Lidewij De Vos MP submits parliamentary questions:&nbsp;Let us scrap climate policy after the UN climate panel withdraws its doomsday scenario.For years, people have been told that the Earth could warm by as much as 4 to 6 degrees by 2100. (1) This extreme scenario (SSP5-8.5) from the IPCC (2) formed the basis for drastic climate policy, sky-high climate subsidies, higher taxes, and alarming media coverage. Now, however, it turns out that the IPCC itself is distancing itself from this scenario. (3)FVD parliamentary leader, Lidewij De Vos, wants to know from the government why the Netherlands is sticking to extremely expensive climate policy while the underlying 'doomsday scenario' has now been scrapped by the IPCC itself. She also draws attention to the consequences for previous climate lawsuits, including the Bonaire case, in which judges partly relied on the now-scrapped SSP5-8.5 scenario. (4)It is unacceptable that people have to foot the bill for extremely expensive policies based on fact-free doomsday scenarios. The cabinet must therefore scrap the climate policy and reduce the burdens on citizens.Written questions from Lidewij De Vos MP (FVD) to the Minister of Climate and Green Growth concerning the scrapped 'doomsday scenario' of the IPCC1. Have you taken note of the report that the IPCC has scrapped its most extreme doomsday scenario (4 to 6 degrees of warming in 2100)?2. Have you taken note of the analysis that more than 80 per cent of media coverage has been based on this now outdated scenario?3. How do you assess the reporting referred to in questions 1 and 2?4. Do you believe that in recent years a distorted and overly alarmist picture of climate developments has been presented? If yes, why? If no, why not?5. To what extent is current Dutch climate policy based on assumptions and models from the IPCC which have since been adjusted by that same IPCC? Can you explain your answer?6. Do you consider it responsible to continue with policies that have a very major economic and societal impact, while the underlying assumptions and models from the IPCC on which that policy is based have since been adjusted by that same IPCC? If yes, why? If no, what changes are you prepared to make?7. Are you prepared to carry out a full review of Dutch climate policy? If no, why not? If yes, on what timeline?8. Are you prepared, in light of these developments, to take measures to reduce the burdens on citizens, for example by (partly) scrapping or even reversing the climate policy? Can you explain your answer?9. How will you ensure that policy in the future is not based on extreme and unrealistic scenarios?10. Have you taken note of the report that all climate lawsuits from recent years would refer to the now-scrapped doomsday scenario of the IPCC?11. How do you assess the reporting as mentioned in question 10?12. Do you acknowledge that, if the reporting mentioned in question 10 is correct, this has far-reaching consequences for the legal foundations on which judges have convicted the Dutch state and Dutch companies to far-reaching and costly climate policy? Can you explain your answer?13. Are you prepared to have it investigated to what extent the judgments in climate lawsuits directly or indirectly rely on the doomsday scenario of the IPCC that has since been scrapped by that same IPCC? Are you prepared to inform the House of the outcomes of this investigation? If yes, on what timeline? If no, why not?14. In the climate lawsuit concerning Bonaire (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2026:1344), the judge assumes under point 4.21 a sea level rise of 27 cm in 2050 and 85 cm in 2100, based on the "doomsday scenario" SSP5-8.5 that has since been scrapped by the IPCC; how do you assess the fact that this court ruling with far-reaching consequences is partly based on scenarios from the IPCC that have since been scrapped by that same IPCC? Can you explain your answer?15. Are you prepared, in the appeal against the ruling concerning Bonaire, to explicitly take into account that the court of first instance partly based itself on the SSP5-8.5 scenario that has since been scrapped by the IPCC, and that the substantiation of the ruling has therefore been fundamentally changed? If yes, why? If no, why not?16. Can you answer these questions as soon as possible and separately from each other?

large_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

medium_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

small_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

thumbnail_01KRBW8BHDSBMEZ14VPQJKE1C8.webp

Let us scrap climate policy after the UN climate panel withdraws its doomsday scenario

In a newly published report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), earlier predictions about future global warming have been drastically revised downward. The most extreme climate scenario (4 to 6 degrees of warming by 2100), which for years stood at the centre of predictions about catastrophic warming, large-scale flooding and societal collapse, has now been dropped. Yet this very scenario formed the basis for policy decisions, sweeping climate measures and alarmist media coverage over the past years. Now that even the IPCC itself is distancing itself from these predictions, the question arises to what extent current climate policy can still be justified on the basis of such extreme, and now outdated, assumptions.For years, public opinion has been subjected to alarmist doom scenarios in order to justify expensive and ineffective climate policies. Citizens have been forced to pay higher taxes, entrepreneurs burdened with increasingly strict regulations, and entire sectors placed under pressure because of predictions of catastrophic warming.Now it appears from a new proposal for the IPCC’s so-called “CMIP7 programme” that the most extreme climate scenario from previous reports can no longer be regarded as realistic. This concerns the scenario in which greenhouse gas emissions continue to rise dramatically throughout this century (the so-called SSP5-8.5 scenario from CMIP6). The document states that these high emission levels and their credibility “have been questioned.” It also indicates that future high-emission scenarios are likely to be lower than this previous disaster scenario.<h3>Earlier Doubts About the IPCC</h3>That is remarkable. This precise scenario was used for years to spread visions of four to six degrees of warming, climate disasters, mass flooding and societal disruption. Media outlets, activist organisations and politicians consistently presented this extreme scenario as though it were a realistic picture of the future.Forum for Democracy pointed out years ago that this scenario was in no way realistic. In interviews, articles and parliamentary contributions, we consistently argued that the 8.5 scenario was based on absurd assumptions, such as an explosive growth in coal use.&nbsp; Yet it was continually used to justify alarmist predictions.<h3><img src="/uploads/image_2cb59a2bfb.png"></h3><h3>The Hockey Stick Graph</h3>The notorious “hockey stick graph” also played an important role in the climate debate for many years. This graph, presented by the IPCC in the late 1990s, was intended to show that temperatures on Earth had remained virtually stable for centuries before suddenly rising sharply in the past century. This created the impression that current warming is entirely unique in history.Forum for Democracy has also criticised this in the past. Data series were selectively used, truncated or supplemented with data from other periods, causing natural climate fluctuations largely to disappear from view. Yet climate change has existed throughout all of history. During the Medieval Warm Period, Vikings farmed in Greenland, while several centuries later, during the Little Ice Age, the Netherlands experienced long and severe winters. On even longer timescales, ice ages and warmer periods have alternated repeatedly, something often explained through the theory of Milankovitch cycles. Against that background, the firm claim that current warming is entirely exceptional and caused exclusively by human CO2 emissions is far from uncontested.<h3>The Implications for Climate Policy</h3>Now that even the IPCC is distancing itself from the most extreme scenario of 4 to 6 degrees of warming by 2100, the foundation beneath much of today’s climate policy is collapsing. Why should Dutch or any European citizens continue paying enormous sums for heat pumps, grid expansion, wind turbines, solar fields and expensive climate funds if the underlying disaster scenarios are now being toned down by the climate establishment itself?Meanwhile, ordinary citizens continue to bear the burden of soaring energy bills and ever-higher taxes, while the Netherlands has barely any influence on total global CO2 emissions. Climate policy is leading primarily to economic damage, loss of purchasing power and the erosion of energy security.The government should therefore fundamentally reconsider its entire climate agenda, or better yet, scrap it altogether. The billions currently disappearing into climate subsidies, climate funds and unworkable “transitions” could be used far more effectively to lower taxes, make energy affordable again and strengthen the Dutch economy.

large_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

medium_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

small_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

thumbnail_01KR3QWPHNQFY0MM9B05X48JXT.webp

Climate Alarmists Undermined by New Report from the International Panel on Climate Change

Thierry Baudet attended a Patriots Network event in Paris this weekend where Tommy Robinson was a speaker. Thierry&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/thierrybaudet/status/2050713944822583807">posted</a> a photo of himself with Tommy, expressing his enthusiasm for the event and the speech. This attracted some criticism from people who attacked Robinson for his energetic support of Israel. Thierry then replied to that criticism in a long post. Of course we disagree with Tommy Robinson on several issues, he said, especially Israel and Islam. But we agree on a very fundamental common cause, namely the preservation of our respective countries from literal extinction through mass immigration. If the Left can unite against us to push this through, why should the Right not unite, in spite of its differences on other issues, to prevent it?<a href="https://x.com/thierrybaudet/status/2051018493496066217">Read Thierry’s X-post here</a><img src="/uploads/image_378b6b3a08.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, and two young colleagues from FVD, visited Belgrade this week. They were invited by the Novi DSS party (New Democratic Party of Serbia) to attend the party’s ‘slava’, the feast day of its patron saint, St. George. The party’s president, Milos Jovanovic, then sat down with John Laughland to discuss Serbia, Europe and the world. Jovanovic is a remarkable man, very eloquent and intelligent (he is a former academic who studied in France) and personally extremely likeable.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMmhCYDGNV8&amp;t=237s">Watch Milos Jovanovic’s interview here (automatically generated subtitles from the original French)</a><img src="/uploads/image_ca362707bf.png">Renaissance Institute’s Hans van de Breevaart argues that Aldous Huxley and George Orwell are being rediscovered by the Left, having been previously invoked mainly by the Right. This should not surprise us since both men were clearly on the political Left. Modern leftists, however, have latched on to their writing for purely transient reasons – they don’t like Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Hans van de Breevaart says Huxley is better than Orwell - ‘Orwell saw the danger but trusted socialism too much. Huxley trusted no power and therefore saw further’ – but that both taught invaluable lessons.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/hard-and-soft-totalitarianism-orwell-huxley-and-the-blind-spot-of-the-left">Read Hans van de Breevaart’s article here&nbsp;</a><img src="/uploads/image_1c3252e46d.png">Stefan Korte, the founder and chairman of U-Turn for Europe, has written a short piece about the recent Vienna conference attended by Thierry Baudet, Ralf Dekker, Peter van Duijvenvoorde and John Laughland. Change cannot come from politics alone; on the contrary, it requires fundamental cultural change and not just party politics. It is music to our ears since Thierry Baudet and FVD have been saying this for some time.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/how-to-make-a-u-turn-for-europe">Read Stefan Korte’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1d5e9bca7e.png">The formidable Professor Seyed Mohammed Marandi was our guest on The Forum this week. Since his last appearance, he has become an internet superstar, getting the better of luminaries like Piers Morgan and engaging in fruitful discussion with The Duran. If you missed it, watch back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pf1K3Q6UgT0&amp;t=0s">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 8 May 2026

Few twentieth-century thinkers are often mentioned in the same breath as often as George Orwell and Aldous Huxley. Their work still serves as a point of reference in debates about power, freedom, and manipulation. During the COVID crisis, they were invoked by right-wing conservative voices as prophets of repressive state power and technocratic behavioural control, respectively. At the time, such references were dismissed as exaggerated or “extreme.”Now we are seeing the reverse. Left-progressive commentators have also rediscovered Orwell and Huxley, particularly to interpret the rise of figures such as Donald Trump and Elon Musk. They believe they can draw on Orwell to label them as fascists, and on Huxley to accuse them of technocratic totalitarianism. Meanwhile, they overlook how their own left-wing progressive ideals, “democratic socialism” and “repressive tolerance”, are themselves susceptible to totalitarian temptation.Here, I focus primarily on a reading of Orwell’s&nbsp;The Lion and the Unicorn and Huxley’s&nbsp;The Time of the Oligarchs, recently published in excellent Dutch translations with sympathetic left-wing introductions.<h3>Orwell’s correct analysis…</h3>In&nbsp;The Lion and the Unicorn, Orwell outlines two tension-filled forces, not only in pre–Second World War England but in every modern nation-state.The lion represents:<ul><li>the power of the state,</li><li>militarism and imperialism,</li><li>the established order, hierarchy, and tradition.</li></ul>Orwell sees both strength and moral decay here: the empire is powerful but hollowed out, lacking attention to the other side of a vital society. That side is symbolised by the unicorn, representing:<ul><li>the people and their moral ideals,</li><li>democracy, justice, and egalitarianism,</li><li>socialist aspirations toward equality and solidarity.</li></ul>Orwell argued that England could survive the struggle against Nazi Germany only if the lion and the unicorn joined forces. They need each other:<ul><li>power without justice leads to tyranny;</li><li>idealism without power is powerless.</li></ul><h3>…with an eye for the necessity of patriotism…</h3>What binds the lion and the unicorn? According to Orwell, it is a shared patriotism:<ul><li>attachment to a concrete place, culture, and way of life;</li><li>love for what is familiar and historically developed;</li><li>loyalty without the urge to dominate others.</li></ul>This patriotism aims to protect what is valuable, essential in the face of ideologies that use technocratic state power to impose radical change. Orwell saw this danger in both communism and fascism: ideologies that absolutise their own narratives, become immune to facts, are inherently imperialistic, and suppress internal dissent through censorship or violence.<h3>…and naïve optimism</h3>His plea for “democratic socialism” contains conservative elements worth noting, such as respect for tradition and organic development.At the same time, his vision is naïve. Orwell saw a fundamental opposition between democracy and totalitarianism. Works like&nbsp;Animal Farm and&nbsp;1984 fiercely criticised totalitarian tendencies in communism and fascism. Yet he failed to see that his own democratic socialism could harbour similar dynamics.His model includes nationaliing key industries, reducing inequality, and preserving democratic institutions. The aim is a community of equal citizens without exploitation. He assumed this would emerge organically and be embraced by patriots.In reality, achieving such a system requires a “long march through the institutions,” bureaucratic expansion, and coercion to enforce equality. This concentration of power creates a persistent temptation to suppress dissent “in the public interest.”What begins as morally motivated equality policy can evolve into soft coercion: social pressure, bureaucratic control, and normative conformity. Freedom is gradually eroded as more aspects of life become politicised. Orwell recognised the danger—but mainly in others.In short, democratic socialism presupposes:<ul><li>central planning,</li><li>normative equality,</li><li>expansion of state power,</li><li>limitation of individual choice.</li></ul>The difference from overt totalitarianism is one of degree, not principle: administrative coercion instead of terror, “responsible language” instead of censorship.<h3>Aldous Huxley: the danger of power without the club</h3>Unlike Orwell, Huxley distrusted all concentrations of power. His critique extended beyond politics to science, technology, and mass democracy.In&nbsp;The Time of the Oligarchs, he describes how democracies drift toward technocratic rule—not through violence, but through conditioning, consumption, and psychological influence. While Orwell warned of the club, Huxley warned of opium.The democratic individual, in Huxley’s view, is not oppressed but complacent, preferring comfort over freedom and affirmation over truth. We recognise this today in:<ul><li>citizens who accept policies for safety,</li><li>societies that stigmatise dissent,</li><li>cultures where moral coercion is framed as “care” and “solidarity.”</li></ul><h3>Media, algorithms, and loss of control</h3>Bas Heijne, in his introduction, warns about manipulation via algorithms and social media. Yet this concern appears selective. Platforms like Facebook and Twitter were long tolerated by progressives as long as they aligned with dominant views. Inspired by Herbert Marcuse’s concept of “repressive tolerance,” dissenting opinions were often suppressed.Only after Elon Musk took over Twitter and allowed more dissent did attitudes shift. Suddenly, Huxley became relevant again, and Musk was labelled an oligarch threatening democracy.The issue, then, is not technology itself, but loss of control over narratives and information.<h3>Rediscovery: irony…</h3>It is doubtful whether Orwell and Huxley would appreciate their current “rediscovery.” When critics of COVID policy invoked them, they were ignored. Now, as technocratic governance and media conformity face scrutiny, their warnings are suddenly embraced.We would do better to take their insights seriously:<ul><li>good intentions do not prevent abuse of power;</li><li>democratic procedures do not guarantee freedom;</li><li>claims of moral superiority are no safeguard.</li></ul>Does this mean we should be grateful to Musk for enabling counter-voices? In a sense, yes. Democracy depends on power and counterpower. Algorithms can help amplify dissent.<h3>…because power corrupts…</h3>Orwell teaches that power corrupts. Huxley teaches that it often does so subtly, without force. The greater danger may be soft domination rather than overt repression.The success of Trump lies partly in his resistance to mainstream narratives. Social media helped him reach large audiences when traditional media turned against him.<h3>…even Trump?</h3>Trump has used his mandate for policies many consider beneficial: tax cuts, economic growth, and a break from interventionist foreign policy. Yet recent developments raise questions about whether power has also affected him.Criticism of his actions, now amplified by the same platforms that once supported him, illustrates the importance of counterforces.<h3>Healthy distrust</h3>From a critical perspective, the lesson is clear:<ul><li>Freedom requires distrust of all power.</li><li>Totalitarianism can arise through force or bureaucracy.</li><li>The greatest danger is habituation—even to leaders who once opposed it.</li></ul>Orwell saw the danger but trusted socialism too much. Huxley trusted no power and therefore saw further. In an age of moral pressure and technocratic confidence, his warning seems especially relevant.Still, Orwell’s caution remains vital: even those who oppose totalitarianism can fall into it themselves.

Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

large_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

medium_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

small_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

thumbnail_Trump_Musk_soft_totalitarianism_e7c5992d7e.png

Hard and Soft Totalitarianism: Orwell, Huxley and the Blind Spot of the Left

At the first international values conference of “U-Turn for Europe”, held in Vienna in April, it became clear that the erosion of values has long since spread across the whole of Europe. Culture, education, law, finance, the economy and the media all show signs of erosion which are not coincidental but instead structurally driven. They are the expression of a deeper underlying problem: the loss of a shared frame of reference, in other words of our cultural roots.This development is particularly evident in politics. Decisions are primarily guided by short-term pressures, media impact and tactical considerations, while responsibility, moderation and cultural grounding are losing importance. However, one must not fall into the misconception that politics is the cause of the decline in values. It is both an instrument and a reflection of it.Politics is only as good as its protagonists. When a society erodes, moral principles also disintegrate. Values which sustain a coexistence shaped by respect and honesty are among the first to be lost in a process of societal decline. In this way, a society develops whose primary goal is to place the ego above all else, subordinating the common good to it.Even those who claim to oppose this process are part of the same society and are subject to its influences. This is precisely where the problem lies: the aspiration for change too often runs into patterns of behaviour which themselves reflect the very developments being criticised. This is particularly evident in politics, where idealism gives way to party-political pragmatism. In everyday political life, too little effort is devoted to strengthening a worldview which could serve as a foundation for political and cultural action. Election manifestos alone are not enough. In order not only to win elections but also to bring about real change, political thinking must be more deeply rooted in the everyday cultural life of the people.It is precisely at this point that a new form of engagement must emerge—not focused on how individual political measures can be adjusted, but on the fundamental question of the cultural, moral, and strategic foundations on which Europe can endure.The conference addressed topics ranging from cultural identity and social cohesion to questions of sovereignty and geopolitics, as well as media, narratives and the role of new technologies in shaping reality.This breadth of content was also reflected in the participants who came from numerous European countries and underscored the nature of this development.The conference was opened by the project’s patron, Prince Leo von Hohenberg, who emphasised in his speech the fundamental importance of the values that have shaped Europe over generations. Europe, his central message, does not live solely from institutions or political constructs, but from a cultural and historical continuity that creates identity and provides orientation. It is precisely from this heritage that a special responsibility for the future of the continent arises.Thierry Baudet, founder and president of the Dutch political party, Forum for Democracy, insisted on the importance of meta-political activities – cultural, certainly, but also financial and social - and on the key importance of involving young people in the project of renewal.A security policy perspective was provided by the former Commander-in-Chief of the Lithuanian Armed Forces, Valdas Tutkus. He demonstrated that the loss of values is by no means an abstract problem but that it has direct consequences for the stability of states. Where moderation, a sense of duty and responsibility erode, structural weaknesses emerge which have particularly serious effects in areas relevant to security.The political scientist John Laughland directed attention to the intellectual-historical dimension of the development. A society which is based solely on self-interest and which abandons binding moral standards risks sliding into a form of nihilism. The resulting void fosters ideology, propaganda and social upheaval.These central contributions were complemented by a wide range of other speakers from across Europe, who brought different national experiences and perspectives. From questions of cultural identity and education to developments in the legal system and the economy, as well as geopolitical shifts and the effects of migration and social change, a multifaceted overall picture emerged. Despite all differences in historical background and political starting points, a clear common denominator became apparent: the ongoing loss of binding standards and the increasing decoupling of political and societal developments from their cultural foundations.It was precisely this diversity of nations and perspectives that made clear that Europe is not facing a sum of individual crises but a fundamental challenge which affects the continent at its core.Against this backdrop, the values conference does not see itself as an isolated event, but as the starting point of a long-term process. What began in Vienna is to be translated into concrete measures in the coming months.At the centre of this effort is the establishment of a viable European structure. With the founding of the support association, an organisational foundation has already been created, which is now being systematically expanded. The aim is to establish a robust network of committed participants working across national borders and further developing a shared line of thought.A key next step will be to consolidate the results of the conference and record them in a joint declaration as a working basis for further cooperation. Building on this, an operational group will translate the developed approaches into concrete projects and continuously refine them.At the same time, we aim to significantly expand our European presence. In several countries, additional structures are already in preparation which will broaden the project’s base and enable closer cooperation between participating nations.In terms of content, the work will not be limited to analysis. Rather, the goal is to systematically address cultural, societal and political issues and to develop viable approaches for long-term renewal. This includes the establishment of a think-tank as well as publications, workshops and formats designed in particular to involve young people more closely and to raise awareness of issues of identity, culture and responsibility.This makes one thing clear: the real challenge no longer lies in describing the problems, it lies in putting solutions into practice.Europe will change. The decisive question is whether this change will be consciously shaped or result from the dynamics of existing negative developments.In this context, U-Turn for Europe sees itself as a platform for those who are willing to take responsibility and actively shape this process.<figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/Whats_App_Image_2026_05_07_at_17_23_51_890c5c02d0.jpeg"></figure>

WhatsApp Image 2026-05-07 at 17.23.52.jpeg

large_WhatsApp Image 2026-05-07 at 17.23.52.jpeg

medium_WhatsApp Image 2026-05-07 at 17.23.52.jpeg

small_WhatsApp Image 2026-05-07 at 17.23.52.jpeg

thumbnail_WhatsApp Image 2026-05-07 at 17.23.52.jpeg

How to make a U-Turn for Europe

We keep hearing about the gender pay gap – the fact that men generally earn more than women. This is taken as proof that women are disadvantaged in society. Naturally, governments, which are always looking for ways to augment their power, see this as a problem which must be solved. But what if the pay gap is due not to unfairness but to lifestyle choices? What if it is due to the fact that women work part time more than men, or that they work full-time and unpaid at home, as mothers? FVD’s parliamentary leader, Lidewij de Vos, addressed these issues in a recent speech to Parliament. As usual, it is only FVD which dares to break free of the stifling consensus to describe the world as it actually is, rather than indulging in meaningless virtue signalling.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/men-and-women-are-different-and-the-government-should-stop-trying-to-make-them-equal">Read Lidewij de Vos’ speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_0d1225d52f.png">The great German-American political philosopher, Eric Voegelin, argued that modernity is characterised by a ‘dream world’ in which non-recognition of reality is the first principle. This is indeed often FVD’s own message. Ralf Dekker recently noted that the budgetary provisions of the new Dutch government take no account of the massive economic shock which is about to hit the Netherlands, Europe and the world. Instead of preparing for severe shortages of fuel and food, the government proposes merely to keep calm and carry on. The Dutch government seems keener on being top of the class in the EU and NATO than in looking after its own people - who are ever worse off but on whom the government keeps piling on extra taxes on foodstuffs, often in the name of health. The most Orwellian aspect is the new “freedom tax” designed to fund the war in Ukraine – at the same time as a new tax is imposed on camper vans, thus reducing the actual freedom of the ordinary Dutchman to set off on holiday in accordance with a timeless national tradition.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMS2strNElM">Watch Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_b1e834a550.png">The clash between ideology and reality is perhaps nowhere greater than in the issue of immigration. Towns and villages all over Europe are forced to accept large numbers of asylum seekers. When a hundred or more fighting-age single men suddenly turn up in small communities, people get scared. Given that 1,000 asylum seekers arrive every week in the Netherlands, there are tens of thousands of men to relocate. When you learn that Somalis are 20 times more likely to be suspected of sexual offences than native Dutch people, or that rapes in Spain have risen by 260% since 2017, you start to understand the problem.&nbsp; In one Dutch village, Loosdrecht, demonstrations against this turned violent recently when police attacked protesters. If this does not stop, Europe’s villages will become like Europe’s towns – Europeans will be in a minority. Tom Russcher laid all this out recently in committee, with devastating clarity.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymzFnwS-E8k">Watch Tom Russcher’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_ebdcb6dddd.png">The former US army officer, Stanislav Krapivnik, was our guest on The Forum this week, to discuss the collapse of American military power. He is a brilliant military analyst. If you missed the live watch back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTdhREXd0qQ">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 30 april 2026.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 30 april 2026.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 30 april 2026.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 30 april 2026.png

The Weekly Forum - 30 april 2026

Speech by Lidewij de Vos,&nbsp;&nbsp;Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament,&nbsp;23 April 2026Men and women are different. In a world where egalitarian thinking threatens to erase every distinction, it is of the utmost importance not to lose sight of this fundamental reality. We are not the same and that is a good thing. Of course, there are differences within groups of men and women, but there are also, on average, differences between the groups.It is against that background that we should view the supposed gender pay gap. First of all, analyses of this phenomenon often look at average income. There are indeed significant differences between men and women in this regard, but largely because women are much more likely to work part-time than men. We are talking about a difference of 65% of women versus 19% of men, that is a real gap. Naturally, this results in lower income, fewer promotions, and so on.In addition, women are, on average, more often employed in sectors and types of jobs that pay less than those in which men are active. Think, for example, of healthcare and education for women, versus tech and the financial sector for men. This relates to average differences in interests, differences in willingness to take risks, and so on, with childcare also playing a role.Having children has, by definition, a greater impact on women than on men, due to pregnancy, recovery from childbirth, and the care of a newborn, who is physically more dependent on the mother. Even after that, women on average more often choose to take on childcare responsibilities than men. There is nothing wrong with that, on the contrary, it is something beautiful to embrace. Moreover, every woman and man is completely free to make his or her own choices and arrangements in this regard.When we make corrections for all these factors, very little of the pay gap remains. I therefore do not so much see a pay gap, but rather a gap between what the government wants men and women to do and what men and women themselves want to do.Any attempt by the government to erase the differences in people’s life choices, by means of wage corrections, quotas, penalties for companies, and so on, brings serious problems. First, it increases the influence of an ever-expanding government apparatus that disrupts natural relationships between people. Moreover, it effectively leads to outright discrimination against men, who may miss out on positions because of their sex.Finally, it is an insult to women. Women who achieve positions on their own merit are no longer distinguishable from those who reach them because of their sex.In closing: those who truly see men and women as equal trust that they are capable of making their own life choices, at work, at home, or anywhere else.

screenshot-2026-04-24-at-05-69eadb3f62816.webp

large_screenshot-2026-04-24-at-05-69eadb3f62816.webp

medium_screenshot-2026-04-24-at-05-69eadb3f62816.webp

small_screenshot-2026-04-24-at-05-69eadb3f62816.webp

thumbnail_screenshot-2026-04-24-at-05-69eadb3f62816.webp

Men and women are different and the government should stop trying to make them ‘equal’

Baltasar Cracian’s book, “The Art of Worldly Wisdom” is widely read and praised all over the world. Many people compare it to Machiavilli’s “The Prince” and Sun Tsu’s “The Art of War”. Most think that this is a wisdom manual for secular success in career, politics and business. This is totally misconceived. Garcian was a Catholic Jesuit and philosopher. Faith and theology are at the centre of his inner world. On the other hand, Jesuits are different from other Catholic Orders. They aim to engage with the secular world. Educated in Thomisic and Aristotolean ethics, it was logical for Gracian to bridge worldliness and the divine. His ethics are known as the philosophy of&nbsp;ingenium,&nbsp;while the virtue of prudence is a form of&nbsp;ingenium. Through the practice of prudence in worldly affairs, one can attain salvation after death. Prudence is a channel linking the world and the divine. Hence, my view is that the English title for the book is misleading. The original Spanish title of the book is “Oraculo Manual y Art de Prudencia”. Prudencia is the virtue of prudence. Gracian aims to encourage people to practise prudence in the world for achieving access to the divine by reading this little manual in daily life. This is a spiritual action treatise, not a self-help book for worldly success in the common understanding of the term.&nbsp;Although the book consists of short maxims, one should read these between the lines with contemplation.&nbsp; We can use the Chinese wisdom approach of “微言大义” (trivial words with great ideas) in reading Gracian’s book, finding out hidden and deeper wisdom for life in parallel with spiritualityThe First MaximEverthing is at its peak of perfection. This is especially true of the art of making one’s way in the world. There is more required nowadays to make a single wise person than formerly to make the Seven Sages of ancient Greece, and more is needed nowadays to deal with a single person than was required with a whole people in former times.The first maxim is essential. This lays the foundation and the core idea of prudence in practice. Gracian thinks that every person can be on the path to perfection to access God, and this way is through practice in the secular world, not in desserts or monasteries. To be wise and to access perfection, a secular person needs to practise his inner mind as did the sages in ancient Greece. However, this is more difficult in the secular world, as he is easily subject to evil temptations. The last sentence has political implications. Firstly, a prudent statesman can lead a nation to win any war even if the enemy has more resources. Secondly, if the leader of your enemy lacks prudence, others can take this weakness as a strategic opportunity.&nbsp;&nbsp;The Second MaximCharacter and intellect. These are the two poles of our capacity: one without the other is but halfway to happiness. Intellect is not enough, character is also needed. On the other hand, it is the fool’s misfortune to fail in obtaining the position, employment, neighbour and circle of friends of his choice.This is the first wisdom to build up a capacity for prudence. Most people value intellect highly, as this can be objectively tested and evaluated. We attended the same lessons and got a similar MBA. However, Gracian taught us to know our character first. God makes each person unique. Sun Tsu said “you will win every time when you know yourself and your enemy fully!” Further, character should match close surroundings because employment, neighbours and circles of friends are your personal strategic assets. The more you know your character, the more prudent you are.The Third MaximKeep matter for a time in suspense. Admiration at their novelty heightens the value of your achievements. It is both useless and insipid to play with your cards on the table. If you do not declare yourself immediately, you arouse expectation, especially when the importance of your position make you the objects of general attention. Mix a little mystery with everything with everything and the very mystery arouses venerations. And when you explain, do not be to explicit, just as you do not expose your inmost thoughts in ordinary conversation. Cautious silence is the sacred sanctuary of worldly wisdom. A resolution declared is never highly though of-it only leaves room for criticism. And if it happens to fail, you are doubly unfortunate. Besides, you imitate the divine way when you inspire people to wonder and watch.God is mysterious and we should learn from God. According to Lao Tzu, we should keep quiet and silence to follow the Tao. Likewise, Gracian told us to close our mouths in an open setting for two strategic aims. One is to arouse expectations among supporters and another is to avoid attacks from enemies. The last sentence clearly taught us to imitate God to make wonders and inspirations. These are also essential for public engagement and even in election campaigns.&nbsp;The Fourth MaximKnowledge and courage. These are the elements of greatness. Because they are immortal they bestow immorality. Each is as much as he knows, and the wise can do anything. A person without knowledge is in a world without light. Wisdom and strength are the eyes and hands. Knowledge without courage is sterile.When one makes prudent decisions, knowledge is necessary. However, not all knowledge is good. We should only acquire knowledge that sheds divine light for immortality and salvation. As a virtue, we need to use good knowledge with courage and persistence even when facing difficulty, denial and criticism. Education and ideology always forbid us to learn fringe knowledge. To Gracian, people will be wise when they have broad knowledge. Directed by divine wisdom, one can even apply this fringe knowledge to create effective strategies.The Fifth Maxim&nbsp;Make people depend on you. It is not he that adorns but he that adores that makes a divinity. The wise person would rather see others needing him than thanking him. To keep them on the threshold of hope is diplomatic, to trust to their gratitude is boorish; hope has a good memory, gratitude a bad one. More is to be got from dependence than from courtesy. He that has satisfied his thirst turns his back on the well, and the orange squeezed falls from the gold platter into the waste basket. When dependence disappears good behaviour goes with it, as well as respect. Let it be one of the chief lessons of experience to keep hope alive without entirely satisfying it, by preserving it to make oneself always needed, even by a patron on the throne. But do not carry silence to excess or you will go wrong, not let another’s failing grow incurable for the sake of your own advantage.God gives us hope. Hope is a virtue. If there is no hope, the relationship will not last long. In human affairs, hope is linked to a variety of dependence: physical, financial, political and even emotional. Gracian taught us to use dependence skilfully. As mentioned in the fourth maxim, keeping silence can sometimes boost dependence as others may make mistakes and come back to you for help. You can be a mysterious mentor for influence and power over that person. However, one should note the last sentence. To be prudent, your silence should not be excess and your interests should not lead to other’s sin. Otherwise, you will not have salvation.&nbsp;&nbsp;According to Gracian, stratagems do not only concern the secular world. When reading these maxims with a spiritual lens, true wisdom for life will be revealed. I hope to share more spiritual treasure of Gracian’s maxims with readers in the future.

small_biblioteca-de-baltasar-gracian-0.jpg

thumbnail_biblioteca-de-baltasar-gracian-0.jpg

The Spiritual Roots of Baltasar Gracián’s Wisdom

Is it possible to remain ‘pro-Israel’ after all that has happened in the last year or so? Ralf Dekker and FVD think not. We have all been brought up to think of Israel as a model democracy surrounded by Islamist dictatorships, and therefore as our natural ally against our own domestic Islamist threat. But the moral compass has been brutally spun around by Israel’s recent actions in Gaza, Iran and Lebanon. The judgement against these wars is not just a matter of morality, it is also a question of national interest. Israel has dragged the US, and potentially other structurally pro-NATO and pro-US countries like the UK, Germany and the Netherlands, into a war with Iran. Never mind the military risks, the economic risks are extreme and will soon cripple Europe and the world.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/ralf-dekker-on-the-middle-east">Read Ralf Dekker’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_894d4e5598.png">FVD has voted for two motions put down in Parliament, which were carried, calling for the trade component of the EU-Israel association agreement to be suspended. The motions provoked a sharp reaction from the Israeli ambassador to the Netherlands. Ambassador Vapni&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/vapni/status/2045004083250057514">deplored</a> as ‘shameful’ ‘a dangerous coalition between the radical left and the antisemitic extreme right’. This is pretty standard-issue Israeli boilerplate – but it is false. One of the two motions was put down by an MP from the governing centre-left D66 party, which sits with Renew in the European Parliament, and an MP from the governing centre-right Christian CDA, which sits with the European People’s Party. The other motion was also supported by these two parties. So the ‘dangerous coalition’ is not between the radical left and the extreme right but also includes two eminently ‘respectable’ centrist parties who are currently in government. It is precisely not the extremes alone which are criticising Israel but instead now parties from across the entire political spectrum. <a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/broad-dutch-parliamentary-coalition">See the votes for the motions here</a><img src="/uploads/image_949c81ea30.png">Is disgust a legitimate political emotion? Gideon van Meijeren MP thinks so. In a recent speech he attacked a new Dutch law changing the meaning of the word ‘embryo’ to include cloned embryos created through cell nucleus transplantation or by inserting body tissue into a sperm or egg cell. This kind of human engineering touches at the very basis of human life and risks violating its sanctity. It will soon be possible for two people of the same sex to have a child this way, or even for a single person to reproduce on her own. Such manipulation of human life is already widely practised, including for eugenicist purposes, but further down the line there could be human cloning and even genetic creations involving combinations of humans and animals. This is grotesque: the revulsion it inspires is itself eloquent. Not everything which is technically possible should be allowed, and in particular human life should not be reduced to a research project, involving the deliberate creation and then destruction of embryos, or to a product. We know from experience that things like euthanasia and abortion were initially introduced for exceptional cases and then progressively enlarged to become banal. This has to stop. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9q297GlWaSA">Watch Gideon’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_3d9107605f.png">Meanwhile, fuel rationing is clearly round the corner. While the government refuses to contemplate a cut in fuel tax, to deal with rising prices, it happily chucks away to Ukraine many multiples of the sums which would be involved in such a cut. So when you fill up your car you are paying for Ukrainians to die and for American arms companies to sell more weapons. The same goes for asylum which costs 8 billion euros a year.&nbsp; With this money you could abolish fuel tax entirely. These sums should be given to Dutch nationals instead. Would you rather have cheaper petrol or an asylum centre near your house? It is not difficult to guess what the people’s answer would be to such a question but they are never asked. Frederik Jansen denounced all this nonsense in a powerful speech to Parliament. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ol26zF2Yutc">Watch Frederik Jansen’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_1ba7528cc7.png">We had an exceptionally interesting edition of The Forum &amp; Friends this week with two formidable guests, the former diplomat and intelligence officer, Alistair Crooke, and the Iranian geopolitical analyst Ehsan Sefarnajad from Shiraz. aIf you missed it, watch it now. <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emVa4Af_Jus&amp;t=186s">Watch The Forum and Friends here</a>

large_Weekly forum vorige week.png

medium_Weekly forum vorige week.png

small_Weekly forum vorige week.png

thumbnail_Weekly forum vorige week.png

The Weekly Forum - 24 April 2026

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

Are We Heading to War With Russia? | Glenn Diesen #TheForumAndFriends #short #reels #edit #fyp

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Time to Talk to Russia? with Glenn Diesen and Ian Proud

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: Winning by not Losing with Professor Marandi

Milos Jovanovic, President of the Novi DSS Party, discusses Serbia, Europe and the World

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: American Military Collapse with Stanislav Krapivnik

What Does Highly Educated Really Mean? | Pepijn Van Houwelingen on Education | FVD

'Who Really Benefits from Dutch Tax Money? Not Our Own Citizens' - Ralf Dekker | FVD

Asylum Chaos in Loosdrecht: A Warning for the Rest of the Netherlands? | Tom Russcher | FVD

High Energy Prices? Start Cutting Spending on Left-Wing Hobbies! | Frederik Jansen | FVD

🏛 The Forum &amp; Friends: War in Iran  with Alastair Crooke and Ehsan Safarnejad

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