The paradox of our time can be summed up as follows: Wi-Fi everywhere, connection nowhere. Because yes, we communicate constantly, but we understand each other less and less. This is because the same concepts evoke different associations depending on the group. Concepts such as feminism, sustainability, Islam and LGBTQ are now part of almost every conversation, but they are politically charged and have different meanings for different groups.This divide did not come out of nowhere, but was deliberately created by what I refer to here – with all the nuance that this concept deserves – as Cultural Marxism. Not the old-fashioned hammer-and-sickle variety, but a fusion of ideas that is tearing Western civilisation apart along moral fault lines.Let me start at the beginning. When Karl Marx elevated the worker to revolutionary subject, he counted on economic misery to fuel the fire. But look around you: metropolitan hipsters sip their oatmeal cappuccinos while their smartwatches pulse with dopamine notifications. The worker sits in synthetic sportswear waiting for his home delivery service. A heroic slave revolt à la Spartacus is unthinkable against this backdrop. To keep the torch of revolution burning, the intellectuals of the Frankfurt School – Adorno, Marcuse, Horkheimer – shifted the battlefield from the factory to the cultural sector. Marxism was no longer spread by seizing power over the means of production, but by monopolising the meaning of things.That is why the front line today lies in the framing of language. Highly elastic concepts such as “safe spaces”, “inclusion”, “diversity” and “sustainability” are used everywhere to push through policy, and whoever defines these concepts has power over our culture. This language struggle is therefore the instrument of the hegemony of the virtue&nbsp;signallers.Words are given new meanings so that people who use them join the moral bandwagon. Take a term like “people of colour”, which is used under the guise of “inclusivity”, even though this group includes everyone except white people, and is therefore anything but inclusive. The term suggests that people of European descent have colourless souls. And in exactly the same way, ‘women’ are redefined as ‘persons with a uterus,’ ‘Black Pete’ is repainted, and the Rijksmuseum ‘decolonises’ its signs. Each language change seems small, but when you take them all together, you see a Rubik's cube whose colours will never return to their original order.Critics ask: “Sid, aren't you exaggerating? Isn't Cultural Marxism a right-wing bogeyman?” But I heard the same thing when I warned about big tech censorship in 2019: people laughed. Now everyone knows that a single screenshot can destroy a career. Cancel culture is not a myth but an instrument of power. As soon as an idea falls outside the approved window, the digital scaffold comes down and suffocation begins. What the the hegemony of the virtue&nbsp;signallers calls ‘socially responsible’ is in reality mental gagging.Unlike the dissidents behind the Iron Curtain who were subjected to censorship, I can still let my fingers dance across the keyboard. Nevertheless, I feel the same underlying pressure that Václav Havel described. You write a paragraph, reread the text and immediately know that HR algorithms and search engines will label certain statements as “offensive”. This is Cultural Marxism in practice: it is not the gun to the temple, but the moral noose that tightens around the throat until no dissenting voice escapes.The seriousness of the situation is clearly reflected in the source of cultural legitimacy: education. Universities – once antagonistic arenas where clashing ideas improved each other – have been redesigned as “safe spaces”. Debates have been replaced by consensus panels and analyses have given way to impressions of atmosphere. Students receive “trigger warnings” for Ovid; teachers speak of “problematic whiteness” in Shakespeare. A civilisation that hides its classics in shame severs its ties with the cultural source that makes “authenticity” conceivable in the first place. Anyone who compares canonical thinkers such as Plato, Machiavelli and Nietzsche will conclude that truth is a mosaic, a spectrum within which the individual positions himself, and not an “imperialist” monolith.The equality of Cultural Marxism is the equality of Procrustes' bed: everyone must fit into the same ideological mould, even if it means cutting off limbs. When you engage in democratic debate, the idea is that the public interest is served by incorporating the criticism of opponents into visions for the future. But that model has now been completely destroyed, eroded and burned out: opposition – and by that I mean opposition that resolutely rejects the Cultural Marxist worldview – is only tolerated in order to channel social anger into forms that are harmless to the hegemony of virtue. Casting your vote is like pressing a light switch with no wiring behind it.Those who follow my work know that I advocate for ‘standing tall.’ Abolishing positions such as ‘diversity officers’ is no longer feasible through democratic means. This is because the media and education are creating a mass psychosis that is being further deepened at the institutional and bureaucratic levels. So you really just have to harass them until they quit&nbsp;their&nbsp;job of their own accord. The same applies to all committees that push this propaganda. However, as soon as we seriously try to unite or organise, we are destroyed by the forces we pay taxes to. This leaves us with clowns who are tolerated by the system: they want us to sell meal boxes instead of rewarding our intellectual work with a position that actually offers future prospects.Instead of ‘diversity officers,’ we actually need ‘freedom commissioners’: people who devote their careers to bringing extremes into dialogue with each other. Fresh air is a sensible response to dogmatism. But let's not fool ourselves: we know in advance that these ‘freedom commissioners’ will be stripped down to a kind of Jort Kelders and Lale Guls (both supposed ‘right-wing liberals’) who will gatekeep to prevent deeper systemic criticism from being tapped into.There is little you can do against such overwhelming power. If you resist, your bank account will be closed, and that is only the beginning of all the misery that will befall you. If you do not resist, it will be the straw that breaks the camel's back: all the absurdity and totalitarian coercive measures will start to feel “normal”. In that situation, resistance becomes unthinkable. In fact, we have nothing more than a credo to bring against this inhumane system: freedom of conscience, press, association. These values are not “white” but universal. They have been tested with blood, sweat and brainpower – they have proven their worth and made modernity possible in Europe and America.At the end of this month, I will turn 38: exactly halfway through my life. And in the second half, we will see how Western Europe definitively plunges itself into the abyss. The abyss from which there is no way back. What is lost now is irretrievably lost.That is why I conclude with Gramsci's famous words: ‘Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.’ With my mind, I understand how free thinking has been crushed under bureaucracy. My heart cries because of all the emotional blackmail and cognitive dissonance that have become normalised in society. Yet my will is optimistic: every time a citizen stands up, straightens their back and says, ‘No, I think for myself!’, light breaks through the cloud cover of suffocating virtue signalling. Cultural Marxism may have taken over the institutions – as long as there are readers who follow this essay this far, there is a spark. Hope is too big a word for this spark: at least there is hatred of the hegemony of the virtue&nbsp;signallers.I would prefer to appeal to freedom and reason – that suits me best – but we all know that such a plea will be ridiculed and ignored by the media machine. Substantive debate on the subject will be disrupted by state-controlled trolls. There are simply too few intelligent people left who can do anything meaningful with this. The few sensible people who do get the message are encapsulated by bureaucrats and have no room for manoeuvre within their jobs.So: make room in your soul for hatred. Because hatred is what they deserve – and it's all we've got.We hate the inhumane system that forces us to bend our thinking to present the absurd as normal.And hatred gives life.Follow&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/Sid_Lukkassen">Sid Lukkassen on X</a> and – even more importantly –&nbsp;<a href="https://sidlukkassen.backme.org/">support him on BackMe</a>.

large_foto-sid-682452235b289.webp

medium_foto-sid-682452235b289.webp

small_foto-sid-682452235b289.webp

thumbnail_foto-sid-682452235b289.webp

Sid Lukkassen – Cultural Marxism: A Field Report

If you want a short masterclass in why NATO is a bad thing, you need look no further than Thierry Baudet’s recent speech to the Second Chamber of the Dutch Parliament. The key issue, as Thierry explains, is not so much NATO enlargement as NATO aggression – in Yugoslavia in 1999 and in Libya in 2011. The Iraq war of 2003 was not a NATO operation but was waged by NATO’s leading states. These naked acts of aggression had nothing to do with self-defence, as even pro-NATO figures know and admit. Instead, they demonstrate that the notion of a ‘rules based international order’, which NATO now claims to be defending in Ukraine, is gross hypocrisy. The debate also gives us a masterclass in the inanity of the opposition: Jan Paternotte of the socialist D66 party intervened to say something about MH-17, the Malaysian airliner shot down over Ukraine in 2014. It was a classic example of how warmongering wokery uses cheap emotion in response to a carefully crafted argument about geopolitics.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j1E6xlMM0CM">Watch Thierry’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXf02suS3yK6WaqVz5QVa_C9sZhrUTCncJTOQnVHz7_6Bn4Yhn79O0VbNCKVqx7R6tT1YzHd_Swip20DXAQLaxbQKNYLhiIlII_PWD8XIX-TkahV4xa7REvY7TIZM30bDAfWue0cFg?key=78BMfIpymRcSCwQqiQDPtw">And if you want a short masterclass in why the EU is a bad thing, you need look no further than Pepijn van Houwelingen’s recent speech to the same Second Chamber. In a few short, structured moments, Pepijn explains what is wrong with Brussels and why the Netherlands (and everyone else) should leave it. It is undemocratic, bureaucratic, over-regulatory and now warmongering.&nbsp; It is a threat to prosperity, sovereignty and peace. It should never be forgotten that the Netherlands is, with Ireland, the only country in the EU where not one but two national referenda have been overruled by Brussels – on the European constitution in 2005 and on the Ukraine association agreement in 2016. All this is bad enough but the EU has even now abandoned its claim to be a peace project and is instead sabotaging US attempts to put an end to the war with Russia which Brussels, it seems, is determined to inflame.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WVd8Oxk9HA">Watch Pepijn’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdZcAzrnRo2BWBER18t6OEDXqlWh-6bwfBT6joI5LzUCStTbHaqqDugMe5dmVSVMMzpSq1ovjeqMqfKXFRiZhkR9qSb9UVRwTAwY6SYXyWq2xQDP44KW0NaynZKh9kkNoB4Pxtv?key=78BMfIpymRcSCwQqiQDPtw">One of Thierry Baudet’s most consistent claims is that Western governments are in office but not in power. The ability of politics to change anything is extremely limited, even if you win an election. Instead, political change comes from metapolitics – cultural change, intellectual change, economic change, the sorts of things FVD is trying to bring about. Perhaps the most striking example of this truth has been the dismal record of the Dutch government which recently collapsed.&nbsp; Its principal component, the Freedom Party which had been led by Geert Wilders for over 25 years with a single-issue anti-immigration message, failed to prevent over 300,000 immigrants arriving in the Netherlands in one year alone, the equivalent of the city of Utrecht. How is this possible when the Immigration Minister came from Wilders’ party?<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/how-the-government-led-by-geert-wilders-freedom-party-has-failed">Read Thierry’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXe-8rnNjoYstrxIKUh8wfPrp5Fl1-l2E8FNEpunQxZLtVl7OzI7bCED9TQPNt61oxCKkQAc5Vo4QzLDn9p3orY9cI8XDMGXXOCUcs0THJkwoJO9Cb_LbUxTWrc1heJwUONDeC6n5g?key=78BMfIpymRcSCwQqiQDPtw">We were delighted to have as our guest on The Forum Pascal Lottaz, assistant professor of neutrality studies at Kyoto University. Naturally the talk was about Iran and Trump’s apparent capitulation to the deep state. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzoWz4I4XoY&amp;t=4s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 20 June.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 20 June.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 20 June.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 20 June.png

The Weekly Forum - 20 June

Speech given to the Dutch Parliament by Thierry Baudet, 12 June 2025Chairman,&nbsp;I am beginning to understand better and better why Geert Wilders ran away from his responsibility last week with his tail between his legs: because today is accountability day, the day on which we evaluate the cabinet's policy over the past year, and boy, oh boy: what incredibly disappointing results the PVV has shown over the past year.To be clear: I do believe that the other coalition partners, the VVD and the NSC, are difficult partners.&nbsp; But the extremely disappointing results on infrastructure, immigration, healthcare, mobility, and so on – they really are the PVV's own fault.They were PVV ministries. They were PVV ministers.First of all, immigration. As many as 314,000 immigrants entered our country in 2024.That's a city the size of Utrecht.The Spreading Act has still not been repealed even though the Immigration Minister, Marjolein Faber, from the PVV, could have just done it.I will say it again, Chairman: this coalition has made a lot of choices with which Forum for Democracy disagrees, and the PVV has been thwarted both in front of and undoubtedly behind the scenes by coalition partners, but there was indeed an opportunity to reduce mass immigration, at least in parts. It is deeply regrettable that the PVV missed that opportunity. Our motion to develop the ten-point plan for a stricter asylum policy into concrete proposals was supported by VVD, BBB and NSC - but was blocked by the PVV itself!So next year we can count on even more asylum seekers - and therefore even higher costs, even more crime, even more pressure on social services, even more housing shortage. The latter rose further last year - thanks to the growing population as a result of mass immigration - to a shortage of 400,000 homes.Then there is nitrogen policy. There, too, the government failed miserably last year. According to minister Wiersma - of the Farmers’ Civic Movement, note! - the absurd, stupid nitrogen standards are (and I quote) ‘not scientifically questionable’. What a travesty. These standards are based on models that demonstrably bear no relation to reality. We are being held hostage to a modelling reality that could have been ended by removing Critical Deposition Values from the law and licensing.It could have been done by Wiersma on day 1 of her term of office.Instead, this cabinet has reduced air traffic at Schiphol Airport, a new speed limit of 130 km on the motorway has turned out to be a farce (because it applies only on three stretches of motorway) and farmers are being bought out or subjected to quasi-forced closures at breakneck speed.And then there is the financial picture. In recent years, the term “subsistence security” has become the focus of political attention, and not without reason. The Dutch are rapidly becoming impoverished due to rising living costs - inflation - and a failing tax and benefit system. As in previous years, the collective tax burden was as high as 38 per cent. People can no longer buy a house, they don't have a penny left over for anything extra and they can no longer pay energy bills, healthcare costs, petrol, and so on.What strikes me is that this Chamber, especially the cabinet parties, are constantly talking about the hard-working Dutchman but they mainly want to give presents to people on low wages: increasing rent allowance, energy allowances, whether or not to freeze social rent, while the vast majority of Dutch people, the middle class, don't benefit at all. The average hard-working Dutchman gets no care allowance at all but pays a higher care premium. The average Dutchman does not live in social housing, but does face higher housing costs because housing construction is locked up and our population (thanks to open borders) keeps growing. Foreign students now even get scholarships, while our loan students face ever higher interest rates after taking out the loan.Chairman,To get this country back on track, we need to do the following things:- Cut mass immigration;- Radically scrap the absurd nitrogen and climate policy;- Reopen the Groningen gas field, there is 1,000 billion euros’ worth of gas in the ground there;- And as DOGE cut government spending, regulation, radically simplify the tax system, increase the tax-free base for all working Dutchmen and all pensioners.You will see that our country will then recover at a rapid pace, people will have money left over and start to feel at home in this country again.&nbsp; In short, the sun will start shining again as the cabinet promised but absolutely failed to achieve.

geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

large_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

medium_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

small_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

thumbnail_geert-wilders-pvv-schudt-minister-president-dick-schoof-de-hand-op-de-tweede-dag-van-de-algemene-politieke-beschouwingen.jpeg

How the government led by Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party has failed

Is freedom a right or a social good? FVD believes it is the latter (and no doubt the former too). Freedom is a social good because if people are free to do and think as they please, then society will generally benefit from the ‘open market’ in ideas and activities. Unfortunately, today’s European states are structurally hostile to such diversity. Instead, as Thierry Baudet explained recently in parliament, they are governed by cartels. It is unfortunately a natural human phenomenon, in politics as much as in economics, to want to ‘control the market’ – by appointing your friends to high places, by stifling dissent, by creating narratives which sustain the power structure. This is not only unjust, it is also bad policy because it means that new ideas and fresh modes of thought are sidelined or silenced. Society suffers as a result. Democracy is supposed to create a system which breaks such cartels but currently it does not function at all in the West. Listen to Thierry’s magisterial presentation and you will understand why.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xuz7Irp9XEI&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch Thierry’s speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeLxCVswu5u7Z4H0As5OUv2v4QWiebAON9LUQsndh7v5Jp_xiwVsWGAvZbo8Omw7fIfAnM6MdYJO0KTa-UxlR0Pu88RyPePKxCXLo2LqBvp6-Y2n7tNgpB0hmezpnCcm0pKmCQT?key=LIhTsCZNgghbO8zdCxc5cg">To put it bluntly, the system is rigged. Gideon van Meijeren MP had the sad confirmation of this recently in the committee of enquiry into Covid. This is a group of MPs looking into the way the pandemic was handled five years ago.&nbsp; But it turns out that what they can look into is controlled by the civil servants working for the committee. MPs do not have their own right of access to documentation or witnesses. When Gideon realised this, he asked for a meeting with the committee chair. He and the committee members refused to accept any change to this bizarre arrangement which means that the MPs are but front men for a rigged enquiry. So Gideon decided to resign. The self-perpetuating system has won - and democracy and transparency have lost. Society suffers.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/fvd-leaves-covidcommittee-gideon-van-meijeren-explains-why">Read Gideon’s statement here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfm1xU8ze7HsVBuheI4nFVJZBTg91Pd4VsRjuTvnwO7MmheTRUelS3U4aa-wIn9M0pzxvOSMAPnd6eRNSAzpUUGaJZPUItUqapvBHABW-jQt18Td5OcvjvxmC7W4vWGlTnmpPaWyg?key=LIhTsCZNgghbO8zdCxc5cg">None of this is new.&nbsp; As Thierry said, you can find it all in Plato. Former FVD senator Paul Cliteur also discussed freedom at FVD’s Springtime School, held on Ascension Weekend in a beautiful 17th century château in Gelderland.&nbsp; Cliteur proposed a reading of Schopenhauer to the students and told the well-known story of Galileo and his run-in with the Holy Inquisition. If freedom of ideas is a general social good, it is all the more imperative to preserve it in universities, where ideas are the principal activity. Unfortunately academic freedom, like other freedoms, have evaporated in today’s West, as the Left seeks to stamp out all forms of divergence from its own line. Leftism is unfortunately now also supported in this by Islamism which similarly seeks to destroy dissent. Europe is abandoning centuries of liberal tradition in favour of an ever duller and more brutal authoritarianism.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/arthur-schopenhauer-and-academic-freedom">Read Paul Cliteur’s lecture here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXcruOqyXkdunlk0ogQsMxvgkHSo6aNu26c2pU2RXX8znKByeLSbhv7eSTKmOg33-1yqRu9FM7rvlkGg8JHAtIetBT7DLGOD5zbvW5Owbu5hunsoTymVb-p4y_quUUUAL-djFolH1g?key=LIhTsCZNgghbO8zdCxc5cg">As the war expands out in the Middle East, we were delighted to have Steven Jermy and Mark Sleboda as our guests on The Forum this week to discuss the military aspects of the Ukraine war in the light of the recent spectacular drone attacks on Russian air bases deep inside Russia.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuIucTRwa78&amp;t=20s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 13 June.png

The Weekly Forum - 13 June

Gideon van Meijeren has decided to step down from the COVID committee. In the following statement, he explains his reasons for this decision:I have just had to make a difficult but necessary decision: I am resigning from the parliamentary committee of inquiry on Covid with immediate effect. In this video, I will explain my decision.My main reason for joining the parliamentary committee of inquiry was to conduct an in-depth investigation into Covid policy and to question those responsible for it. In other words: to find the truth.But that is precisely what is being made completely impossible for me in the committee. Last week, I found out that, as a member of the Covid committee, I will not have access to the more than 3 million documents and pieces of information which the committee has requested, and that I will not be allowed to ask the main responsible parties any questions, or hardly any.The majority of the other members of the committee have decided that only the civil servants on the staff will have access to the requested documents.&nbsp; Only they will draw up the questionnaires and decide which committee members may ask which questions to which guests. It has literally been decided that the staff will conduct the investigation and that the members of parliament will only have a guiding role.In practice, this means that, as a Member of Parliament, I have no insight into the information on which the investigation notes and questionnaires are based, I do not have the opportunity to ask the questions that I consider important, and in many cases I am not given the opportunity to question the key players myself.This makes it impossible for me to make a serious contribution to finding the truth — which should be the core purpose of this committee.When I found this out, I immediately objected. Last week, I discussed this with the chair of the committee, Daan de Kort. He indicated that he would continue to support the current working method, but that I was free to raise this point at the committee meeting. That meeting took place today.I was willing to cooperate and was not demanding. The only thing I asked for, in essence, was access to the information necessary to conduct research, and on that basis to be able to question 8 to 10 people under oath for half an hour to an hour: Rutte, De Jonge, Grapperhaus, Van Dissel, Koopmans, Gommers, Aalbersberg, Akerboom, Schoof and – depending on the results of the source investigation – a handful of others. This would only take 5 to 10 hours out of the hundreds of hours reserved for the hearings.After a heated discussion, it became clear that the committee was standing its ground. I did everything I could to convince the members of the need to change the working method, but to no avail.The chair proposed to continue the discussion at a later date, but changing the working method was expressly ruled out. In other words, they wanted to prolong the discussion, but the decision had already been made.This course of action is, of course, unacceptable. It undermines the essence of parliamentary control and thus touches on the core of our democracy. A parliamentary inquiry is the most powerful investigative tool at the disposal of the House of Representatives, with far-reaching powers. If even the members of an inquiry committee are denied access to the necessary information and are not given the opportunity to critically question those responsible, then there is no longer any question of finding the truth – on the contrary. Then there is control, manipulation and exclusion of critical voices and neutralisation of dissent. In short: then there is a cover-up.Of course, I cannot and will not lend any legitimacy to this. The party fully supports me in my decision. Forum for Democracy considers truth-finding to be the highest good, on which we cannot make any concessions. If truth-finding is made impossible within the committee, then it must be done outside it. We are therefore determined to continue with this until the truth has been revealed and justice has been done.&nbsp;

gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

large_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

medium_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

small_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

thumbnail_gideon-van-meijeren-bij-een-demonstratie-tegen-de-komst-van-een.webp

FVD Leaves COVID committee, Gideon van Meijeren Explains Why

small_Death_of_Vojvoda_Trifko.jpg

thumbnail_Death_of_Vojvoda_Trifko.jpg

The Herzegovina uprising and international law, 1874-1878

large_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

medium_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

small_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

thumbnail_paul_cliteur_5414401bec.jfif

Arthur Schopenhauer and Academic Freedom

FVD is not happy that Geert Wilders took his party out of the coalition this week, thereby causing the government to collapse. This has wasted a rare opportunity.&nbsp; For the first time, a more or less right-wing government could have started to tackle immigration. It did nothing. 130,000 immigrants settled in the Netherlands in 2024 alone. This is more than the population of the city of Maastricht.Thierry Baudet has deplored Geert Wilders’ decision – and also speculated in Parliament that the collapse of the government had nothing to do with immigration, but that instead it was because of Israel. Members of the coalition, the Foreign Minister in particular, have turned against Israel over Gaza and initiated an EU inquest into the war. Geert Wilders, by contrast, is known for his unconditional support not only for Israel in general but for Benjamin Netanyahu in particular.&nbsp;&nbsp;Thierry has claimed this because it is not credible to say that measures could not be taken against immigration: the whole coalition was in agreement on this matter, and yet nothing was done. Why not?Whatever happens, it now means that a ‘caretaker’ government will take major decisions about Ukraine at the NATO summit in The Hague in late June - just as a ‘caretaker’ government decided to give F-16 fighter planes to Ukraine back in August 2023.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/our-response-to-the-fall-of-the-dutch-cabinet">Read FVD’s statement here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXd8-hq8CjZ9plU8eMPRhKwXT6gx9p2KBeGYW4dd2DTQ6QV1JRh7B1dEpaC-eLBQVR2QUFmFsRtNXgy7-7HmsRAZPg1mrS92FSVitnhPLr3Q4uqTd6Bv8LCNZtIk9eSuwdhg0_Ri3A?key=H2XBqrLOu9Pb13sn78MZIA">Is NATO the secret government of the Netherlands and of its other member states, imposing obligations which parliaments and voters have not chosen, approved or even known about? Some time ago, Ralf Dekker MP put down questions on this. FVD has now received a formal response from the government. The answer is yes. We are publishing in full a translation of the government’s response to over 20 questions and the answers admit that there are secret binding obligations covering a whole range of issues including ones not obviously related to NATO, like health. The government specifically says that the obligations are laid out in a document which is ‘non-public’, i.e. secret.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/minister-agemas-shocking-answers-to-fvds-questions-about-secret-NATO-commitments">Read the government’s response here</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jk-_npHns&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch the Dutch parliament refuse the debate here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXc8zSby3dc6dj9Jix99EFZjof_MQLcJ5u7kexJlnzvMuPg6xo4z5KqXf3sDMebOgroSrrnHX7HUf14vgR9hggfnU5E_WWcU2B_sB2881WngWF8fU17hTQnl14YZUxIErWuMvNy9PQ?key=H2XBqrLOu9Pb13sn78MZIA">FVD International’s Marco van den Boomgaard attended the CPAC conference in Budapest last week. It is a huge jamboree attracting heads of government, political leaders and influencers. Viktor Orban runs it and his line is very pro-Trump. Marco kindly wrote two pieces for us about the event, one about Orban’s speech and one about Alice Weidel’s. Weidel is de facto leader of the German AfD which, interestingly, sits in a different parliamentary group in the European Parliament from Orban’s Fidesz party (the same group to which FVD is affiliated). Meanwhile, the Slovak prime minister, Robert Fico, is from the political Left but is a patriot who used his own speech to warn against the imminent collapse of the EU.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/prime-minister-viktor-orban-unveils-patriotic-vision-for-europe-at-cpac-hungary-2025">Read Marco’s article on Viktor Orban here</a><a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/alice-weidels-triumphant-atand-at-cpac-hungary-2025">Read Marco’s article on Alice Weidel here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfFxYFms38X4uU0yMRVYUubNNNLiE8WVXO4vZD1lmcNgDp0U1DIzAaCC2E_3u9uVXwmt9ETOK1XgYlp2dc-CXSUlmzt6AcWEDUOkcyE7FeOu5O9u5-9yaT4Qg5SI2lCrKfog327fw?key=H2XBqrLOu9Pb13sn78MZIA">We discussed CPAC, Trump and conservatism on The Forum this week with brilliant guests, Jim Ferguson from the UK and Lionel from New York. Marco van den Boomgaard and George Szamuely also joined, from The Hague and Budapest. If you missed it, listen back by clicking below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1jk-_npHns&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 6 June.png

The Weekly Forum - 6 June

Reply from Minister Agema (Health, Welfare and Sport), also on behalf of the Prime Minister (received 2 June 2025)<hr>Question 1 Why can the briefings received by cabinet members about NATO obligations not be shared with Parliament “due to classification”?Answer 1 &nbsp;The classification level of these briefings means they could not be made public or shared with Parliament.<hr>Question 2 What classification level were these presentations given, and why?Answer 2 The classification level of the briefings was at least "Departmentally Confidential." The authors of the briefings (see answers 5 through 7) determine the classification, in accordance with the directive “Decree on Information Security Regulations for the Dutch Government – Special Information (VIRBI 2013).”<hr>Question 3 &nbsp;Who determines the classification? The government or NATO?Answer 3 The authors of the briefings (see answers 5 through 7) determine the classification.<hr>Question 4 Is the government able (or willing) to declassify the briefings at Parliament’s request? If not, why?Answer 4 At the request of Parliament, the government initiated a declassification process for these briefings. The briefings are available in Appendices 2 and 3. No presentation was used during the information security session; therefore, none can be shared.<hr>Question 5 Why were the briefings held at the Ministry of General Affairs? Is it correct that these briefings were given in the context of NATO obligations (Ministry of Defence, Ministry of Foreign Affairs) by the AIVD (Ministry of the Interior) and the NCTV (Ministry of Justice)?Question 6 Did the Ministry of General Affairs play a coordinating role? If so, why?Question 7 Were the briefings perhaps initiated by the Ministry of General Affairs? If so, why?Answers to Questions 5 through 7 The briefings were initiated by the Ministry of General Affairs as an introduction program for the new cabinet. They were therefore held, alongside cabinet meetings, at the Ministry of General Affairs. The briefings were prepared and given by the most relevant ministries.As stated previously, the following security-related briefings took place:<ul><li>An international-themed session (organized by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence) &nbsp;</li><li>A national crisis structure exercise (facilitated by the National Crisis Centre) &nbsp;</li><li>An information security session (organized by the AIVD). &nbsp;</li></ul>Various NATO obligations were discussed during parts of these briefings but were not the central theme.<hr>Question 8 Did the Prime Minister himself initiate these briefings? If so, why? Was this perhaps at the request of his predecessor, former Prime Minister Rutte?Answer 8 No.<hr>Question 9 How many briefings (related to NATO obligations) have the ministers received in total?Answer 9 The three briefings mentioned in the answers to questions 5, 6, and 7.<hr>Question 10 Can Parliament receive a complete overview of all NATO-related briefings ministers have received since taking office, including which ministers were present, where the briefings were held, which agencies (e.g., AIVD or NCTV) delivered them, and their classification?Answer 10 The briefings were initiated by the Ministry of General Affairs as part of the new cabinet's introduction program. They were held, alongside cabinet meetings, at the Ministry of General Affairs.<ul><li>On 9 July 2024, an information security session was held by the Director-General of the AIVD for ministers and state secretaries. &nbsp;</li><li>On 16 July 2024, an international-themed session was held by officials from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Defence. &nbsp;</li><li>On 16 July 2024, a national crisis structure exercise was conducted, facilitated by the head of the National Crisis Centre, attended by the Prime Minister, deputy prime ministers, the Ministers of Foreign Affairs, Interior and Kingdom Relations, Justice and Security, and Defence. These briefings were at least “Departmentally Confidential.”</li></ul><hr>Question 11 Do you recall your earlier statements, including during the plenary meeting on 24 October 2024, in which you repeatedly referred to “NATO obligations” to which we are “bound”? In an interview with Ongehoord Nederland, you also stated: “The former Prime Minister signed these agreements and we adhere to them.” However, in your written replies to Parliament, you state that these agreements are “not legally binding.” Isn’t that contradictory?&nbsp;Are these commitments binding or not?Answer 11 This cabinet has committed to the agreements made; they are therefore politically binding.<hr>Question 12 In response to question 9, you stated that the resilience objectives can be found in the “Vilnius Summit Communiqué.” Where exactly are these objectives stated in the communiqué? Can you provide them instead of a reference?Question 13 Is it true, as journalist Eric van der Beek claims (based on a response he received from NATO), that these resilience objectives are not actually described in the Vilnius Summit Communiqué because they are “classified,” according to NATO?Question 14 If not, why not, and why would NATO say so? Did NATO make a mistake?Question 15 If NATO’s statement is correct, why did you refer to the Vilnius Summit Communiqué when these objectives cannot be in there because they are classified?Answers to Questions 12 through 15 The fact that the Netherlands has committed to these objectives via NATO is reflected in the Vilnius Summit Communiqué.&nbsp;The NATO Resilience Objectives are laid out in a separate, non-public document.<hr>Question 16 Can you provide a definition of “resilience” and give a few concrete examples?Answer 16 In the parliamentary letter “Resilience against hybrid and military threats” sent on 6 December last year, resilience is defined as follows: a solid, resilient society can withstand shocks—regardless of what comes our way. It is a society in which government, public and private partners, civil society organizations, knowledge institutions, and citizens are as prepared as possible for societal disruption and have the ability to resist, absorb, and recover from it.<hr>Question 17 You state that the Netherlands has committed to NATO-wide Resilience Objectives. Has Parliament also approved this?Answer 17 &nbsp;At the 2023 NATO summit in Vilnius, member states committed to implementing the Resilience Objectives. These are guidelines for member states, each of which is responsible for national implementation through domestic policy. The objectives were developed under coordination by the NCTV and further elaborated in the December parliamentary letter on resilience. The next step is the development of implementation plans. A second letter will follow later this year detailing the first concrete policies.<hr>Question 18 &nbsp;Why is the current government also committed to these resilience objectives? Why is it bound by a (non-legally binding) commitment made by a former prime minister who was voted out in the last election?Answer 18 International cooperation is essential to counter threats from, among others, Russia, China, and Iran. The highest priority is credible deterrence and collective defense within NATO. NATO is an international alliance in which agreements are made and then translated into national commitments.&nbsp;The Resilience Objectives, together with the national Security Strategy and EU initiatives, form the framework for a resilient Dutch society. “A resilient democratic rule of law” is one of the main objectives in the Kingdom of the Netherlands' Security Strategy, elaborated in twelve action lines.<hr>Question 19 You refer to “national goals” in this context. What are these national goals?Answer 19 The Resilience Objectives have been integrated into the national resilience efforts as defined in the 6 December parliamentary letter. These respond to NATO agreements, as stated in the Vilnius Communiqué, to develop national goals.<hr>Question 20 Will these goals be adjusted now that we seem to be moving, under Trump's leadership, toward peace with Russia? If not, why?Answer 20 The goals are not currently being adjusted.<hr>Question 21 You mention “implementation plans.” Can Parliament receive these plans?Answer 21 Member states are free to choose the format of their implementation plans. The Resilience Objectives are being incorporated into the broader resilience policy under the leadership of the Ministers of Justice and Defence. Parliament will be informed about this in a forthcoming letter later this year.<hr>Question 22 You state that the resilience policy spans various policy areas. Which are these? Can Parliament receive a list of all policy areas affected by the resilience policy?Answer 22 The resilience policy is a government-wide effort. The relevant policy areas are listed in the 6 December parliamentary letter. The Ministers of Justice and Defence jointly coordinate the government-wide resilience policy. All ministries contribute from within their own policy responsibilities.<hr>Question 23 Which ministers, besides yourself, are also bound by the NATO objectives?Answer 23 &nbsp;The Minister of Defence and the Minister of Justice and Security (J&amp;V) indicate that, in addition to the Minister of Defence and the Minister of J&amp;V, the ministers of Economic Affairs, Infrastructure and Water Management, Justice and Security, Climate and Green Growth, Agriculture, Fisheries, Food Security and Nature, and Health, Welfare and Sport are mainly involved in the NATO Resilience Objectives. The other departments are involved as necessary to achieve the objectives.<hr>Question 24 Could you please answer these questions (at least) separately and preferably within the usual period of three weeks?Answer 24 Where applicable, the questions have been answered separately. Due to similarities between some of the questions, the answers have been combined. My apologies that the response was not sent within the usual timeframe. The interdepartmental coordination took a significant amount of time.

large_maxresdefault (65).jpg

medium_maxresdefault (65).jpg

small_maxresdefault (65).jpg

thumbnail_maxresdefault (65).jpg

Minister Agema's Shocking Answers to FVD's Questions About Secret NATO Commitments

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

Why FVD Refused to Attend Zelensky’s Speech in the Dutch Parliament - Thierry Baudet | FVD

Citizens Never Agreed to the EU - Now It's Threatening Our Sovereignty! | Van Houwelingen | FVD

Thierry Baudet SHREDS Political Dogmas in NATO Clash | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Neutrality in Times of War with Pascal Lottaz

Dutch Politics or Political Theater? Thierry Baudet vs. the Party Cartel | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Ukraine: Who is Winning? With Steven Jermy, Ian Proud and Mark Sleboda

Dutch Parliament BLOCKS Debate on Secret NATO Commitments | FVD

🏛️ The Forum &amp; Friends: CPAC, Conservatism and Trump: Jim Ferguson, Marco van den Boomgaard, Lionel

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Decolonise Europe with Edouard Husson and Ulrike Reisner

Dutch MP Pepijn van Houwelingen Demands Answers on NATO's Secret Control | FVD

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