The original article was published on the <a href="https://ronpaulinstitute.org/pat-buchanan-was-right-and-young-conservatives-agree/">Ron Paul Institute</a> on 4 November 2024.As we arrive at today’s election, there is good news in the US conservative movement regardless of who wins. While the old guard – mostly “boomers” – who still cling to the levers of power continue to mouth the tired old shibboleths (“peace through strength,” “rules based order,” “<a href="https://x.com/RepDonBacon/status/1849964206549881139">our greatest ally</a>“), a new generation of young conservatives has emerged that is revitalizing the Old Right view that the focus of conservatism should be to conserve what is actually great about the United States.First and foremost is the idea, espoused by our first president George Washington, that the United States can only prosper if it is capable of jettisoning “passionate attachments” to any foreign country and embrace, as outlined by John Quincy Adams, the view that America……goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own.&nbsp;To this point, the focus in the mainstream media and among “boomer” and Beltway neocon Republicans has been that the opposition to US backstopping the Israeli destruction of Gaza is made up of radical, Marxist, Hamas-loving dupes. As I decry&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/RonPaulInstitut/status/1841494029776629902">in my recent speech to the “Rage Against the War Machine” rally</a> at the Washington Memorial in DC, there has been a notable absence among my fellow “pro-life” and right wing Americans to speak out against the snuffing out of perhaps 200,000 innocent civilian lives – many of them Christian – in Gaza and Lebanon.I chalked some of that hesitation up to the fear of being labeled “anti-Jewish,” while at the same time I pointed out that a significant proportion of the US university campus protests against the Israeli slaughter in Palestine and Lebanon are led by Jewish students. Likewise, Jewish intellectuals in the US constitute a significant and powerful voice against the policies of the Israeli government and in opposition to the US “special relationship” with that country.Whatever the case, a younger generation on the Right is getting it. And they are threatening the establishment in ways that should warm all of our conservative hearts. Take for example a new poll by the progressive “Data for Progress” outlet. Among the usual fluff about progressive attitudes toward Kamala etc., a fascinating metric was reported:By a solid 52 percent majority, Republicans aged 18-24&nbsp;support a US arms embargo against Israel over their massive slaughter of civilians in Gaza and Lebanon. This is not an outlier, as many polls including this Pew survey from April show that only 28 percent of young Republicans “lean more with the Israeli people” in the current war in Gaza:<img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXcGVMIHl4X6Ip-p4TALyTPuoHPprjd_Os3qzyx7hr_3YmEr1xLIeLyu2pjAxxgsY8XTtM5XCR-RwYgW33tmneChkOK6qMWjeI5CJS_bYFrsIsSoXRIN9GDLmAuwEZZxc7WrOy7IeA?key=6NMQVA6Aa9d41v3vORhz-inU">Young conservatives are actually conservative!This may seem radical in the post-Reagan era of neocon control over the Republican Party and what passed for conservative thought, however there is also a long tradition of Republican and conservative opposition to America joining itself to the hip of a small and insignificant country in the Middle East as the basis of its foreign policy. And the tide is turning back in its favor.On June 15, 1990, maverick Republican Patrick Buchanan bucked the neocon trend that had infected the Reagan White House in which he did some of his most important work as Communications Director and uttered the “emperor’s new clothes” phrase that rocked DC:“Capitol Hill is Israeli occupied territory.”For many already ensconced in Capitol Hill it was hardly a revolutionary statement. But as the institutions were being captured by pro-Israel neocons, it was the equivalent of exposing the man pulling the levers behind the carefully constructed Potemkin edifice of “modern” conservatism.Buchanan was to be drummed out of polite society. And of course the neocon gatekeeper (and CIA asset) William F. Buckley, Jr. did his best to destroy Buchanan (among others) in his Stalinesque, “<a href="https://archive.org/details/insearchofantise0000buck">In Search of Anti-Semitism</a>.”William “Stalin” Buckley, Jr. also&nbsp;<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20080602094748/http://www.mecfilms.com/universe/articles/fired.htm">drummed out</a> another of the best right wing writers of the 20th century, Joseph Sobran, thus clearing the way for the total domination of the warmongering obsessive devotees of Israel in the conservative movement.Well not quite total. It turns out there was another writer who, like Buchanan and Sobran, was fiercely independent and came to embrace the conservatism of old – some call it paleo-conservatism but it should just be conservatism. I am referring to my former mentor, the late Robert Novak, whose half century career in media had come to define not only modern conservatism but the evolution of a young liberal “mugged by reality,” as neocon godfather Irving Kristol&nbsp;<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irving_Kristol">put it</a>.Novak’s “reality mugging” was that spending a life in the journalistic limelight as a Jewish-born atheist left him feeling empty inside. He was inspired by his television partner Rowland Evans who in the Middle East wars of the 1970s onward had openly&nbsp;<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_16_06_RN.html">sympathized with the Palestinians</a>. Eventually Bob Novak&nbsp;<a href="https://www.washingtonian.com/2003/06/01/the-conversion-of-bob-novak/">converted to the Roman Catholic faith</a> in a ceremony that rocked Washington, DC. It was not a smart career move. What made it worse is that unlike many DC “Catholics,” he adopted an authentic&nbsp;<a href="https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/08/19/bob_novak_rip__97946.html">traditional</a> Catholicism that rejected donor-driven neocon obsession with bowing to “our greatest ally” in the Middle East.In the early 2000s, Novak told a large assembled audience at a gala DC dinner honoring the new class of “Novak Journalism Fellows” (I was a 1998 Fellow) – and I paraphrase from memory: “unlike most conservatives, I do not support Israel.” You could have heard a pin drop in that neocon gathering that bore his name.It is too bad he could not be with us to witness that tide beginning to change.Indeed there is a new trend rising in conservative circles that is encouraging. We see it in the polls. We see it on TikTok. We see it in the bright young&nbsp;<a href="https://news.antiwar.com/author/dave_decamp/#gsc.tab=0">conservative intellectuals</a> in publications like Antiwar.com and elsewhere. We even see it in weird places like in the Trump interview on Rogan where he trashes pro-war, Israel-first neocon John Bolton as an “idiot.”Trump is not anywhere near embracing the camp of the young non-interventionist conservatives, but I believe he hears their footsteps behind him. He hears it to the point where he is even&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/CCrowley100/status/1850279695071543763">invoking Pat Buchanan’s name&nbsp;</a>– as a “good man.” Not even Miriam “Daddy Warbucks” Adelson’s&nbsp;<a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/24/us/politics/miriam-adelson-trump-donors.html">$100 million</a> can stop an idea whose time has come.It is easy to feel despair in these times, but take heart: As Dylan once wrote, “something is happening and you don’t know what it is…”

large_buchanan-for-president.png

medium_buchanan-for-president.png

small_buchanan-for-president.png

thumbnail_buchanan-for-president.png

Pat Buchanan Was Right…And Young Conservatives Agree!

Sid Lukkassen – The Great Geopolitical TreatiseIn recent decades, policies in Europe have been dominated by the ‘Hegemony of Virtue Signaling’. This means that the ‘social construction’ of desirable narratives overshadows and suppresses the need to account for objective geopolitical realities. This process involves the ongoing ideological framing of events which oversimplifies complex international dynamics, often casting Russia as a monolithic antagonist and NATO as a benign force for democracy. This framing, deeply rooted in postmodern political theory, has led to a series of self-imposed rhetorical traps which obscure the strategic challenges facing Europe and its allies.The Metrosexual SuperpowerIn an article called ‘The Power of War: Why Europe Needs it’, written in 2008 for Clingendael, a Dutch geopolitical research center, Peter van Ham argued that Europe has become a “metrosexual superpower”. He writes about the “sissification” of European military doctrine. The article concluded that Europe considers itself a “postmodern, Kantian space”, where ideals such as tolerance, human rights and fighting poverty prevail over Realpolitik – humanitarian intentions trump geopolitical consequences. We wonder whether Van Ham would publish the same claims today, given that the established elites in Europe moved even further towards the radical left. Whoever wants to work as a military analyst at a think tank is required to embrace the rainbow-ideology of the establishment.&nbsp;Furthermore, whatever is left of Western European military power will soon collapse, given that the actual backbone of an effective military – made up of masculine men with conservative patriotic persuasions on a high-testosterone diet – collides with the woke-ideology of WEF-proscribed climate friendly bug powder and LGBTQ inclusivity. Hence, there are videos in circulation that contrast the Dutch and Russian militaries. While Dutch male soldiers are practicing with menstruation cramp simulators to gain an understanding of female soldiers, Russian recruitment videos depict soldiers getting shelled in trenches while drawing courage from Christian prayer cards.As becomes clear from the pressure put upon member states such as Hungary, the EU tends to simplify issues into binary moral imperatives. By framing European integration as an expression of shared liberal democratic values, the EU has created a situation where opposing viewpoints are de-legitimised as “populism” or “nationalism.” This moral framing deters member states from questioning EU expansion or NATO’s military interventions, even when these actions might not align with their national interests.Historically, the EU has adopted emotionally charged language to present itself as the primary custodian of liberal democracy. Terms such as an “ever-closer Union” and a “European way of life” dominate the discourse: this directly or indirectly marks dissenting positions as backward and hostile to Europe’s unity. By using these concepts to uphold the EU’s legitimacy, European leaders have maneuvered around domestic and international complexities, ensuring conformity through moral coercion. Those questioning the scope of NATO’s ambitions, for instance, are often shamed into silence, labeled as appeasers or framed as enablers of authoritarian regimes.&nbsp;NATO expands while Europe retreats from Strategic RationalityAfter the collapse of the Soviet Union, many Western leaders – including former U.S. President Bill Clinton – foresaw the risks of NATO expansion in re-dividing Europe. Clinton, along with intellectuals like George Kennan, cautioned that the inclusion of Eastern European states in NATO might revive Cold War tensions, positioning Russia as a perennial outsider in European affairs. Nevertheless, NATO’s expansion proceeded while Russia was too weakened by internal reorganizations to pose a significant threat.NATO’s expansion resulted in a re-balkanised Europe, particularly Ukraine, as a contested region that is now a combat zone. Ukraine’s movement toward NATO – despite limited public support for full membership as also the Dutch Ukraine Referendum signified – sparked the current conflict, highlighting the disconnect between moral rhetoric and on-the-ground realities. Yet Western narratives portray this expansion as a purely positive-sum integration effort, denying its security impact on Russia and misconstruing Russia’s reaction as an outdated&nbsp;realpolitik mentality. The war in Ukraine is basically an eschatological confrontation between Western cosmopolitan hypermorality and Eurasian autocratic cynicism which offers no chance for a diplomatic resolution unless, maybe, Trump gets elected as the new US President but we will have to find out.The war in Ukraine reveals the deeper ideological fixation within European political elites. Rational discourse – which would address the realistic outcomes of provoking a nuclear power like Russia – has given way to performative displays of moral superiority. Kicking empty beehives by making grandiose virtue signaling statements on LGBTQ+ acceptance and morality, until one day a beehive was kicked that turned out to contain actual bees and even Russian soldiers. European leaders are acting within an ideological echo chamber, reinforced by the media which they control through speech regulation codes. This makes it impossible to discuss pragmatic considerations instead of abstract utopian ideals.&nbsp;Sadly, the war only reinforces the echo chambering and speech censorship further, as EU citizens are now banned from accessing Russian media and hearing their take on the war. The progressive elites truly feel embattled by populists and that this entitles them to far-reaching speech restrictions. Those often do not even need to pass democratic scrutiny, as they come into being through backdoor deals with Big Tech CEOs. A democracy presupposes that a voter can hear media from different sides and is then able to make a balanced, reasonable judgment about which party and candidate best represent him or her in office. But at the same time, these ‘democrats’ seem to assume that citizens who access Russian media, are immediately turned into Kremlin-controlled trolls.It all coalesces into a reality where the West is ill-prepared for the emerging coalition of anti-Western powers. And how can we understand or come to a compromise with the powers that oppose us if our citizens are shielded from their perspectives? Russia’s alliance-building efforts with North Korea, China, and Iran are seen by some as symbolic rather than pragmatic; nevertheless, they also represent a modern-day revival of the coalition that once challenged the Western Roman Empire. It bears thinking about, what it means for the West to have&nbsp;<a href="https://tpo.nl/2016/03/18/begrijpen-wij-rusland/">driven Russia deeper into China’s arms</a>.&nbsp;A case could be made that the narrative of North Korean soldiers fighting for Russia could be a propaganda tool rather than a documented fact, given that&nbsp;<a href="https://www.newsweek.com/fact-check-north-korea-sending-100k-soldiers-fight-against-ukraine-1731723">similar claims</a> were made in 2022. While such alliances may not materialise in literal terms, the West’s response to them could generate self-fulfilling prophecies of increased militarization and polarised alliances. The paradox of reacting to hypothetical threats, as theorised by the philosopher Brian Massumi, brings an&nbsp;ontopower-effect into play: a situation where Western militaries prepare for imagined scenarios, inadvertently creating the very conditions they aim to prevent.The reliance on moralistic language has led Western political elites to reject traditional diplomatic efforts in favour of ‘moral clarity’. Diplomacy – once central to mitigating conflict – has become a tool for&nbsp;ideological instruction, where NATO and the EU view other nations as students to be socially moulded rather than treated as equal negotiating partners. This code of conduct, which envisions NATO and the EU as forces for progress and inclusivity without equal counterpart, kills any hope of mutual understanding and crisis de-escalation.This approach to diplomacy portrays neutrality as immoral, conflating non-alignment with tacit approval of authoritarianism. Thus, states that once provided neutral zones between NATO and Russia – crucial for stability – have been systematically diminished. Mark Rutte’s&nbsp;<a href="https://ongehoordnederland.tv/243221/tv-programmas/ongehoord-nieuws-191-rutte-begint-bij-navo-globalistisch-vn-pact-en-rechtse-zegen-oostenrijk/">first act as NATO Chair</a>, was saying that Ukraine should become a full-fledged member. Sweden and Finland’s recent membership bids underscore this movement, leaving fewer states positioned to mediate future European conflicts. The same could happen in Asia, with South Korea becoming more closely involved with NATO – these alliances eerily mimic the run-up to the First World War.Toward a Rational Policy RedirectionThe Western fixation on maintaining ideological purity has dire economic consequences. Europe’s commitment to sanctions on Russian energy, and moral obligations to uphold stringent climate goals, has led to industrial exodus and rising energy costs. The destruction of the Nord Stream pipelines further exacerbates Europe’s reliance on energy imports from intermediaries, notably India, while eroding its industrial competitiveness. Also bear in mind that the oil is necessary to refine complex plastics, that the German industry needs, not only for consumer production but also for war production. Of course Russia was eager to accept the European money for its oil, yet even Putin commented that weakening German industrial production by cutting off Nord Stream is not in the long term interest of Ukraine.The only logical explanation for the destruction of Nord Stream is that the US wants a bipolar world order where Europe cannot develop economically as a force independent of the US – this is also the doctrine laid out by the influential geostrategist George Friedman, when speaking for Stratfor. He&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QeLu_yyz3tc#t=1267">declared</a> that the American geopolitical interests are challenged once German capital and technology merge with Russian manpower and resources.&nbsp;Friedman even stated this would mean the US loses its global hegemony.Despite these events, cosmopolitan and left-liberal narratives around moral integrity continue to prevent a realistic assessment of practical reality. Europe’s path forward requires that we abandon the ideological rhetoric that clouds strategic thinking. Acknowledging NATO’s role in triggering the Ukraine crisis would be an important step toward a balanced foreign policy, prioritizing the continent’s long-term viability over transient ideological wins.&nbsp;Restoring Europe’s economic competitiveness and securing its strategic interests will require critically rethinking EU-policies. Unless we want a bipolar world order split between China and the US, where European states will be sacrificed as pawns whilst the conflict escalates, it is ultimately in our interest to reintegrate Russia as a European partner. However, it is questionable whether this is even possible, considering that the Russian so-called ‘Special Military Operation’ has already caused so many deep-seated grievances. Restoring Nord Stream is also easier said than done, while the cultural and political autonomy of West-Europe is meanwhile being penetrated by Islamic nations – a situation accelerated by demographic developments and the conflict between Israel and Palestinians. All things considered:&nbsp;Winter is coming, for the Europeans. Or – even more prophetically:&nbsp;Flee while you can!If the European political class remains entrenched in its current stance – which it probably will, given that this ideological in-group affiliation is the source of their access to status, wealth and potential partners who seek to rise socially and are susceptible to those advantages – the ‘end of history’ will be quite different than initially imagined. Europe must transcend its ideological echo chambers and reconsider Cold War-era frameworks if it hopes to maintain peace and prosperity in the nearby future. Whether European leaders have the political imagination and courage to pursue this path remains – putting it mildly – to be seen…&gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://t.me/SidLukkassen">Follow Sid on Telegram</a> &gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/sidlukkassen/">Follow Sid on LinkedIn</a> &gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.sidlukkassen.com/">Follow Sid’s Newsletter</a> &gt;&nbsp;<a href="https://sidlukkassen.backme.org/">Support Sid through BackMe</a>

large_29945695754_4f61e277cc_b.jpg

medium_29945695754_4f61e277cc_b.jpg

small_29945695754_4f61e277cc_b.jpg

thumbnail_29945695754_4f61e277cc_b.jpg

Between Virtue and Reality: Europe’s Moral Crusade and NATO’s Shadow

I have resisted to the best of my powers the spirit of liberalism in religion..&nbsp;. the doctrine that there is no positive truth in religion, but that one creed is as good as another..&nbsp;. It is inconsistent with any recognition of any religion as true.&nbsp;It teaches that all are to be tolerated, for all are matters of opinion.St. John Henry NewmanNewmanThe above quote leaves nothing to be desired in terms of clarity. All religions are equal and subject to everyone's opinion. This is what liberalism, which is of British origin, teaches. John Henry Newman's transition from the Church of England to the Church of Rome in 1845 had as its trigger the increased liberalism within Anglicanism. Open questioning of the revealed truth of the Bible had taken root among professors at Oxford University, where Newman enjoyed a reputation as a guide with special concern for the University Church. In 1833, his assault on liberal error began through the Oxford Movement, in which his influence was decisive. In the so-called&nbsp;Tracts for the Times, Newman and his supporters published articles examining the extent to which the English Church could still be reconciled with the original church of the apostles. That investigation led to a break with Protestantism in 1841.The Anglican Church had gone its own, national way three hundred years earlier with King Henry VIII. By that ‘Brexit’, the British Isles had distanced themselves from the Catholic body on the European continent. During the first two centuries that followed, Newman writes, there had still been great Anglican theologians who hammered away at the purity of Christian doctrine, albeit outside Rome, but without exaggerating disputes with the Mother Church on points of fundamental truths of faith. But with the Romantic Movement in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, liberalism came into vogue among poets who dreamed of freedom for peoples and sympathised with the French Revolution. Freemasonry, founded in London in the early eighteenth century, had already promoted liberalism among Crown ministers, top officials and figures in key positions. Newman had no objection to freedom of thought but there was also a false freedom of thought. From the German-speaking world, pietism had gained a foothold in high circles. This involved an undogmatic Christianity of mere feeling. For British freethinkers, the Bible passed for a mere form of literature, as Spinoza had proclaimed a century earlier. For them, Faith was incompatible with Reason. Science and religion belonged to separate paths.Newman considered the liberals' attack on the truths of Christianity disastrous. He reproached them for both their methodical doubtfulness, à la Descartes, and for their assimilation of all religions to one another. For him, there were only two options: either return to Catholicism or become atheist. Anything in between only created confusion. His books leave nothing to be desired in this regard, starting with an essay on the Development of Dogma. His famous works are the&nbsp;Apologia Pro Vita Sua - retranslated as&nbsp;The Story of My Life - and&nbsp;The&nbsp;Grammar of Assent, which advocates considering, agreeing with and then affirming the binding articles of faith. Newman's letters, sermons, poems, novels and plays are intended for reflective Christians. From his hand also appeared the blueprint for a Catholic university,&nbsp;The Idea Of A University, published in the same year 1864 in which liberalism was condemned as heresy in Pope Pius IX's&nbsp;Syllabus errorum. That list of aberrations naturally included freedom of speech.Newman believed that Catholic academics should master the classics. Besides the Bible and the Church Fathers, he recommended that students delve into Enlightenment philosophers to counter their arguments. To support this, he referred to the Counter-Enlightenment, to the work of reactionaries like Joseph de Maistre and François de Chateaubriand. He preferred Protestant English poets, such as John Milton (Paradise Lost) and John Bunyan (Pilgrim's Progress), to, for example, the writings of a then notorious French priest, Catholic admittedly, but who was indulgent towards liberalism and socialism. Reading, apology and the refutation of heterodox ideas had to foster resistance aginst the progressive Zeitgeist. People should not be intimidated by sages posing as scientists who undermined true religion. Newman had no problem with the pure natural sciences, since they excluded issues of theological nature.Newman also opposed the connection of Church and State in England because of the behaviour of clerical dignitaries. As conservatives, although they were allowed to challenge liberalism, and pass for allies on the basis of their doctrinal orthodoxy, Newman saw that within the Anglican High Church, enjoying their prestige among the church people - just like the high clergy in pre-Revolutionary France - they did not take the teachings of Christ very seriously on the moral and social level.The Idea of a University is, as mentioned, a draft. It consists of a number of speeches on theology and how other sciences are related to it; on knowledge in relation to learning, profession, religion and Church; on literature, philosophy, language, history; on physics in relation to Christianity; on free thought, medicine, the origins and development of universities through the ages. Starting with the latter, Newman's vision unfolds naturally.Older than the university are the liberal arts, practised by gentlemen who could free themselves from the cares of everyday existence. Those ‘arts’ - grammar, dialectics (logic), rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy - grew into what in time came to be called the humanities , or what today passes for ‘the humanities’. In medieval universities, all knowing revolved around theology, but from the seventeenth century onwards, the idea emerged that knowledge brings progress. Physical discoveries were the trigger. Knowledge of the physical universe increased steadily; but what happened in the meantime to the liberal arts, i.e. to literature, philosophy, history? For Newman, what we now call ‘humanities’ are not sciences in the pure sense. They are important, though. They shape the mind. Reading and studying the ‘classics’ - both pagan and Christian - help with thinking and writing. The arts belong in the university, alongside the study of law, medicine and anything belonging to the STEM department, or what is understood as ‘pure science’.In the seventeenth century, as a result of the ‘progress of knowing’ (Francis Bacon's&nbsp;The Advancement of Learning), philosophy (which belonged to the liberal arts) detached itself from theology (which for Newman is a science.) Knowledge which had been passed down concerning the ‘revealed God’ - for five hundred years pivotal to the university - gave way to a philosophy which postulated a new ‘concept of God’ based on progressive physical findings. The philosophers spoke of the ‘ordering principle’, the ‘real being’, the ‘supreme being’&nbsp;and other abstractions. They also spoke of the ‘god of Reason’, and the followers of that god were the ‘deists’. The eighteenth century, or Enlightenment, needed an ordered society and an orderly universe for the time being. The new thing was that the God of Revelation, Providence - who was responsible for order and clarity - henceforth no longer enjoyed primacy, but had to share his place with the god of Science. One could also say that the believer in the scientist and the scientist in the believer took order for granted and desirable, while scientists and believers henceforth began to operate separately from each other. A kind of schizophrenia, in other words.A century later, with the Romantic Movement, Reason came off its pedestal. Theology had already been dethroned; now philosophy was too.&nbsp; The former must tolerate that there are other and equally valuable religions or cultures besides Christianity; the latter must recognise that there is no order. Order exists at most in our minds, as an ideal, but not in reality. If there is no order, then there is no centre. The university which once revolved around theology, and later philosophy, hit a crisis. If the God of Revelation, or the primacy of Reason, is not the starting point for any branch of science, what is still the starting point? In other words, what connects different fields of knowledge to one another?Theology had not only been dethroned, but also placed outside Science, and the same thing was now happening to Philosophy, Literature and History. Where religion from now on was considered subjective, a similar fate awaited the Classics, Philosophy and History. Did they still belong at the university? After all, they were not ‘sciences’. And so what were the practitioners of the ‘humanities’ going to do? In the long run, to justify their academic status, they started imitating the methods of the natural sciences; they fitted themselves with a jargon, a theoretical apparatus, an abstract scaffolding in order to give the prestige of their field academic lustre, i.e. with a right to state support. That trend set in with positivism and continued through the 20th century. Newman did not experience the latter phase (theoretical literary science and similar constructions). His position - and that is the point here - is that ‘subjectivity’ regarding the&nbsp;artes liberales is no less valuable than ‘objectivity’ regarding the sciences. The&nbsp;artes are necessary for our mental growth and belong at the university. However, they should not want to apply the methods of the ‘beta disciplines’.Newman's observation that the university has no centre is fundamental. Without theology, the various disciplines start competing with each other for the central position. Curricula become increasingly sensitive to fashion, and there is a proliferation of chairs for details whose existence is questionable. New fields of knowledge overwhelm the place of ancient theology and later philosophy. Economics, for example, may start dictating from the centre what space the other disciplines will still be given. Furthermore, the applied sciences claim the throne by virtue of their social usefulness.What loses out anyway is general intellectual development, familiarity with the canon of classical authorities. The coherent and speculative take a back seat and are considered useless.&nbsp; They lose their raison d'être.

large_John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg

medium_John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg

small_John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg

thumbnail_John_Martin_-_Sodom_and_Gomorrah.jpg

Liberalism, a Wrong Path to Take

FVD continues to broaden its international reach. Its congress held in September, with guests from our new international alliance, the Europe of Sovereign Nations party, was the subject of an excellent and highly professional video report by Compact Magazin in Germany. Compact sent Armin-Paul Hampel to report – Paul is a former member of the Bundestag for AfD and a veteran journalist. The video, which is in German, contains interviews with Thierry Baudet, Pepijn van Houwelingen, Gideon van Meijeren, Eric Zemmour, Irmhild Bossdorf MEP, Stanislav Stoyanov MEP and FVD International’s director, John Laughland. You can practise your German comprehension by clicking below. Viel Spaß !<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxFD3_20c_Y&amp;ab_channel=COMPACTTV">Watch the Compact Report here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfdz4CS-dpSzc0kD8R7cFkcQ9x8aEt6fmVF1KulxDRosRrQbK9x0N1QDymRrqeHuH1pPexQmrcHRxMKCQlAflLp8IQWMGMMbJOg08_y9WRrPx6Hffpu8ta7qLacWKYxvj8NDC-CDB7nW3tQCmHb1V742aA?key=kGecqkvU3fQsF4XShoZPd2qf">FVD International’s Vincent Vos was also recently in the international media, this time speaking in English to a German outlet. He was asked about the prospects of a Trump victory for the international system: he replied that the liberal order would no doubt collapse if Harris loses. Vincent emphasized the multilateral nature of the current world conflict, which now includes Israel-Palestine-Lebanon as well as Ukraine, and that support was seeping away from Ukraine after two years of jingoism. “The liberal order is an order of broken promises,” is one of his good lines. Also: “Europeans should understand that their interests are not the same as those of the American empire.”<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/nukes-or-nato">Watch Vincent Vos’ interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdHpkMwmtbDON5NbKak47qf-6CHrxAzzqGWCHx9B6xh1A4oDxypYuXxBxSt-eP_UcIbMcDbUwF69vJQF5tWfOmeH8WDd-U-W3E2db2S5IP86pfpVs5E9kevOm2zVwfLdMFnLk77vf3q_U6KI_PaMTGHPtBx?key=kGecqkvU3fQsF4XShoZPd2qf">FVD International is again honoured to re-publish a speech given this week by the former Czech president, Václav Klaus. He is indefatigable. The older he gets, the better he is. In this speech, he says outright not only that sovereignty is the most important issue of our day but also wokeism and liberalism are worse than the Communism under which he grew up.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/nation-state-sovereignty-and-the-concept-of-a-europe-of-nations">Read Václav Klaus’ speech her</a>e<img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdanD8xMFIU6MTh0IMxzav9CmUCjyOlsVlYDY5Rsv92MZcW1khm9NUsHEG2GnOOBScb_21O32jlXGQGmFus1nsTbLHZXG9WmkKG8NtpBSf-VQgvZUEqAUgqWU4SEFuLDSwnh8pVNqP4C9ODMk_S-4VF9V4?key=kGecqkvU3fQsF4XShoZPd2qf">Ewen Stewart of Global Britain was our guest on The Forum this week. He demonstrated the economic collapse of the UK and the West in general, a collapse which is due to the doom loop of ever more managerialism, state spending and debt. Can we ever get out of it? Watch The Forum to find out by clicking below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jElKeU7AzA4&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch the Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The forum 4 11 2024.png

medium_The forum 4 11 2024.png

small_The forum 4 11 2024.png

thumbnail_The forum 4 11 2024.png

The Weekly Forum - 1 November

Vincent Vos was recently interviewed by Brazilian journalist Raphael Machado about current developments in the world. In the interview, Vincent talked about Zelensky's outrageous Demands to the West and the relationship between Germany and the United States.1. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is desperate. In his speech in Brussels, he almost demanded that Western countries either invite Ukraine to NATO or give it nuclear weapons. At a meeting in Berlin, the leaders of France, Germany, the UK and the US met to discuss his outrageous demands, but Zelensky himself was not invited. Apparently because their decisions would have made the Ukrainian president very upset.&nbsp;What do you think Biden, Macron, Starmer and Scholz agreed on behind closed doors? Why do they not want to give Zelensky not only nuclear, but even conventional weapons?<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kR65YnG5EhY&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxCDJuB5g2k&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational</a><figure class="media"><oembed url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxCDJuB5g2k&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational"></oembed></figure>2.&nbsp; In Germany, US President Joe Biden was awarded the highest state honour. Judging by his behaviour at the ceremony, the American himself did not understand why he deserved the award. Either for luring thousands of German companies during the crisis to the US or for undermining the Nord Stream pipelines in 2022. On social networks, the Germans themselves are shocked by this circus, because nobody really likes Biden.&nbsp;What prize does Biden really deserve for his attitude towards Germany? How would Germans really rate his work?<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxCDJuB5g2k&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxCDJuB5g2k&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational</a><figure class="media"><oembed url="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mxCDJuB5g2k&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational"></oembed></figure>&nbsp;

large_joe-biden-liderii-lumii.webp

medium_joe-biden-liderii-lumii.webp

small_joe-biden-liderii-lumii.webp

thumbnail_joe-biden-liderii-lumii.webp

Vincent Vos on Zelensky's outrageous demands, German-US Relationship and more

FVD is very happy with the positive election results of our Bulgarian ally Revival (Vazrazhdane) on 27 October. Forum for Democracy wants to congratulate Kostadin Kostadinov and his great team on their victory! To give our readers some context, we are happy to republish the statement made by Kostadin Kostadinov.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------The elections are over, and it’s time for an overview. We start, as always, with a thank you to our voters, whose numbers have increased this time. In fact, they increased by 10% compared to what we had previously, from 295,000 votes to 325,000 votes. Of course, this is not enough for us, as our goals are considerably higher. Interestingly, one of our goals was to encourage and motivate people to go out and vote in these elections, and we managed to achieve it, though not with the effect we wished for. Voter turnout indeed increased by almost 300,000 votes, with 2,570,639 (38.94%) people voting in these elections, compared to 2,268,849 (34.41%) in the mid-year elections. Unfortunately, our analysis shows that most of these additional 300,000 votes are likely purchased votes. So, while voter turnout increased, it was largely due to bought votes, leading to results that, frankly, no one could have anticipated. Our support continues to grow, and we are now the second-largest political force in 15 regions of Bulgaria. In 9 other regions, we are the third-largest political force, and in nearly 20% of Bulgaria’s polling stations, we hold the top position—an increase from the previous elections. This indicates that we are on the right path. A government will certainly be formed, comprising at least four parties. The only question is which parties will ultimately participate in it. However, regardless of its composition, this government will likely struggle to address the significant challenges facing our country, as the world is changing, and it’s changing faster and faster. Once again, Bulgaria finds itself on the wrong side of history, on the losing side. While a government may be formed, we strongly believe it will not last long. Such a coalition, united solely by the desire to plunder the budget, will soon fall apart, and we’ll be heading to elections again. Our primary mission will be to continue defending the national interest, as we have always done, especially given the serious geopolitical fault lines that run close to our borders. One priority remains protecting Bulgaria’s thermal power plants, which we will defend even at the risk of a direct confrontation. We are acting in this regard alongside our allies and partners in the Europe of Sovereign Nations Group. In April, we will host a European energy convention in Sofia, bringing together representatives of political organizations that, like us, believe the Green Deal should be annulled, and carbon quotas (or, more accurately, “carbon taxes”) should be removed as soon as possible. These taxes make our power plants unprofitable by burdening them with artificial costs. Another key goal is to strengthen national security, which means keeping Bulgaria out of any external conflicts. An equally important priority remains protecting the Bulgarian lev. Bulgaria’s financial independence must be preserved, as joining the sinking, stagnating, and dying Eurozone would be a national catastrophe. We would inherit massive debts associated with a devaluing currency in which we have no stake, other than the obligation to pay off its debts. The situation is challenging, with a country practically occupied and controlled, but this does not discourage us—it never has. We will continue defending Bulgaria’s national interests.

bnePeople_Bulgaria_Vazrazhdane_leader_Kostadin_Kostadinov.png

medium_bnePeople_Bulgaria_Vazrazhdane_leader_Kostadin_Kostadinov.png

small_bnePeople_Bulgaria_Vazrazhdane_leader_Kostadin_Kostadinov.png

thumbnail_bnePeople_Bulgaria_Vazrazhdane_leader_Kostadin_Kostadinov.png

Election Results Show Trust in Vazrazhdane Is Growing

Václav Klaus recently spoke at the EuCET Conference for Patriotic Intellectuals for Europe in Budapest on October 25, 2024.Many thanks for the invitation. Let me start by confessing that I am always glad to have the opportunity to come to Budapest and Hungary. I feel I am in a free country. Thank you for selecting such an excellent topic for my speech at the conference: “The Importance of the nation-state sovereignty and the concept of Europe of nations”. My thanks are not just a courtesy statement. Such a title can’t be raised in any other European country these days, only in Hungary.&nbsp;The specific Hungarian position on this issue is due to the current extraordinarily favorable political atmosphere in your country which – I believe – reflects the authentic feelings of Hungarians, due to the strong position Fidesz has been able to hold in Parliament and in government for such a long time and due to the views, activities, political strength and, last but not least, the courage of Prime Minister Orbán. Hungary is the only country in Europe where – in the third decade of the 21st century and 35 years after the fall of communism – it makes sense to talk about nation-state sovereignty.&nbsp;No other country in Europe is explicitly aiming at and working towards such a goal.&nbsp;European political elites even don’t dare use the term nation-state sovereignty in their speeches and political programs. The term is a priori considered politically incorrect.&nbsp;In most European countries, and practically in all EU member states, the issue of sovereignty used to be the topic of yesterday, if not of the day before yesterday. In my country it was considered a fundamental issue last time when I held the highest political functions. It is over now. It doesn’t mean, of course, that we should not talk about it or that people don’t talk about it. It remains our task to publicly raise this crucial issue again and again. I am more than pleased to have a chance to do so here today.The issue of sovereignty is not new and doesn’t belong exclusively to the 21st century. It has been discussed, promoted and denied continuously throughout human history. Sometimes it looked promising, sometimes not. More often, however, it has not. Always after the liquidation of an entirely discredited empire, the concept of the nation-state has emerged with a new strength and has come to be seen as the cornerstone of rational political arrangements and the only place where genuine democracy is possible. Today’s dominant ideologies, globalism and progressivism, see it differently.&nbsp;In the last couple of decades, these ideologies – together with multiculturalism, environmentalism and genderism – succeeded in bringing about&nbsp;the most widespread and far-reaching metamorphosis of human society. As compared to it, even communism was a smaller reversal of the slowly and gradually built rules, institutions, habits and traditions.1 Aggressive genderism touches more and more deeply into the substance of human existence. The French and Russian revolutions killed millions of their opponents but didn’t attempt to change the sexes. Now it is different. We live in an era of sustained attack on the foundations of Western civilization.&nbsp;We are facing the most significant test of the health and stability of our society, civilization and culture.&nbsp;The resistance to it and the willingness to do something against it seems to be relatively weak so far, which is frustrating to many of us. People still don’t believe anything like that is possible. They take it as a temporary aberration. It is easy for a conservative like me to feel pessimistic about the many pathologies of today’s world, but we can’t allow ourselves to remain passive. I suppose that’s the main reason why many of us are here today.&nbsp;To make a change,&nbsp;the West must return to the ideas of the Enlightenment, to the classical liberal traditions, to the time-tested practices and institutions of the past, to the ideas of Mises, Hayek, Friedman and similar scholars. The West must return to normality. Is this possible when we see the West, decadent and spoilt by its affluence and absence of authentic Judeo-Christian values? I am not sure about it.&nbsp;The East must return to the way of thinking which prevailed in the newly free countries of Central and Eastern Europe after the fall of communism which are becoming affluent and decadent as well.&nbsp;To make a change will not be an easy task. The resistance in both the West and the East is and will be strong and aggressive. We are already seeing this now in various Antifa-like terrorist activities. It will ask for&nbsp;the rejection of both red and green socialism,&nbsp;for&nbsp;safeguarding the way of life characteristic for our civilization and for&nbsp;finding a new balance between a free individual and the omnipresent and ever-expanding state (equipped with modern technologies).Let me return to the issue of the nation-state sovereignty.&nbsp;It is not a new debate and dispute. It has been repeating itself over and over again throughout history. It has not come out of the blue now either. The seeds for this new round of rejection of the nation-state that we are experiencing these days have been planted, generously watered and excessively fertilized for decades.&nbsp;It is connected with the state of our democracy. We should make it very clear that democracy can only be achieved and guaranteed in a well-defined and delimited space.&nbsp;Cosmopolitan democracy cannot exist. Democracy needs borders. Democracy can’t exist in a fuzzy world of undefined and unclear contours.&nbsp;Democracy needs the people, the demos, which can’t exist without a well demarcated specific entity called the nation-state. There is no alternative to it. To see it differently shows a belief in the transnational idealism which is so typical for the current Western world.I have no intention to return to the distant past. Let’s stay in the history that we more or less know and understand and that we – at least some of us – were able to touch. The debate about the role of nation-states received a new, regretfully extremely unfortunate impetus after the Second World War. This tragic war was – quite wrongly – associated with nationalism and the nation-state, whereas we know it was connected with the totalitarian ideologies of Nazism (or national socialism) and Communism. As a consequence, the wrong and misleading interpretation that the nation-state was fundamentally guilty for the war has become more or less accepted, at least in the realm of political elites and among all kinds of leftist ideologists and activists.&nbsp;This confusion led to&nbsp;the “deification” of supranational structures, including or starting with the newly created institutions of the European integration process. The European integration, in its current form of the European Union, has become a symbol of it. The European Union seeks to weaken its constituting elements, its members, the nation-states, and would like to replace them with an alternative entity, with the regions. Therefore, the slogan&nbsp;Europe of regions.&nbsp;The last, but still only implicit, goal, which will become relevant once the total fragmentation of European society has been achieved, is to replace it with a&nbsp;Europe of individual Europeans, with a Europe of isolated individuals. The vicious circle would be completed if this happens.As I have said, the progressivist, undemocratic project of supranational governance started in Europe with a new strength after the Second World War. Its original – more or less innocent – project of European Economic Community was transformed step by step, almost invisibly, into a process of&nbsp;European unification. Both the Maastricht Treaty and the Lisbon Treaty shifted the initial concept of&nbsp;integration, which meant better and deeper cooperation of sovereign states, into transnational unification. The European continent itself has changed from a historically evolved bundle of sovereign independent countries into a very authoritative and centralistic entity called the European Union. Those of us who lived for decades in the very aggressive and oppressive brotherhood of socialist countries are very sensitive to this.I am convinced that the nation-state is an exclusive and irreplaceable playing field of democracy and its only guarantor. The state – not the region or continent – forms an authentic political community. Europe is not a political community.&nbsp;European political communities are the nation states. We are Czechs, Hungarians and Slovaks. We speak Czech, Hungarian and Slovak, not a European Esperanto. We don’t want to erase our borders and to get rid of the distinction between citizen and foreigner. We, the advocates of the nation-state sovereignty, know that people exist “within national cultures, histories, traditions and languages”. When there is an empire, the democracy fades away. One or another form of autocracy takes over.&nbsp;Is&nbsp;this development avoidable? It definitely is, but the change can’t be achieved without a fundamental systemic reversal, without a sort of Velvet Revolution (to use the old but useful terminology). Are we heading towards it? The optimists (and naivists) tend to give a positive answer. The pessimists (and realists) say resolutely no. Or not yet. They know that we shouldn’t fall into the tenets of wishful thinking.&nbsp;Some try – optimistically – to compare the current civilizational crisis with the fate of communism. We must be very careful, however. Where are we now as compared to the history of communism? My answer is that&nbsp;we are certainly not in the 1980s. I am even afraid we are closer to the 1950s than to the year 1989. The current political establishment (not to speculate about the US-like “deep state”) concurred political parties and groupings both on the left and on the right and is successfully blocking all political entities which try to express the real feelings of the people of Europe from gaining any influence. This year’s European parliamentary elections have brought relatively good results for the opposition parties, but the outcome is not democratic change but the hardening of old tendencies and practices.&nbsp;I fear, therefore, together with Gregory Copley that “we do not know how to reorganize our society without the collapse of it”. He argues that “collapse is always the pre-requisite to the reorganization of an entire society”. If this is so, it gives us one important task: to make the much-needed change before the collapse is steep and deep. We have, regretfully, not yet started. Let’s do it as soon as possible.&nbsp;It would be an act of cowardice to avoid mentioning the Ukraine war. It has become generally accepted and politically correct to see this bloody, tragic and unnecessary war in black and white, to see only the good guys and the bad guys, to divide the world into a group of undemocratic aggressors and of their innocent victims, to define the war in moralistic terms and not to pay sufficient attention to the days before the “hot” war. Anyone who discusses this war as if it started on the 24th February 2022 is totally off the mark. People have, however, started to think. Even one well-respected American analyst, former politician, made a good point recently saying, “the West is not responsible for what Russia did, but is responsible for neglecting the steps that may have prevented Russia from doing it.” We don’t make that point sufficiently.&nbsp;Ursula von der Leyen recently praised herself for being already eight times in Kiev. It would be more interesting to hear how many times she was there before 2014, how many times between 2014-2022 and what plans she brought there to avoid, and later to stop, the war. Many of us saw the imminent danger already in 2014.There is no need to come up with grand schemes and projects. I agree with Mario Fantini5 that “a time for resistance” has come. And is long overdue. We need a revolution. As a newly elected Italian MEP Roberto Vannaci put it in the same issue of the European Conservative,&nbsp;“Normality is revolutionary”. Let´s insist on returning to the normality. That would be revolutionary enough.&nbsp;

small_KRK73b46a_184446_7138269.jpg

thumbnail_KRK73b46a_184446_7138269.jpg

Nation-State Sovereignty and the Concept of a Europe of Nations

When he was interviewed by TV Libertés in Paris, Thierry Baudet made a number of radical points. Perhaps the most intriguing concerned the relationship between philosophy and power – the very dilemma which Plato addresses in his Seventh Letter when he explains that he was led to philosophy by his disillusionment with politics. Thierry expressed the view, very firmly, that it is more important to change ideas by attacking wrong ones at their root – on climate change, on war, on immigration – than to wield a tiny amount of power by becoming Minister for Paperclips in the coalition government.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/8yacASkOsrM">Watch an extract from Thierry's interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeJSV-DmFs9Zmj-J6FNCoSNWmBLDTnF3g9ksO4fPcALCOM9N46wosFbPKNE2hNaGkpUzlHyHBh4Ku9znKpzroUNaUkJUYgcG0G6T9eKYJDHC00JBwnzWhkLK0vLPwQwEE40jbogmLJi1m7TS0hqWTrTEqsW?key=gw5xYopRaomRzQidlRscqA">On all these issues, he went on, Forum for Democracy is in disagreement with the Freedom Party of Geert Wilders. On all the big questions – Covid, referendums, Nexit, Ukraine – Wilders has adopted establishment positions, whether for opportunistic reasons (he abandoned Nexit in order to create a government coalition) or because, as on Covid, he never had any problem with lockdowns and other attacks on the liberal order. This is why FVD prefers opposition – radical opposition.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z48Mn3E-P8&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch an extract from Thierry's interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdip7zqNesJNLn6Y0sA8GUecRMrsQhiDmMxA_nqSifVx3xBlgbgNYNaruYcXgPBnJk1Xb73yO9P9qNB7ruM4Rv9imVD2egBpBG9_64rBO1PIHyE-Dfh5VE7qQUIXRioBmOrs_x7kW5ggviEDd5H1VrCYM3g?key=gw5xYopRaomRzQidlRscqA">As FVD has said many times, politics is not about politics. It is instead about much more fundamental human things - culture, sex and power. The American election campaign between an allegedly consensual female candidate (‘Country before party’ Harris) and an allegedly authoritarian man (‘Trump admired Hitler’) is a grotesque illustration of this. FVD International’s Vincent Vos visited Brussels recently, where he participated in meetings in the institutions of the European Union. His main conclusion was that the representatives of his country are simply weak people and that the defence of national sovereignty is a matter of strength and will, as demonstrated recently by Viktor Orban when he spoke in the European Parliament and was roundly attacked … mainly by women.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/prison-union">Read Vincent Vos' article here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXecSpcV_9QfvFKq9-suKmnKCE6i7PA3WLaa-6HNNK03PzghrrRFFY1M3PESjQZcqwZ7yd_lLtEjJJgSiCMPLLgcBNv3mztDfmVdvPKsrN9UFHHxxfYBJ37USlfh3Yi-t8dwNl4aYmvXqXMnYNwP0O2ojD2_?key=gw5xYopRaomRzQidlRscqA">Descartes is usually thought of as a rationalist, the embodiment of the new spirit of secularism which characterizes modernity. But this is to look at history through the rear-view mirror, as if someone who wrote three centuries ago were necessarily travelling in the same direction as us. As Sid Lukkassen shows, Descartes in fact used religion, or at least God, to achieve that certainty which ordinary life cannot give us.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/descartes-Legacy-the-unresolved-tension-between-reason-and-faith">Read Sid Lukkassen's article on Descartes here</a>&nbsp;<img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXe5NqJIMkIDz4pQ2PwJqLmM8gEkQ_iwIIm8-Ql4OVZyJlp3TyPt7RDRzcxLcObyNOZNCWXJXImFRFuVSNV2oqJIXxS4yVi7Ny85vur9CohhQpqNaqYmYSE8W6WwaQo7QJv6NGrn8_w9MNHmBPo4N1MIeFCV?key=gw5xYopRaomRzQidlRscqA">By donating&nbsp;any amount you like, you contribute to the formation of an international platform of patriots&nbsp;from all over the world&nbsp;This is not possible without your help &nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/support">Support us!</a>John Laughland, Director FVD International

large_The Forum 28 10 2024.png

medium_The Forum 28 10 2024.png

small_The Forum 28 10 2024.png

thumbnail_The Forum 28 10 2024.png

The Weekly Forum - 25 October

Recently, Hungarian President Viktor Orban defended his vision of a sovereign and democratic Hungary before a hostile European Parliament in Strasbourg. At the same time, I was in Brussels as part of a provincial delegation of FVD for the European Week of Regions and Cities. Both events made clear why strong and sovereign minded people should want nothing to do with the European Union.Liberal dictatorship versus Christian democracy Hungary is increasingly emerging as a guardian of a strong and traditional Europe. The reforms implemented by the Orban government in recent years aim to safeguard Hungarian sovereignty and identity. To a large extent, this has certainly already been achieved. Despite many attempts of the liberal opposition to undermine Hungarian identity with the aim of handing Hungary over to the whims of the international liberal order through their ‘open society’, the globalists have failed to further liberalise the country.Although Orban's government is formally in power, the international community is still trying to force Hungary to open the country up to outside influences. This is mainly done through EU policy and fines, such as the fine for Hungary refusing to receive migrants and thus allegedly violating EU rules.Liberal values are also abused in other ways to force Hungary to be liberal. Indeed, liberal ‘rights’ are misused in a strong example of Babylonian speech confusion that could come straight out of George Orwell’s ‘1984’. ‘Free media’ stands for ‘liberal media’ and Popper's paradox for tolerance especially shows the intolerance of liberals towards other worldviews. Ideology is imposed under the guise of freedom and democracy and anyone who thinks differently can expect repercussions.In the Netherlands, the sad reality is that liberals do rule this country. Here, liberal values are seen as constitutional foundations within which democracy must position itself. In Hungary, they have found out much faster than us that these liberal foundations have created the very problems of the present time and are actually undermining the foundation of our countries and peoples. Liberalism is the ideology of directionlessness - anything comes and anything goes, where every form of identity is fluid, where deviations are supported to break down the norm. What is left? Nihilism and depression.The Hungarian answer? Christian democracy. Whereas democracy itself in its purest form refers only to the way in which voting is allowed with the condition that the majority wins, there are different ways in which this process can be designed. Liberals, with their conception of liberal democracy, equate democracy with liberal values. According to the theory of liberal democracy, a democracy can be democratic only when liberal values are safeguarded. This is also why traditionalist and nationalist parties are seen as anti-democratic by liberal totalitarians.&nbsp;Christian democracy offers an alternative to this view. It is a view where, from its own strength, the state system is based on strong Christian foundations. Social organisations cannot undermine the Christian traditional order.&nbsp; In direct policy, this means that the traditional family is the main unit of focus. This concept is based on a Christian vision of metaphysics which can provide a sustainable answer to the nihilistic liberal alternative.&nbsp; It is a vision for the strong - strong family bonds, strong individuals, strong communities with a higher purpose in life, a perspective that is greater than oneself.&nbsp;This is a very different perspective from the one which Dutch representatives in the EU have.&nbsp;The House of the Dutch Provinces The governors of the Dutch provinces created the organisation ‘The House of Dutch Provinces’ in 2000. This is a lobbying organisation through which the Provinces of the Netherlands defend their interests in Brussels in order to raise subsidies for local projects. This House of Dutch Provinces played an important role in the Week of Regions and Cities, where the FVD delegation which attended was directly confronted with the weak stance taken by the Dutch bureaucrats.&nbsp;According to the website of the European Committee of the Regions, the aim of Regions Week is:&nbsp;‘Under the slogan ‘Empowering regions’, delegates from thousands of local and regional governments and authorities, EU institutions, young politicians, academics, NGOs and private sector representatives will gather in Brussels to exchange knowledge and experiences and put forward ideas on practical and place-based aspects of cohesion policy.&nbsp;A great opportunity to learn from each other, discover new issues and network with key players in the field."This text alone shows the true intention of the week: the EU is organising it to encourage further European integration. Therefore, it is not about the Netherlands being there to defend its own interest, but, from the EU's perspective, it is a formative week to shape regional managers and officials according to the wishes of the EU itself.&nbsp;It was mainly the questioning attitude of officials and politicians that was the problem. The FVD delegation spoke with Dutch bureaucrats about how they applied for certain subsidy funds and how they are going to get money from Brussels. Their answer was shocking: most of the bureaucrats did not have a plan to lobby for EU funds. They were passive, weak, afraid for confrontations and had a wait-and-see mentality. It was the job of the EU representatives to explain the process of lobbying to the Dutch bureaucrats and they were so weak that they were completely trampled underfoot. ‘It works the way it works’ was the motto. There was a complete lack of sense of the power they had as representatives of the Netherlands.&nbsp;This was the same with the chosen representatives of the provinces that were there. In interviews with local administrators, it became clear that they are afraid of breaking previously made agreements with Brussels. The European Commission stated that the signatures which were set for bad policy documents were, after all, made in the previous coalition and that the current representatives are stuck with them. The representatives accepted this argument as it was a fact. They were apparently not confident enough to formulate a rebuttal to this and defend Dutch sovereignty.The conversation with several local representatives showed the erroneous view of democracy apparently prevalent in these circles. For instance, it was expressed that earlier signatures had been made by the then ‘democratically legitimised’ government and that overruling such a decision now would be precisely undemocratic - the world upside down. From their psychology, of course, this is an expression of fear - the fear of change and the fear of falling outside the group. They are not real leaders but weak managers. They wait around instead of taking the initiative themselves. No wonder the Netherlands has lost almost all of its sovereignty.At an official session, it became even clearer what weak people come out from the Netherlands. The session discussed how the Dutch lobbyist in Brussels should deal with the new government. According to the so-called experts invited by the House of Dutch Provinces, the arrival of the new government was a big problem. Changing national policy would jeopardise the Dutch negotiating position with the European Commission.The national government scrapped the so-called NPLG. This Dutch Rural Area Plan (Nationaal Plan Landelijk Gebied) from the previous government ensured that funds were made available to enable farmers to stop farming in order to meet the environmental targets the Netherlands had signed up to with the EU. The current government still wants to achieve the current environmental goals but it has blocked the funds to realise these targets.Apparently, Dutch lobbyists in the EU think that a negotiation starts with accepting all the EU's dictates and delivering an implementation plan. When asked why we do not simply announce that we are no longer participating in the whole circus, the response was that this ‘would not be up to the Netherlands’ because the other countries would be in favour and otherwise the overarching goals would not be met. The problem was the new PVV government that would ruin the Dutch negotiation position - whatever that means in this context. All the experts in the panel agreed that there are too many farmers in the Netherlands. Where most of the panel members wanted to expropriate the farmers by force from their land, the opposition on stage would state that the farmers should get financial compensation when expropriated. Both sides in the ‘debate’ were completely controlled by the sustainable development Mafia.&nbsp;A local representative of the new supposed ‘right-wing farmers party’, BBB, was asked to sum up the debate and he stated that he was happy that everyone in the panel and audience agreed with each other – to loud booing from the audience.At another session, the focus was on the rise of the ‘far right’ and what danger this rise of the right posed to the larger project and global goals they are working on.It is becoming increasingly clear that the political battle is not just a battle of ideological differences. It is a struggle between strong men who want to make better times against weak men who have accepted the demise of our civilisation. Oswald Spengler was absolutely right about the decline of civilisations.In reality, politics is not a regulated system with rules and procedures. Politics is what you make of it yourself. Politics is an expression of the Will, with a capital W. Taking control and running your own course against all impossibilities. Not the mental prison where the weak conform to the weaker.&nbsp;Rules for you but not for us Brussels is a city where rampant digitalisation and control urge has become so great that it has led to setting up CBDC, where money can be conditionally programmed. This contrasts with the day-to-day reality in Brussels. Almost nowhere the FVD delegation went could be paid by PIN. Everywhere they were asked to pay in cash. The places where it was possible to pay by debit card often refused the Dutch bank card or charged a fee when using the debit card machine. In today's Netherlands, this situation is unthinkable. Here again, the Netherlands is the best boy in the class.The betrayal of elites The weakness of the European Union and its member states stems from the betrayal of their own elites. Our managers who come to Brussels are often no longer interested in defending national sovereignty or looking after the interests of their own citizens. They are more concerned with maintaining the status quo and securing their own careers within European power structures. This leads them to take decisions contrary to the will of the people under the guise of democratic legitimacy.The fear of being left out of the group, combined with a lack of real vision and leadership, makes the European Union increasingly resemble a technocratic dictatorship. Elites who dare not speak out against Brussels contribute to the erosion of national sovereignty and the decline of European nations.The only way Europe can save itself is to return to the principles of national sovereignty and self-determination. Countries like Hungary show that it is possible to offer an alternative to the liberalism and globalisation promoted by Brussels. Christian democracy and a strong national identity are the basis for a free and sovereign nation, where the will of the people is the most important aspect of policy.The EU is an expression of the worst aspects of the modern European: it is both literally and figuratively a self-imposed prison, where fear rules, parasites reside and weakness is stimulated.You only have to look at the headquarters of the European Commission to see what kind of prison we find ourselves in, after all, the outside is a reflection of the inside. However grey and drab it is, they luckily always manage to give it some colour with a rainbow zebra crossing.<img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfjeTFR51acRELH-M5Ga6MP3Erf-w_Zj78Sxlyo7ZO1IGK-5grq6b7twZFqZe5P51Cyv_HjpTNsBQoy5011ZYaUqjAXzEo9LXiOqDyqt0URQX42Z74zbHgYqeBDD9kdzlx-AK1AQMSB7hoAq4dhKPi2sZyO?key=u-UPuD3M6BWS85gpJuPIkA">The battle for Europe is certainly not lost but it requires courage, vision and determination from leaders who are willing to go against the grain. It is time to leave the European Union and re-commit to a Europe of sovereign nations, where each state has the freedom to determine its own path, without the urge to conform to the demands of a technocratic elite in Brussels.

large_2714035455_16e9814678_b.jpg

medium_2714035455_16e9814678_b.jpg

small_2714035455_16e9814678_b.jpg

thumbnail_2714035455_16e9814678_b.jpg

Prison Union: Where the weak rule and destroy Europe

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

The Forum &amp; Friends: Europe &amp; America, a Marriage from Hell with Thomas Fazi

The Forum &amp; Friends: The Economic Collapse of the West with Ewen Stewart

They promise so much, but deliver NOTHING #fvd #fyp #short #baudet #trump #france #netherlands #edit

Fight for REAL change! #fvd #fyp #shorts #viral #baudet #thierry #nederland #france #trump #edit

The Forum &amp; Friends: Over-medicalisation of Childbirth with Dr. Stuart Fischbein

FREE Roger Ver - Thierry Baudet in the Dutch Parliament #Bitcoin

It’s time for NEXIT #short #fvd #nederland #europe #viral #france #based #edit #sigma #baudet

Does the Dutch Secret Service spy on Members of Parliament? Gideon van Meijeren versus Dick Schoof

We need re-migration! #fvd #international #shorts #fyp #viral #baudet #thierry #france #netherlands

The Forum &amp; Friends: The WHO with Dr. Astrid Stuckelberger

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