This interesting message just came across, from J.K. Rowling, the author of Harry Potter.“I promise you this: in ten years' time, a lot of women who are now pushing the gender identity agenda will claim they were always TERFs - just like people who pretend they survived terrorist attacks when they were never even close to them.”FeminismTERF stands for Trans-Exclusionary Radical Feminist. Rowling claims that those who are now opportunistically going along with gender ideology in order to preserve their careers, status, and/or “ally” points will claim in the future that they were always critical of it. A bit like how, after World War II, almost everyone suddenly claimed to have been in the resistance.As for the truth of Rowling's claim, I strongly doubt it. There is a good chance that feminism will soon cease to exist altogether. Simply because Muslims, closely followed by orthodox Christians, are demographically overtaking the left-wing progressives: a group that is already reluctant to have children because of their ‘ecological footprint’ and ‘impact on the climate’.DocilityBut that's not what I want to talk to you about. I want to talk to you about decorum. Because what Rowling is getting at is that people are not very steadfast. They just make things up and opportunistically adopt opinions. They look around and try to imitate what they see. If an ideology is in vogue, they copy that ideology in order to ‘fit in’ and ‘not be left out’.That's a hugely important point, and I want to dwell on it with you. Just think of the experiment involving a group of people who had to estimate how long a meter is. Most of the people in the room were paid actors who deliberately exaggerated: they took a length of two meters and called it a meter. The people who were not acting went along with it and chose larger sizes, even though they knew better. The urge to conform socially proved stronger than individual judgment. &nbsp;When people are docile and copy each other just a little, widely held views are little more than echoes and mirror images. Pro-trans today, anti-trans tomorrow: it just depends on which way the wind blows, which is exactly what Rowling is pointing out. Now the question is where originality comes from. What is the source of new ideas? &nbsp;The original source of originalityHere we must refer to The Fountainhead (1943) by philosopher Ayn Rand. Literally: the eternal source, that source representing the primal point from which new insights and ideas are unlocked. Geniuses and visionaries are rare and lonely—their ideas trickle down to the masses only in small doses. Rand describes how the history of ideas is actually a war between artistic elites for the soul of the masses, who are incapable of original thinking themselves.To illustrate this, the book tells the life story of the brilliant architect Howard Roark. Through this character's struggles, the author shows how an idea, however valuable, cannot simply enjoy social interest. There is a whole power structure surrounding this, because ideas have to pass through a tollgate of social gatekeepers. Decorum: the pivotal point&nbsp;Now we have come to the point I want to discuss with you: decorum. Because, as just described, those ideas are either made important and visible, or they are ignored and pushed to the margins. It does not matter how talented the artist is. Roark is surrounded by mediocre architects who win all kinds of awards, while he is overlooked.Most people have little internal baggage, and when they hear a piece of music or analyze architecture, for example, they have no idea on what basis to judge it. They have no feeling for the internal qualities that elevate a work above mediocrity. So they think: the musician performed on a talk show, stood on a stage, I'm sure I won't make a fool of myself if I affiliate myself with this.This situation is very similar to what Paul Cliteur observed about the policy of bookstores in the Netherlands: books expressing the views of Jesse Klaver and Femke Halsema are displayed next to the cash register, while right-wing books are tucked away in a corner at the back of the store. This is all a deliberate tactic to establish normality through the decorum of placement. &nbsp;Cristiano Ronaldo &amp; Joshua BellTwo more examples to underscore this point. World-famous soccer player Cristiano Ronaldo disguised himself as a random guy and started playing soccer with people on the street. He did all his famous tricks, but at most attracted the attention of a child, while the rest walked by unsuspectingly. When he revealed himself, many wanted to take a picture with him...World-famous violinist Joshua Bell played in the subway and barely attracted any attention from passers-by. They did not notice his exceptional talent, even though he had sold out a theatre in Boston the day before, where attendees paid a hundred dollars for a seat.These two examples prove that it is the setting, the stage—whether it be the soccer field of professional soccer or the theatre—that allows the masses to recognize and appreciate talent as talent. Whoever possesses the setting possesses the power to determine the future of culture.&nbsp;Relationship marketIt is no coincidence that Rowling is talking about women. Renzo Verwer wrote about the love market and noted that musicians have a lot of sex, simply because the musician is on stage and, by virtue of his profession, is the centre of attention. This automatically means validation and appreciation from the group. Verwer wrote something like: “Pick up that instrument, step onto the stage, and start playing; you'll see how the breasts and buttocks sway your way as if by magic.”&nbsp;And if I have to translate this into my own context, I can only confirm it. Where did I meet my girlfriends? I once spoke about my book at the FVD’s youth wing, I presented a book at FVD itself, and I spoke in the Provincial Council chamber. Relationships arose from this, and it is certainly no coincidence that all those contacts started from an unequal relationship. I was the ‘expert’, the writer, the speaker, and the women in question were organisers or visitors.&nbsp;Evolution and social approvalAfterwards, the ladies naturally deny that it had anything to do with decorum, but it's all too coincidental for that. I would even dare to say that many of them have more of a relationship with decorum than with the man in question.If we look at evolution, men can survive outside the group a little more easily than women: it is also the men who break away from groups and find new ones, thus ensuring an influx of fresh genes. So it is not surprising that women are even more dependent on group consensus and group validation than men in terms of their actions and thinking. Their default mode is often to first gauge what the group thinks about something and only then come to an individual judgment. &nbsp;Destroy the enemy's decorumNo matter how brilliant or talented you are, Cristiano Ronaldo and Joshua Bell prove that it will not be noticed unless you start with decorum. That is the only starting point for building something with a chance of success. The same applies to relationships, because women still long for a man they can admire. And that admiration is often not something that comes from their own “inner source,” their inner “fountainhead,” but something they copy from what they see manifested as social consensus.The lesson here is that you don't win the debate by presenting better arguments and facts. The audience has little idea what you're talking about. They judge based on superficialities: “Gosh, that cute blonde lady in the audience looks happy (or unhappy) when he speaks.” If you want to win the battle, you have to destroy your opponent's decorum. &nbsp;

small_historic-meeting-room-stockcake.jpg

thumbnail_historic-meeting-room-stockcake.jpg

From Rowling to Ronaldo: the all-determining power of decorum

Thierry Baudet has requested that the House of Representatives return from recess to hold an emergency debate on the trade deal concluded between Ursula von der Leyen for the EU and President Trump. This deal, which includes 15% tariffs on Dutch exports to the US, and an obligation for Europe to purchase $750 billion worth of American energy, is disastrous for the Dutch economy and sovereignty.The House must take action on this as soon as possible. FVD is counting on the support of all other political parties.&nbsp;See below for the letter sent by Baudet.<hr>&nbsp;Dear Party Leaders,On behalf of the Forum for Democracy party, I urgently call on you and your parties to support a request for an emergency debate in the House of Representatives, before the end of the current recess. The reason for this is the recent trade deal which Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission, concluded with US President Donald Trump on July 27, 2025. This deal, which includes 15% tariffs on EU exports to the United States and an obligation for the EU to purchase $750 billion worth of American energy, poses a direct threat to the Dutch economy, sovereignty, and interests. Given the urgency of this matter, which cannot wait until after the recess, I ask you to submit this request jointly to the Speaker of the House of Representatives.The urgency of this emergency debate cannot be underestimated. The deal was concluded while the House of Representatives was in recess, without any prior consultation with national parliaments or a democratic mandate from the member states. With a deadline of August 1 for further implementation, the Netherlands is at risk of facing irreversible economic damage in the short term. If we do not take action now, the government will be forced to accept this agreement, leading to higher costs for Dutch citizens and businesses. This emergency debate is essential to hold the government accountable and discuss possible countermeasures before the deal is finally ratified and the damage is irreparable.The disadvantages for the Netherlands are numerous and far-reaching. Firstly, the 15% tariffs on EU exports will deal a severe blow to our export-oriented economy. As one of the largest exporters within the EU, the Netherlands will suffer disproportionately from these barriers: sectors such as agriculture, chemicals, technology, and mechanical engineering—accounting for billions of euros in annual exports to the US—will see their competitive position seriously weakened. This will lead to job losses, higher prices for consumers, and a contraction of the Dutch economy, which is already under pressure from inflation and energy crises.In addition, the deal forces the EU to make massive purchases of American energy, which makes the Netherlands dependent on foreign suppliers and undermines our energy independence. Instead of investing in our own energy sources, such as our own Groningen gas field and the construction of nuclear power plants, we are forced to spend billions on American fossil fuels. The Netherlands has sufficient fossil reserves and potential for nuclear energy to be self-sufficient, but this deal blocks those possibilities and keeps us trapped in dependence on imports. This will lead to higher energy prices for Dutch households and industry, and increase our vulnerability to geopolitical fluctuations.Moreover, this deal underscores the fundamental problems of the EU: von der Leyen acts as an unelected bureaucrat without taking national interests into account, further eroding Dutch sovereignty. The Netherlands is paying the price for a compromise that mainly benefits larger EU countries, while we, as a smaller nation, are disproportionately affected. This is a wake-up call: we must reclaim our own trade policy and no longer allow Brussels to make deals that harm us.In order to force this urgent debate, we need at least 30 signatures from members of parliament, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Forum for Democracy will submit this request to the Speaker and calls on you to participate by signing and encouraging your fellow party members to do the same. Let us act together to protect the interests of the Netherlands. I propose that this urgent debate be scheduled as soon as possible.Yours sincerely,&nbsp;Thierry Baudet &nbsp;

large_01K1G23NDGNR0HHDNJW8T6N2N4.webp

medium_01K1G23NDGNR0HHDNJW8T6N2N4.webp

small_01K1G23NDGNR0HHDNJW8T6N2N4.webp

thumbnail_01K1G23NDGNR0HHDNJW8T6N2N4.webp

Thierry Baudet calls on Parliament to return to debate the EU-Trump trade deal 

The Dutch Parliament has gone into summer recess but FVD’s parliamentarians and friends continue to be active. Eric van de Beek, a journalist with De Andere Krant (The Other Newspaper) has published a concise English version of his earlier books on the MH-17 affair – the Malaysian airliner which crashed in Ukraine in 2014 and which the West accused the Russians of shooting down. Eric is convinced that the evidence does not support this claim, which played a key role in ramping up support for the Ukrainians in the aftermath of the Maidan coup in February 2014, and at a time when Kiev was hammering the Donbass militarily causing horrific civilian casualties (which no one heard about at the time or since). &nbsp;Eric is the only journalist to have followed every day of the trial of four Russian and Ukrainian defendants in a Dutch court – the only one of the four who defended himself was acquitted - and is convinced that the court’s conviction of the other three is unsafe.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/new-book-the-mh-17-trial">Read about Eric van de Beek's book here</a>&nbsp;<img src="/uploads/unnamed_670038199d.jpg">Friends of FVD include people who have kindly appeared on <a href="https://email.email.fvd.nl/c/eJxEzDtuxCAQANDTQGkxmOFTUESKuAcMgzbSskQYr-XbR6m2fcWrEdxOJDmCQ-0QrVHyERnQepubzoFLVs1DrRRMLQHA6sDyJ-aAij2XsjvnbW2IqgI2y54sUgNhVHvX7fWUz_hY6_cQ-5fQSeh0Xdd2j3OdhTca_R-NSmOevY35zX3QzHQLnY41OfdDzlgmv9ZnfEf9FwAA__9VJji_">The Forum</a>, our weekly video podcast, or whose articles we are honoured to re-publish. &nbsp;Two of these, Professor Glenn Diesen of the University of South-East Norway and former Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, have recently recorded a podcast as part of Glenn Diesen’s ‘Greater Eurasia’ series. &nbsp;Their discussion ranged over many issues but concentrated on Europe, wokeism and the Ukraine war. &nbsp;Klaus is an exceptional figure who has spoken at FVD’s Renaissance Institute and whom FVD International's director, John Laughland, has known since the 1990s, while Glenn Diesen is making his name as one of the leading commentators on international affairs.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8iCVr1L2cLs">Watch the Klaus-Diesen discussion here</a>&nbsp;<img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfU5LDCYFr2HhLtFWh9YflI8mrl3xGF1vxIs649kg7y0WS9GJ4odterQ98pu2_kyY3c0EaJI5IL7c4ZZDo81oRF3Qh8vx-jUbC_Dw5bcdcjc477XA6jtvu-ApKkpKSWhMU5rwkj?key=Ss9EarHbtBeyDA_RDrKo_g"><img src="/uploads/unnamed_8551cd2f4e.png">And while on the subject of exceptional figures, we were delighted to have Ulrike Guérot as our guest on The Forum this week. Ulrike is an emblematic figure of our time. &nbsp;A graduate of German universities and Sciences-Po in Paris, she has spent her career as a political scientist and in various think-tanks including the German Marshall Fund and the European Council on Foreign Relations. &nbsp;In short, hers has been a successful establishment trajectory. &nbsp;Things started to go wobbly when she questioned the draconian Covid restrictions in 2020 – you see, she believes in democracy and the rule of law – but then severely downhill when she started to call for peace with Russia after 2022. &nbsp;This has led to her dismissal as professor of European politics at the University of Bonn – she is a victim of Europe’s new authoritarianism. Ulrike is convinced that Europe will survive only if its political structure – whatever that is – encompasses the whole of the European continent, i.e. including its largest country which the EU is determined to exclude.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbph8oZXYc&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_221117132059-mh17-verdict-111722.jpg

medium_221117132059-mh17-verdict-111722.jpg

small_221117132059-mh17-verdict-111722.jpg

thumbnail_221117132059-mh17-verdict-111722.jpg

 The Weekly Forum - 17 July

On 17 July 2014, flight MH17 was shot down over Ukraine. All 298 passengers, most of them Dutch, were killed. The JIT investigation team was unable to find out who fired the shot, on whose orders it was done and why. However, the District Court of The Hague convicted two Russians and one Ukrainian. They were allegedly involved in the application and transport of the murder weapon. A fourth suspect, Oleg Pulatov, was acquitted.Is it true that MH17 was shot down by a Russian missile? Or should the perpetrators be sought elsewhere? The author of the book ‘The MH17 Trial’ is the only journalist to have attended or viewed all 69 hearings of the MH17 criminal case. He discusses all the evidence presented by the public prosecutor – and the defence that Pulatov's lawyers put forward against his prosecution.Eric van de Beek is an investigative journalist. He studied journalism at Windesheim University and philosophy at the University of Amsterdam. For years he worked as a journalist for Dutch leading weekly Elsevier. He currently writes for Dutch weekly De Andere Krant and produces news items for broadcaster Ongehoord Nederland. Van de Beek published two Dutch language books about the MH17 plane crash. In 2024 he won the Dutch Julian Assange Prize 'for public service’.Order it <a href="https://www.boekenbestellen.nl/ePUB/the-mh17-trial/9789090404004?lang=en">here</a>.<hr>&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/Gvx_NSZTXAAA_1h9_J_066a4f9036.jpeg"></figure>Eric van de Beek has covered Dutch involvement in the MH17 coverup like a junkyard dog – in the tradition of the late Robert Parry. Ray McGovern, former CIA officerThe book on the MH17 case by Dutch journalist Eric van de Beek is a splendid example of how investigative journalism should work. A ‘must read’ for all those who expect from journalism critical questioning and solid analysis. Cees J. Hamelink, emeritus professor International Communication, University of AmsterdamI’m very thankful to Eric for writing this book. If you want to be informed, this book is of inestimable value. Anouk van Toulon van der Koog, surviving relativeThorough investigative work and represented very adequate As a retired detective from the Belgian Federal Judicial Police, I could not have done better. Eduard Baekelmans, former police officer

large_GTY_MH17_2_MEM_151013_16x9_1600.jpg

medium_GTY_MH17_2_MEM_151013_16x9_1600.jpg

small_GTY_MH17_2_MEM_151013_16x9_1600.jpg

thumbnail_GTY_MH17_2_MEM_151013_16x9_1600.jpg

New book: The MH17 Trial

Following the 2023 elections in the Netherlands, a government was formed on the basis of a coalition agreement between four parties. Its budgetary provisions included a 300 million euro cut in pandemic preparedness. It was on the basis of this agreement – validated by Parliament - that the government took office. At some later point, however, the health minister was informed – by the NCTV counter-terrorism service, no less – that NATO obligations prevented the cut from being made. When FVD put down questions about these obligations, the government replied that they were secret - because NATO insists they be secret. In other words, the policy and spending decisions of NATO member states, including on domestic issues like health, are not taken by the elected government but instead in secret behind the backs of Parliament and therefore the electorate. You would have thought this would cause an outrage in the Chamber. But when FVD MP Pepijn van Houwelingen asked for a debate on this very obvious ‘black hole at the heart of our democracy’, a majority of parties voted against any debate on the matter. What are they trying to hide?<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkymzV-S5H4&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch Pepijn’s speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfpSPe4Z1AFPpwX-KXBrgmD-qZtGRhaifO_kmd2GDa5Dndm5fhxUBU2Hhh9qzJFDSnBBVSLXFny7LU_9pRcyPAn2RcFTs12TPhJx2WkkAT4OBQrzYTq1Tw2AUdVkzrFKqA7G_0x?key=Ss9EarHbtBeyDA_RDrKo_g">Is there similar central control over energy policy? Just as Britain and France are making policy choices which will drive up the cost of energy and therefore drive down prosperity and growth, the Netherlands is doing the same. How can we be sure that global warming (if that is what it is) is caused by man and by CO2? Might it not be that warming is instead the cause of higher CO2 levels and not the result? The climate hysteria is all the more mysterious because even the International Panel on Climate Change, one of the main bodies pushing that hysteria, admits that there is no increase in extreme weather events like hurricanes or floods.&nbsp; Nonetheless, green policies are being pursued which will make energy more expensive – as even the poor minister, under rigorous questioning from Pepijn, was forced to admit. So people will become poorer because of an unproven scientific hypothesis.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm31CUChWmQ&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch Pepijn cross-examine the energy minister here (translated by AI)</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfU5LDCYFr2HhLtFWh9YflI8mrl3xGF1vxIs649kg7y0WS9GJ4odterQ98pu2_kyY3c0EaJI5IL7c4ZZDo81oRF3Qh8vx-jUbC_Dw5bcdcjc477XA6jtvu-ApKkpKSWhMU5rwkj?key=Ss9EarHbtBeyDA_RDrKo_g">FVD party leader Thierry Baudet, FVD Senator Joris van den Oetelaar and FVD International director John Laughland were the guests in Vienna this week of Heinz-Christian Strache, former Vice-Chancellor of Austria, for a meeting organised by the international Patriots network. In his speech, Thierry emphasised that power does not come from politics but instead from the media and business. Money talks. The speakers agreed that remigration was essential but differed on questions of international politics, especially on the notion of ‘Western civilisation’, which Thierry said was code for the American empire, and on the conflict in the Middle East. You can watch the debate, in German - if necessary using the ‘automatic translate’ function on Youtube.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/wo9kyHKt8b8">Watch the Vienna debate here (Thierry starts at 25.35)</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeuaElA8iFcqqZToOMxhEAxRzDnFT9Op00gX9-uvhhJFpPEUmFJNuYNBov8-aJsGOHFxJHy7XRpo_8j9UqaQDlMyrU9BYzWRgkW6bPm0iSLnx84r2W48_B5OrtSnlUs1RfMVaxcLw?key=Ss9EarHbtBeyDA_RDrKo_g">Eva Bartlett, who lived in Gaza for several years, was our guest on The Forum this week and shared with us her experience of the decades of suffering there before the Hamas attacks of 2023. If you missed it, listen back below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKbph8oZXYc&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 10 July.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 10 July.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 10 July.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 10 July.png

The Weekly Forum - 10 July

Frans Timmermans, the former European Commissioner and veteran Dutch politician, may no longer look like Father Christmas (he has lost a lot of weight) but he still believes in fairy tales. In a recent exchange with Thierry Baudet in the Second Chamber of the Netherlands Parliament, he repeatedly claimed that Europe and the West embody law and stability, while Russia deploys the politics of force and subversion. This conviction is so deeply held that no facts can even dent it. The numerous&nbsp; wars of aggression waged by NATO and NATO states in the last quarter of a century do not count, for him, as acts of de-stabilisation; the US bombing of the European owned Nord Stream pipelines in 2022 does not, for him, threaten European prosperity. The events in Ukraine from 2014 onwards are all Russia’s fault while Europe and America watched from the sidelines. The reason why such fairy tales are believed with such intensity is that they are comforting. Unfortunately, comforting illusions cease to be so when they lead Europe, as now, into war – a war from which there will never be a way out if we listen to people like Timmermans who remain trapped in ideology, unable to confront the world as it really is.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JCDZSu9xaic&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch Thierry’s debate with Timmermans here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXcsp5RrxUatxjiLnXcHSIFZV-qp_aCnYdtkDMGk5hvPj_kRlajbj27baQ63Lg5iPrpoEeqTyyRDZN1KWF3PLToqlhd7GEDYMez8HRiUlYeoaMbFXtp5RGTHseIXrjGv3yBNYLq9NQ?key=hsmLJAJLaTzfEH3VeTlGGg">FVD believes that the EU, and other international institutions, are not only not the solution but also the very core of the problem. Just as ex-Royal Navy commodore Steven Jermy says of NATO that it exists to confront the threats created by its own existence, so FVD’s MP Gideon van Meijeren argued in Parliament recently that the war, uncontrolled immigration and economic malaise from which Europe suffers is not something the EU can solve but which it itself produces. This is because, being detached from popular sovereignty – and indeed regarding popular sovereignty with contempt – the EU is not based on interest but instead on ideology. Only FVD tackles problems that are their very root.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4iSM8ec7wVw">Watch Gideon’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXehJa6iiqIf6-x3_dRzf7KmC82zrA0X92zBmOpP6iiWIRWL09U72yPtbYWSKBLhLm16k3jJxKXzWt_v7wXuGf879nCXpSHbwgshXpWKZHg9xQsfX4KGuoK8TUDg2a3za3qwktjV?key=hsmLJAJLaTzfEH3VeTlGGg">So the question is, can any problems be solved while remaining in the EU?&nbsp; FVD has often taken Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party to task for having abandoned Nexit in its last election manifesto. Gideon van Meijeren questioned a PVV minister about this and she was clearly embarrassed at what appears to be opportunism: Nexit was ditched so that the PVV could enter the government. The PVV governed for over a year but was unable to control the very immigration against which it has campaigned for a quarter of a century. Oscar Wilde said that the advantage of having principles is that you can sacrifice them in the name of expediency. But the PVV’s sorry record shows that you do not win political battles by capitulating even before you have fought them.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8kZ_ptgzpI">Watch Gideon tackle the PVV here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXe6rWhPIMkIYnqgOQufCguAbPOCg6hD1r1ul-g2-6H-DojGHGzeR5iOe9dDvG97On_RUJ4Zo12hwPe6sZvM1jMxd00PUjkmPA1KIbypLV3xqMBnKaqKh-DS8izUroHO98kHboT63w?key=hsmLJAJLaTzfEH3VeTlGGg">The formidable Kit Klarenberg was our main guest on The Forum this week, talking about his special subject – the nefarious role played by the British secret services in their mission to maintain American hegemony. He claims that their determination is to create chaos in order to maintain American hegemony which, in turn, gives Britain a role in the world - as lapdog.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhLFdJP2A8E&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 3 July.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 3 July.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 3 July.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 3 July.png

The Weekly Forum - 3 July

One of the most arresting phenomena of modern politics is that politicians believe they can influence the climate and foreign wars, when in fact they cannot even manage their own ministries. FVD has recently demonstrated how the anti-immigrant immigration minister presided over record immigration last year. This week, Pepijn van Houwelingen showed how the Finance Minister, supposedly a liberal, has been unable to limit or reduce state spending and borrowing, or even to respect the rules governing how many&nbsp; expensive external employees work for the Finance Ministry. The current figure is twice the 10% ceiling. Meanwhile state debt is exploding and, with it, interest payments and the tax burden for future generations. A large part of the problem comes from international organisations which suck ever greater sums out of member states - especially European ones even though they do not have any spare cash – in the name of global governance which, in fact, does not work. Politicians cannot control the things they do, in fact, govern - while they pretend to govern things which they cannot control.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TpoE5l9ITo&amp;t=4s">Watch Pepijn’s speech here (translated by AI)</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeBLkUxC8JLkj919mstucTxCBtrF5kVO13I0MQ10wyToZIgEMIAHLdkWqv0N_GXORy7wAvwR1we0MztYknk5F5S16mlh1bxOJOyP9LYtNRr5o_7vv4ZlXd1CWJNWvAstDdePKOqig?key=ZsHcDvqTVkwepgJb_pmu7Q">International politics are thus a looking-glass parallel universe in which politicians can escape the hard slog of actual government. It is much more difficult to balance a budget than to attend a summit. This is why international politics has become a stage on which powerless puppets like to strut. President Zelensky of Ukraine spends most of his time abroad, most recently attending the NATO summit in The Hague and addressing the Dutch parliament. FVD was the only party to refuse to attend this latest piece of political theatre. Thierry Baudet explains that the national democratic representation of the Dutch people is not an appropriate forum for political grandstanding by foreign leaders. The near unanimous support for Zelensky’s speech only underlines the unreality of foreign policy – everyone (except FVD) agrees, precisely because it is make-believe.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDj5PwnNdag&amp;t=12s">Watch Thierry’s video here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXetVRhirPQu2NgAD6eCzCG7ith1puC0Bcg8jg22txTTQQ9z90ID9zKAEgeyIkpsfuzcbEq8KX0eST9TLtL_vHk-h7E12BtqBZ_x9t1_CmBYwRZnwt3-I2oApWG6WN5vqYbbiU2YoQ?key=ZsHcDvqTVkwepgJb_pmu7Q">There are surely few better examples of make-believe in international politics than the recent US bombing of Iran. Trump used this to create a narrative of victory both for his own purposes and as a cover for the Israeli desire for a ceasefire. As the bombs fell, the usual war hawks unleashed a barrage of hatred for the Iranian regime which has been in their crosshairs since 1979. Israel itself promoted regime change by calling its attack on Iran ‘rising lion’, a reference to the old royalist flag of Iran. But, as Stephen Baskerville explains, this is not the way to deal with Iran. Despite its name, the Islamic Republic is not ideologically fundamentalist but instead only the latest incarnation of a very ancient Iranian (Persian) state and nation. The sense of nationhood is stronger than the religious ideology, just as it was in the English and American revolutions. As such, the notion of regime change is ludicrously unrealistic – and indeed, for the time being, seems to have been defeated.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/better-ways-to-deal-with-iran">Read Stephen Baskerville’s article here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfLmcqb4p5FaTBsdEYnIjgrVv6wsU-p06pf01kTzPAexkJdog-pOScDHFFdXhPunz7yebFOx4e-baycRBg7kLwxm4YzGU4ygs6cKJ2Dr0pXZZ6oJw_lFMsnCPugm92S8MLc6z_iFQ?key=ZsHcDvqTVkwepgJb_pmu7Q">We discussed Iran on The Forum this week with security and political analyst, Ali Rizk, and former ambassador and human rights campaigner, Craig Murray. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wuT2a4XVrRU&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 27 June.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 27 June.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 27 June.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 27 June.png

The Weekly Forum - 27 June

Ayatollah_Ali_Khamenei_casting_his_vote_for_2017_election_3.jpg

small_Ayatollah_Ali_Khamenei_casting_his_vote_for_2017_election_3.jpg

thumbnail_Ayatollah_Ali_Khamenei_casting_his_vote_for_2017_election_3.jpg

Better Ways to Deal with Iran

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

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: The MH17 Trial with Eric van de Beek

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Europe's New Authoritarianism with Ulrike Guérot

Green Policies = Economic Suicide - Pepijn van Houwelingen vs Climate Minister Hermans (VVD) | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Life and Death in Gaza with Eva Bartlett

NATO Overrules Dutch Parliament - Pepijn van Houwelingen | FVD

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: The Role of the UK Secret Services in Global Politics with Kit Klarenberg

'The EU is at the CORE of Our Problems' - Gideon van Meijeren | FVD

Power vs Law: Thierry Baudet Clashes with Frans Timmermans (GL/PvdA) | FVD

No More Open Borders: NEXIT Now! - Gideon van Meijeren To The PVV | FVD

Even More Dutch Money to NATO &amp; the EU?! - Pepijn van Houwelingen | 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