding clarification regarding this absurd proposal and want to know how it is even possible that the government is considering wiping a village off the map for climate plans.Forum for Democracy will continue to oppose the destruction of our living environment, our history, and our communities, both in Moerdijk and across the Netherlands.You can read the questions from MPs Van Duijvenvoorde and Van Houwelingen below.<hr><h3>Written questions from MPs Van Duijvenvoorde (FVD) and Van Houwelingen (FVD) to the Minister for Climate and Green Growth about destroying the village of Moerdijk for the benefit of the energy transition</h3><ol><li>Is the minister aware of the NOS article about demolishing the village of Moerdijk? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister share the concerns of, among others, residents that demolishing this centuries-old village would be an exceptionally drastic measure? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister consider it desirable that centuries-old villages in the Netherlands disappear to make room for the energy transition? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 3 is affirmative, can the minister indicate how often this is expected to occur in the future? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 3 is negative, what steps is the minister taking to prevent this supposed precedent from being followed in the future? &nbsp;</li><li>How does demolishing a village align with the current government policy focused on liveable residential environments, the preservation of communities, resolving the housing crisis, and safeguarding heritage? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister agree with the questioners that demolishing a village is a violation of property rights? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 7 is negative, why does the minister believe that demolishing a village is not a violation of property rights? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister believe that the energy transition may go so far as to allow villages to be destroyed? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister acknowledge that in practice, residents have no means to prevent such a decision, even though it concerns the loss of their place of residence and community? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister believe it is democratically undesirable that a municipal council - working together with the province and the national government - can make such decisions without binding public participation, such as a referendum among residents? &nbsp;</li><li>Does the minister consider it to be in the public interest to destroy centuries-old villages? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 12 is affirmative, why is this in the public interest? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 12 is negative, does the minister agree with the questioners that it is in the public interest to protect history, culture, and heritage, and therefore to ensure the preservation of a centuries-old village? &nbsp;</li><li>What criteria were used by the municipal council in cooperation with the national government to determine that destroying the village of Moerdijk is necessary? &nbsp;</li><li>To what extent has systematic research been conducted comparing alternative locations for new energy infrastructure? &nbsp;</li><li>To what extent and in what manner have residents of the village of Moerdijk been involved in this decision? &nbsp;</li><li>What legal basis exists for destroying the village, and what would this look like in practice? &nbsp;</li><li>If the village is to be destroyed, how will the 1,100 residents be compensated in concrete terms, and will (im)material damage caused by displacement be taken into account, such as psychological burden, loss of community, loss of services, and effects on commuting? &nbsp;</li><li>How will new, suitable housing be provided for 1,100 residents, particularly during a housing crisis? &nbsp;</li><li>Are there plans to destroy other residential areas in the future for the benefit of the energy transition? &nbsp;</li><li>If the answer to question 21 is affirmative, can the minister indicate which plans these concern? &nbsp;</li><li>Is the minister willing to investigate whether - together with the province of North Brabant and the municipality of Moerdijk - alternatives can be developed that ensure the preservation of the village of Moerdijk?</li></ol>Can the minister answer these questions as soon as possible and individually?

luchtfoto-van-het-dorp-moerdijk-met-bovenin-het-hollands-diep.avif

FVD Submits Parliamentary Questions about the Plan to Destroy the Village of Moerdijk in the Name of Energy Transition

They never give up, do they? The EU leadership, at both national and EU level, has racked up 10 trillion euros of debt since the euro was created a quarter of a century ago. This inexorable rise is in spite of the fact that the rules of the Maastricht treaty were supposed to make the single currency a model of price stability and fiscal prudence. And so what does the EU propose to do now?&nbsp; Raise even more debt, of course! This time, though, they want the whole of the EU to raise it by a further trillion a year (Mario Draghi proposed ‘at least 750 billion € a year’) by means of fully mutualised debt. (The existing EU-level debt issuances are limited in time and by sector, but the principle is the same.) Only FVD sees the economic, political and constitutional dangers of this – the hardworking Northern European ants will, as usual, have to pay for the spendthrift Southern European cicadas. Mutualised debt is nothing but socialism on an international scale and is conjugated as follows: I overspend, you pay for my debts, we all suffer.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/eurobonds-the-rubicon-for-european-unification">Read Thierry’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_547dd2b828.png">And what is there to show for this colossal mortgaging of future generations? We are all familiar with the Blairite trick of calling government spending ‘investment’ but there has not been investment in anything. Money has gushed out on mass immigration, climate madness, overregulation and welfare dependency without there being anything to show for it. Where are the great infrastructure projects of the post-war decades? There aren’t any. Only FVD has the vision to propose real investment in really ambitious projects which will actually help, not impoverish, future generations. FVD’s parliamentary chairman, Lidewij de Vos, laid out some of these in a letter to the parliamentarian tasked with putting out feelers to all parties with a view to forming a government. As Lidewij writes, there have been 35 years of extreme political stability in the Netherlands – only 5 prime ministers since 1982, as opposed to 11 in Britain and 22 in France – and this has just led to Brezhnevian drift. Time for a real change.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/lidewij-de-vos-in-conversation-with-wouter-koolmees-about-government-formation">Read Lidewij’s open letter here</a><img src="/uploads/image_054fb13294.png">Maybe this special vision of FVD is due to the fact that it sees beyond politics. Hans van de Breevaart, a researcher at FVD’s Renaissance Institute, is a devout Christian, as are many FVDers. So why is he associated with FVD instead of with the overtly Christian parties in the Netherlands, of which there are at least three? Hans explains that FVD’s world view, shared by believers and non-believers, Christians and non-Christians, is closer to true Christian humility than anything proposed by the officially Christian parties.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/why-i-as-a-christian-support-forum-for-democracy">Read Hans van de Breevaart’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1b2eb87505.png">We took a break from politics this week on The Forum to discuss food. Zoe Harcombe has been fighting the ‘anti-fat’ narrative for years now: she does so as a PhD in nutritional science and as a statistician. Guess what? It’s just like climate ‘science’ – the official anti-meat and anti-fat narrative is hogwash cooked up to serve a pre-prepared pre-processed narrative. Yeuch!&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYfp4BOhpn0">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

medium_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

small_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

thumbnail_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

The Weekly Forum - 13 November 2025

Eurobonds are on the European Union’s agenda - the issuance of EU-wide debt securities and with it the collectivisation of national debts at the European level. For decades, this has been dreamed of as the next step in the ongoing process of European integration. No wonder Europhiles are so enthusiastic: once the EU gains the power to issue its own bonds, it effectively becomes “a state.” It could then – at least in principle – spend money independently, finance projects, build an army, and so on, no longer needing to ask the member states for permission. They would be sidelined for good, left to watch from the margins. Power would lie with Brussels.This transfer of sovereignty seems largely to escape the current debate on eurobonds. Instead, attention is focused on the economic risks and the budgetary rules which must accompany them. These are important and fair points — but they are not the fundamental issue. Take the interview given by the new president of De Nederlandsche Bank (DNB), Olaf Sleijpen, to&nbsp;De Telegraaf last weekend. As successor to the outspoken Europhile Klaas Knot, Sleijpen offers a more nuanced view of his predecessor’s enthusiasm for eurobonds. He believes that, “We should not just agree to the issuance of European loans.” It must be prevented, he argues, “because otherwise the mountain of debt in Europe will only grow even larger as a result.”So, not “just” agree, unless we can secure certain “guarantees.” We’ve heard that before. For example, when the euro was introduced. That did not really work either, and back then too, the debate ignored the political dimension: that by giving up your own currency, you surrender a great deal of sovereignty.The&nbsp;De Telegraaf editorial of 10 November called Sleijpen’s warning “very welcome.” We must not ignore, the paper argued, “the risks for the Netherlands of the handouts to France and Italy.” According to&nbsp;De Telegraaf, it is good that the DNB president “sets the strict condition that financially unsound countries must make extra cuts if more eurobonds are introduced.” But, the editorial continued, “that is a good step, but not strict enough. The budgetary rules have been flouted for years. The Netherlands must take a hard-line stance: eurobonds are off the table for as long as countries like France and Italy have not put their house in order.”This commentary is emblematic of the financial-economic tunnel vision to which the eurobond debate has been reduced. “Putting their house in order” and “risks.” First of all, they are never going to put their house in order. You can’t turn Greeks into Germans. You can’t turn the French into the Dutch, no matter how many agreements you make, how many “watchdogs” and “control mechanisms” you build in. The economies of Southern Europe will remain weaker than those of Northern Europe for generations to come. As a result, they will always have to borrow at higher interest rates, and will therefore always cost the Northern countries money if we collectivise the debts.But secondly, the problem is more fundamental: it concerns the transfer of sovereignty. Once the European Union can issue its own debt, federalisation will accelerate rapidly. The remaining sovereignty will evaporate, because the EU will no longer need the member states’ approval for the projects it pursues.The EU would then become a superstate with its own army, its own government, and its own debts. Dutch politicians would look on and say that this was never the deal, that we never agreed to a European army, never agreed to paying higher interest rates; never agreed to a European superstate. And yet, it came to be! So no. Don’t do it. Eurobonds are both economically irresponsible and politically unacceptable.

Eurobonds: the Rubicon for European Unification

Lidewij de Vos paid a visit to “informateur" (someone who explores the possibilities for a new government) Wouter Koolmees. In the run-up to the coalition talks, De Vos presented an alternative to the usual process of backroom politics, in which parties trade positions among themselves. According to the Forum for Democracy (FVD) parliamentary leader, government plans should be shaped on the basis of shifting majorities in Parliament. Through votes, the House of Representatives should outline the main directions for the next four years, the implementation of these directions should then be carried out by ministers.In a letter to the informer, De Vos explains how she envisions this process. The letter is reproduced below.<h3>Dear Mr Koolmees,</h3>The Netherlands was built by generations who dared to dream and had the courage to make those dreams come true. From the fight against the sea in the Golden Age to the reconstruction after 1945, from the Delta Works to the knowledge economy, time and again the Dutch have shown that the impossible becomes possible when we dare, cooperate and look ahead.Continuing that tradition is the fundamental task of every government. Not merely managing what exists, but building what is yet to come. Not passing today’s problems on to tomorrow, but solving them with vision and determination. Not keeping the Netherlands small out of fear, but making it great with ambition.With this letter, Forum for Democracy wishes to make a constructive contribution to the formation of a government that will enable the Netherlands to grow again, a government in which all Dutch people who wish to contribute are heard, and in which we work together to build a country we can be proud of.<h3>Problem analysis: thirty years of stagnation under “stable governance”</h3>Over the past 35 years, the Netherlands has enjoyed a level of political stability rarely seen. Lubbers for 12 years, Kok for 8, Balkenende for 8, Rutte for 14, all examples of the much-praised stability. Yet we must ask ourselves: what has all that stability brought us?The honest answer is painful: the Netherlands has not progressed, but regressed. Under the banner of stable governance, fundamental neglect has piled up.No major projects have been realised that structurally improve our country, no new Delta Works, no visionary infrastructure, no investments that help future generations. We have stopped building and started merely managing. There is no long-term plan for the development of the Netherlands over the next 25 to 50 years. Every government looks four years ahead, not a generation. We drift rather than set a course.Our once perfect energy system has been replaced by unreliable “wobbly energy”, while we halted our own natural gas extraction. We have made ourselves vulnerable and dependent, when we could have been energy-independent.Uncontrolled non-Western mass immigration now costs our country a net €25 billion per year, while integration fails and parallel societies emerge. Social cohesion has vanished, polarisation reigns, Dutch citizens no longer recognise their own streets and neighbourhoods.Education, healthcare and police services are struggling with shortages that were foreseen 15 years ago. There is a housing shortage of 400,000 homes, which we created ourselves by admitting millions of people while failing to build. The performance of our education system continues to decline in international rankings. The disposable income of an average household has fallen by about 40 per cent compared with 1995. People work harder yet do not move forward. The promise of prosperity has been broken.Stifling regulation, partly self-imposed, partly dictated by Brussels, has paralysed the country. Farmers can no longer farm, builders can no longer build, entrepreneurs drown in paperwork. The Netherlands has largely transferred its sovereignty to the EU. The impartiality of our legal system and the pluralism of our media are under pressure.This is the harsh truth: so-called “stable governance” has brought the Netherlands and its citizens very little good over the past 35 years. Stability can also mean stagnation, and stagnation is decline in a world that keeps moving.<h3>Short-term task: immediate relief for the Dutch people</h3>The new government must show, from day one, that politics makes a difference in people’s daily lives, not in four years, but within six months.An end to mass immigration as the first priority. A direct asylum stop, expansion of existing remigration legislation, and the restoration of Dutch control over our borders are crucial to restoring calm and cohesion in society. Labour migration should only be permitted where genuinely needed and with high quality standards.Restoring our prosperity. Dutch families must experience a tangible improvement in purchasing power. That means: drastic tax cuts for workers, lower energy costs, affordable groceries, financed from the tens of billions currently spent annually on migration and climate policies. Concretely, this means at least €400 net more per month for average households.Solving the housing shortage. By cutting through bureaucracy, promoting remigration and investing in rooftop extensions and property divisions, we must free up 100,000 housing spaces per year. Young people should again be able to live independently from the age of 22, and families should have room to grow.Restoring our energy independence. The Groningen gas fields should be reopened for Dutch use, we must invest in nuclear energy and stop the “wobbly energy” that makes us dependent and poorer. Groningen must be fully compensated and made earthquake-proof. This will immediately lead to lower energy bills and strategic security.And finally, deregulation. We will impose a maximum processing time of six months for all permits. We will halt the nitrogen policy that is destroying our world-class farmers based on dubious models. We will let entrepreneurs do business again.The billions saved will be invested in Dutch families, education and healthcare. These measures will give people breathing space, restore confidence, and demonstrate that the Netherlands can once again be a country where hard work is rewarded.<h3>Long-term focus: the Netherlands of 2050</h3>But a government that only extinguishes fires does not build a future. The Netherlands needs an ambitious long-term vision to once again make our country a world leader. We must start building grand projects as our forefathers did.Schiphol at sea: an artificial island off the coast of IJmuiden capable of handling 100 million passengers and freeing up 2,700 hectares in the Randstad for housing and nature. A&nbsp;hyperloop network connecting all of the Netherlands within 15 minutes, linking regions and cities efficiently. New Maasvlakte extensions for our port and energy projects.These are not fantasies but achievable projects that create employment, prosperity and pride. We must invest in sectors where we are global leaders: ASML and the semiconductor industry, agri-tech and precision farming, maritime innovation, and cybersecurity.We must also build a strong, specialised defence industry by allocating part of the defence budget for that purpose. We must reform our education system so that we once again train top talent in the fields that make the Netherlands strong: technology, the sciences, healthcare, and education itself.Focus on excellence and practical ability. We must restore the soul of the Netherlands: respect for those who work and create, care for one another in communities, pride in our identity and achievements, and freedom to speak one’s mind. Not through preaching but through action, by granting freedom, restoring trust, and building a society people want to belong to. This Netherlands, prosperous, safe, free, innovative, proud, is within reach within 25 years.<h3>New cabinet: broad support and true representation</h3>These great tasks, immediate relief and long-term vision, require a government that represents the Netherlands, not just The Hague. That means all parts of society must see themselves reflected in the cabinet: working people, entrepreneurs, farmers, healthcare workers, technicians, students and teachers. Not only administrators and political professionals, but people with practical experience who know how the Netherlands really works.It also means that citizens must be able to have their say on major policies through binding referendums. Direct democracy strengthens the bond between citizens and government.Our preference is for an approach in which the House of Representatives first votes freely on various themes, after which specialist ministers are appointed to implement those decisions. Topics on which majorities already exist, such as restricting immigration, introducing a binding referendum, and starting the construction of new nuclear power stations, can thus finally be acted upon. In this way, we break the deadlock of a sealed coalition agreement and promote dynamic, democratic decision-making that reflects the will of the people.Concretely, this would mean starting with a series of general votes in the House to determine on which issues majorities currently exist. For example, on the “right”: restricting asylum and migration law, investing in nuclear energy, reducing regulatory burdens, maintaining mortgage interest relief. But also, on the “left”: democratic reform, improving education, introducing binding referendums, phasing the healthcare deductible.The House could then elect a Prime Minister from among its own members, similar to how the Speaker of the House is currently chosen. This Prime Minister could appoint ministers in consultation with the parties that, depending on the portfolio, belong to the “majority” that emerged during the votes.A Minister of Finance, directly accountable to the Prime Minister, would act as coordinator. Meanwhile, the House could exercise control over policy, adjust where necessary, and, if needed, call a referendum.Only with such a broadly supported cabinet will social cohesion return. Only then can we overcome polarisation and build together. Only then will we regain the trust necessary for great change.<h3>Conclusion</h3>Forum for Democracy wishes to make a constructive contribution to this process. We are prepared to take on government responsibility, not out of self-interest, but because the Netherlands needs this change of course.We bring concrete, achievable plans. We bring connection with millions of Dutch citizens who feel unheard. And we have the courage to take bold decisions. The Netherlands does not need another four years of drift, but a government that builds and looks ahead, that dares, that leads. A government that continues the legacy of generations of Dutch who made the impossible possible.Let us build together a Netherlands where everyone who wants to contribute, counts. A Netherlands that grows again. A Netherlands we can be proud of. A Netherlands for our children.With kind regards and a willingness for constructive dialogue,Lidewij de Vos Parliamentary Leader, Forum for Democracy Member of the House of Representatives of the States General

large_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

medium_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

small_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

thumbnail_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

Lidewij de Vos in Conversation with Wouter Koolmees about Government Formation

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

🏛 The Forum and Friends: Trump's Peace Plan for Ukraine with Ian Proud

Pepijn van Houwelingen On EU Chat Control | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Who Lost America with Stephen Baskerville

De Vos To The House Of Representatives: Restore Your Vote And Honour Your Electorate! | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: The Truth about Diet with Dr Zoe Harcombe, PhD

FVD Nationalists Win Seats in the Netherlands - Exclusive Commentary from John Laughland | TVL (FR)

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Venezuela with Diego Sequera

Lidewij de Vos Reacts to FVD’s Big Election Win | FVD

Lidewij de Vos Reacts to Electoral Victory: &quot;Parliament Must Act Now&quot; | FVD #shorts

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Peace in Gaza with Ali Rizk

Forum for Democracy

FVD is a anti-globalist political party in the Netherlands founded and led by Thierry Baudet. John Laughland (right) is director of FVD International.

Subscribe to our international newsletter