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

large_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

medium_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

small_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

thumbnail_01K9S098AFMAQM5V32X2KPYBT0.webp

Eurobonds: the Rubicon for European Unification

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

large_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

medium_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

small_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

thumbnail_01K9D6TVP0NJQN3VENTCAD5S6D.webp

Lidewij de Vos in Conversation with Wouter Koolmees about Government Formation

Forum for Democracy does not present itself as a Christian party. So why would I, as a Christian, pass over parties such as the CDA, the Christian Union, and even the SGP, to give this party my vote and to be active within it? Below are a few fundamental considerations that, for me, have been decisive.<h3>1. Since the Enlightenment, God Has Been Declared Dead</h3>It is highly doubtful whether the spirit of the Enlightenment has truly passed the Church by. Perhaps I exaggerate, but I sometimes fear that with the passing of Cornelis Graafland, we also lost the last Reformed believer still earnestly searching for God.Today, the Church seems full of people who imagine they have God – reverently speaking – in their pocket, and who live from the prayer:&nbsp;“Thank you that I am not like those others…” From that mindset, they engage in politics – if necessary invoking the Old Testament (as in the SGP, where the prophets have been replaced by appeals to Romans 13) or the Gospels (as in the Christian Union, which places everything on the card of imitating Christ).In fact, there is only one party that ruthlessly exposes such well-intentioned yet shallow political theology, and that is Forum for Democracy.Too often, God is identified with the state. We ourselves are reduced to compliant citizens (as in the SGP and among CDA figures like Tijs van den Brink, who “want to be able to trust the government”). Others reduce God in Jesus to a kind of moral reformer whom we must simply emulate for the sake of harmony and social peace (as in the Christian Union and the CDA).Forum for Democracy alone, I believe, tears through this kind of sentimental political theology. My experience over recent years is that many within the party are again searching for the God behind Jesus – the God who cannot be identified with any state or supranational body: the God who was wrongly declared dead, the almighty and gracious Creator of heaven and earth.<h3>2. The Tension Between&nbsp;Already and&nbsp;Not Yet</h3>I called the political theology of much of today’s Christian politics shallow because it no longer seems able to sustain the essential Christian tension between the&nbsp;already and the&nbsp;not yet of redemption. Since God was declared dead, humanity has decided to take His creative work into its own hands, to perfect the world according to its own desires. Every supposed problem is immediately politicised, and responsibility for solving it is eagerly handed to supranational authorities.What is especially striking is that this kind of politics is now supported by Christians – with only faint protest from the SGP.<blockquote>We see Christians joining hands with secularists to bring about, once and for all, the Kingdom of God, or at least God’s realm of peace, here on earth.</blockquote>This aspiration surfaces in many areas. In health, through Pandemic Treaties and mRNA vaccines, we seek to make the human body so resilient that viruses can no longer touch it. In climate policy, through Green Deals and energy transitions, we strive to become masters of the processes of climate change.To preserve the sustainability of our welfare state, the UN now proposes, under the banner of&nbsp;Replacement Migration, policies that seem to undo the scattering of nations after the Tower of Babel. This is then facilitated here through the&nbsp;European Migration and Asylum Pact. And as if that were not enough, our politicians have also pledged themselves to the&nbsp;Sustainable Development Goals, promising to eradicate poverty and inequality once and for all.Forum for Democracy recognises here – often intuitively, sometimes very consciously – a form of politics that runs counter to the foundations of our Judeo-Christian civilisation: the conviction that this earthly life cannot be perfected through human effort. A politics that seeks to establish God’s peaceable kingdom on earth must, therefore, be rejected as heretical.Whether we speak of the heresy of Pelagianism (E.P. Meijering), Anabaptist radicalism (A.A. van Ruler), or Gnosticism (Eric Voegelin) makes little difference. All are driven by a pride that inevitably comes before the fall.<h3>3. On Pride and Naivety</h3>Is it really necessary to accuse today’s Christian politics of something as dreadful as pride? Personally, I always try to assume good intentions. Yet history has shown often enough that the road to hell is paved with them (F.A. Hayek).<blockquote>This raises the question of whether, during the recent pandemic, the power of our God-given immune system was not seriously underestimated.</blockquote>When, with the very best intentions, one is blind to the harmful side effects of one’s own policies, that is naivety. You can reproach secular people for that, but not believing Christians who still know their own tradition. And when such Christians dismiss prophetic voices that warn of these side effects as sinister populists, praying meanwhile,&nbsp;“Thank you that I am not like these…”, then that surely borders on pride.As Christians, we must not close our eyes to the negative side effects – long predicted by critics – of government measures during the coronavirus period, including the universal vaccination campaign. Again, it is worth asking whether the strength of our Creator-given immune system was not systematically underestimated.As a result of our climate policies, energy poverty has risen alarmingly.&nbsp; Grid congestion has compounded economic and social harm by limiting business activity and house-building. Meanwhile, scientists tell us that the effect of these measures on climate change is negligible, while we risk slowing the greening of our planet. A wiser course would be to combine our stewardship of creation with a deep awareness of our smallness before God and the natural forces He created, the forces we now group together under the word&nbsp;climate.Nor should we ignore the negative effects of current migration policy. The alienation many migrants feel, with all the risks of radicalisation among second and third generations, remains underestimated. Beyond the social disruption in local communities, public safety is also deteriorating, particularly for women and for sexual and ethnic minorities in large cities. The same applies to tolerance and to the mutual trust on which it depends.What I encounter within Forum for Democracy are people suffering from the emptiness that the “death of God” has left in our everyday lives.Even when it comes to the negative consequences of well-intentioned policy, Forum for Democracy is the party that most consistently identifies them and puts forward alternatives.<blockquote>What I see in Forum are people who feel the ache of that void – who are again searching for the God once recognised as the source of life and the guiding point of our civilisation.&nbsp;</blockquote>At the same time, they see a politics that seeks to fill this emptiness by claiming for itself the role once reserved for God before the Enlightenment. Where that leads, the European and world wars have already shown us all too clearly.Yet the allure of a politics that aims to establish God’s kingdom of peace on earth remains strong. Within Forum there is a deep mistrust of such politics. That mistrust leads the party, for now, to prefer a stance of principled opposition, continually questioning the worldview that underpins the present political order.It is tragic that parties which so often invoke the Bible and call for the imitation of Jesus no longer seem to have any sensitivity to this. More tragic still: they frequently display the same impulse to demonise as secular parties. But as with so much else,&nbsp;you only begin to see it once you realise it.That is why I can, with a clear conscience and full conviction, be active within Forum for Democracy.

medium_hans-van-de-breevaart_.jpg

small_hans-van-de-breevaart_.jpg

thumbnail_hans-van-de-breevaart_.jpg

Why I, as a Christian, Support Forum for Democracy

Lidewij de Vos was interviewed by Ongehoord Nederland (Unheard Netherlands) shortly after the result was announced in the recent Dutch national elections. She reiterated her desire to see a technical government with decisions taken by shifting majorities in the Second Chamber of the Dutch States-General (the parliament). Unfortunately, for the time being, it looks as if the usual suspects – the parties which have governed the country for at least the last decade – will get together in a huddle and eventually produce a coalition which continues all the failed policies already in place - especially the EU, climate policy and the war in Ukraine. Moreover, they will not implement FVD’s primary demand - the introduction of binding referenda into the Dutch constitution. In short, they will do everything to shut out popular and parliamentary involvement in government, in order remorselessly to pursue the globalist project. The system has a lot of life left in it.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0fXWkJqfGo">Watch Lidewij’s interview here (translated by AI)</a><img src="/uploads/image_56540f2bea.png">FVD International’s director, John Laughland, gave an interview about the Dutch elections to the French TV station, TV Libertés, which has given prominence to FVD on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ArYkdNVJjA#t=4m59s">several</a> occasions in the past. (Thierry Baudet was interviewed by the channel&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wLDDckwAW0A">last year</a>.) John said that the election was above all a defeat for the PVV of Geert Wilders, which has governed the country for over a year. Just as many FVD voters voted for Wilders in 2023, so they have returned to FVD now. FVD is not just a more radical party than the PVV but also more structured. PVV campaigns on only one issue and has only one member (Wilders himself) whereas FVD covers a wide range of subjects and tries to solve problems at their root. As for the D66 party which formally won the elections, this is yet another iteration of the kind of political marketing stings we have seen repeatedly over recent decades, in particular with Barack Obama and Emmanuel Macron: youthfulness, change, hope, Europe, blah blah blah. Plus ça change…<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0hIi0Al9kM">Watch John’s interview here (in French)</a><img src="/uploads/image_a32527583f.png">One of the issues which distinguishes FVD from the PVV is remigration.&nbsp; FVD is for it, PVV is not. FVD International is delighted to republish an in-depth paper by our friend and Forum guest, Cyan Quinn. She argues that the Great Replacement of the American population is due to deliberate policy, in particular the Hart-Celler Act of 1965 which eliminated restrictions on the national origin of immigrants and instead imposed overall quotas, independent of ethnic origin. As Cyan puts it very pointedly, the authors of this Act, and those who have supported a colour-blind immigration policy since, have ‘sold the nation out for cheap labour for their corporate donors, cheap nannies for their career obsessed wives and cheap gardeners for their lavish suburban gardens.’ Strong stuff.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/The-once-and-future-america">Read Cyan Quinn’s paper here</a><img src="/uploads/image_245e9eafb3.png">We had an exceptional guest on The Forum this week, Diego Sequera, who joined us live from Caracas. Will Trump invade Venezuela or is this another example of TACO – Trump always chickens out? Either way, US foreign policy is a sh*t show.&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WBir9dDZKjw">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_unnamed (4).jpg

medium_unnamed (4).jpg

small_unnamed (4).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (4).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 10 November 2025

Forum for Democracy had a fabulous result in the parliamentary elections held on 29 October – 7 seats, up from 3 in the previous parliament. This more than doubling of our score is a source of great joy and&nbsp; the trajectory is hugely encouraging, testimony (we hope) to the intellectual rigour of our party and to its exceptional&nbsp;esprit de corps.FVD is a radical party – from&nbsp;radix in Latin, the root. We try to go to the root of problems. Asked about a future government coalition, FVD lead candidate Lidewij de Vos came up with a radical proposal: let’s forget about the shady world of coalition building, in which party grandees horse-trade parts of their manifesto for months on end in order to get control of this or that ministry and then exclude the rest of the Members of Parliament as ‘the opposition’. Let us instead have neutral (technocratic) ministers with policy choices made by Parliament on a case by case basis. According to this plan, the government would implement decisions taken in Parliament or by referendum, instead of the current arrangement where a shaky coalition takes all the decisions until it collapses.Now, there’s a novel plan!<a href="https://www.youtube.com/shorts/pVOzbUhzq48">Watch Lidewij’s interview here</a><img src="/uploads/image_a0d0b485e5.png">Academic freedom, like free speech, is in need of permanent defence.&nbsp; Unfortunately the battle is currently not going well. The ‘liberal fascists’ (Jonah Goldberg) are waging a largely successful war against ‘disinformation’ – their favourite go-to phrase to condemn or ban any view with which they disagree. Emmanuel Macron in France is vowing to ‘take control’ of social media - an explicitly anti-democratic project. This is surely because generations have been educated to think this way. As Thomas Fazi has recently shown in a magnificent report for MCC Brussels, the EU spends tens of millions of euros supporting EU propaganda in universities through the Jean Monnet programme. As he shows, these so-called academics are in fact pushing an explicitly pro-EU agenda and therefore structuring the minds of young people to believe unquestioningly in the EU project.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/embedding-pro-eu-propaganda-in-the-classroom-the-jean-monnet-programme">Read Thomas Fazi’s article here</a><img src="/uploads/image_91c130d1a6.png">We conclude our mini-series of interviews conducted by Marco van den Boomgard on a recent trip to Croatia with a conversation with Stephen Bartulica MEP, a Croatian nationalist and Christian politician who shares many of FVD’s views on traditional values and the EU. Bartulica grew up in the USA and therefore promotes both social conservatism and limited government, his perfect English bringing a clear and unaccented breath of Central European values into the European Parliament, the very temple of their emphatic rejection.&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sKNNgJ9JsHI">Watch Marco’s interview with Stephen Bartulica here</a><img src="/uploads/image_f07423d738.png">It is very difficult to be objective and analytical about the Middle East, especially when you are from the region, but Ali Rizk achieves the remarkable feat of being both these and also astonishingly lucid. We were honoured to have him as our guest on The Forum this week. He was fascinating. If you missed it, listen back.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bx8VP59IeLw">Listen to The Forum here</a>

large_unnamed (3).jpg

medium_unnamed (3).jpg

small_unnamed (3).jpg

thumbnail_unnamed (3).jpg

The Weekly Forum - 3 November 2025

929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

large_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

medium_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

small_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

thumbnail_929eb70c-1495-4528-8aee-00245fc8e175_1039x727.webp

The Once And Future America

Tegucigalpa, Honduras - Honduran political leader&nbsp;Juan Diego Zelaya has issued a stark warning about growing threats to the integrity of the upcoming&nbsp;November 30 national elections.Zelaya says there are clear signs that the ruling&nbsp;LIBRE Party, led by former president&nbsp;Manuel “Mel” Zelaya, is pursuing a coordinated effort to remain in power through&nbsp;manipulation, intimidation, and potential electoral fraud.“The Venezuela Plan for Honduras is real. The threat to our democracy is real,” Zelaya declared.&nbsp;<hr><h3>Mounting Warning Signs</h3>Recent national polls show LIBRE’s presidential candidate&nbsp;Rixi Moncada trailing behind opposition contenders&nbsp;Nasry Asfura (National Party) and&nbsp;Salvador Nasralla (Liberal Party). At the same time, the ruling party is facing a series of controversies, including:<ul><li>Reports linking LIBRE officials to&nbsp;Venezuelan narco-trafficking networks. &nbsp;</li><li>The involvement of&nbsp;foreign political advisors allegedly tied to the&nbsp;Maduro regime. &nbsp;</li><li>Serious irregularities during the&nbsp;March 2025 primary elections. &nbsp;</li></ul>During those primaries, multiple polling stations were reportedly shut down due to “missing materials.” In some municipalities, only 10 out of 152 voting centers received ballots on election day. Witnesses also claim that LIBRE representatives arrived carrying&nbsp;suitcases filled with pre-marked ballots.The&nbsp;Electoral Justice Tribunal has since reported cases of&nbsp;pressure and intimidation directed at election officials by LIBRE operatives.&nbsp;<hr><h3>Disinformation and Deepfakes Enter the Picture</h3>Another concern emerged when&nbsp;Cosette López, commissioner of the&nbsp;National Electoral Council, revealed that no contracts had been awarded for key electoral infrastructure, leaving the system vulnerable.Shortly afterward, an&nbsp;audio recording appeared online, supposedly capturing López conspiring with an opposition leader to rig the vote. Independent analysis later confirmed that the recording was&nbsp;digitally altered using AI tools.Despite this, LIBRE’s attorney general publicly broadcast the fake audio without verifying its authenticity or legality.“Mel Zelaya and his allies want to stay in power by force, by manipulating institutions and crushing the people’s will,” said Juan Diego Zelaya.&nbsp;<hr><h3>A Struggle Between Democracy and Control</h3>According to Zelaya, the pattern is unmistakable: create chaos, undermine trust in the process, and then manipulate the outcome, a strategy that mirrors&nbsp;Nicolás Maduro’s playbook in Venezuela.“What happened in Venezuela is beginning to happen here,” Zelaya warned.&nbsp;<hr><h3>A Call for Massive Voter Mobilization</h3>Zelaya insists that the&nbsp;Honduran people have the ultimate power to stop an electoral takeover.“There’s one thing they can’t control: your vote. That’s why, on November 30, we must turn out in massive numbers, and defend that vote until the end.”This election is described as&nbsp;more than just a political contest, it represents a&nbsp;fight for the nation’s future.“Because without democracy, there is no change, no freedom, and no future.”Zelaya urges citizens, election observers, civil society groups, and the international community to&nbsp;demand transparency and vigilance throughout the process.&nbsp;<hr><h3>Official Call to Citizens</h3>Juan Diego Zelaya is calling on every Honduran to:<ul><li>Vote on November 30. &nbsp;</li><li>Document any irregularities with photos or videos. &nbsp;</li><li>Remain peacefully at polling centers until every vote is counted. &nbsp;</li></ul>“Honduras deserves free and fair elections, nothing less.”

Afbeelding van WhatsApp op 2025-11-04 om 08.58.50_1034fdea.jpg

large_Afbeelding van WhatsApp op 2025-11-04 om 08.58.50_1034fdea.jpg

medium_Afbeelding van WhatsApp op 2025-11-04 om 08.58.50_1034fdea.jpg

small_Afbeelding van WhatsApp op 2025-11-04 om 08.58.50_1034fdea.jpg

thumbnail_Afbeelding van WhatsApp op 2025-11-04 om 08.58.50_1034fdea.jpg

Juan Diego Zelaya Warns: The Venezuela Plan for Honduras Is Real. Our Democracy Is at Stake

Forum for Democracy is usually thought of as an intellectual party, thanks to the impressive background of its founder, Thierry Baudet. This image has been reinforced by the choice of Lidewij de Vos as lead candidate in the elections: she has degrees in both neuroscience and music and is an accomplished violinist&nbsp; - all at the age of 28. But FVD also has other quivers to its bow. It is a futurist party, deeply interested in the capacities of technology and of ambitious infrastructure projects. In a campaign video, Lidewij reminds viewers that all the great achievements of the Netherlands (and Europe) took place in the decades following the end of the Second World War. Little has been done since, especially in the last three decades – the decades of European integration and chronic decline. FVD proposes to correct this by proposing huge infrastructure projects, including opening the Groningen gas field, building a new airport in the sea, and super hyperloop rail connections to slash transport times between the main centres. Which other party in Europe has such a vision? None. Vote FVD on 29 October.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ex1Kyw0N3pw">Watch Lidewij's campaign video here</a><img src="/uploads/image_5586cc0431.png">We continue our mini-series of videos recorded by FVD International’s Marco van den Boomgaard this week with an interview with George Simion, the Romanian politician who earlier this year ran for the presidency in place of Calin Georgescu, whose first round victory last year was inexcusably cancelled by the EU-NATO deep state and who was prevented from running again. The judicial coup d’état is one of the most savage attacks on democracy perpetrated in the EU to date. Marco met Simion at the recent MEGA conference in Dubrovnik. Simion does not have the mesmerising charisma of Georgescu and he lost the poll to an establishment puppet. Not surprisingly, Simion’s message of simple patriotism and national interest has been demonised into extremism but, in this video, he says he is in favour of both the EU and NATO. He is, indeed, very Atlanticist but, like FVD, is opposed to ‘green’ climate policy, immigration and gender ideology; he is pro-growth and pro-natalism. And – guess what? – he is accused of being a Russian spy, just like everyone else who stands up for his own country.<a href="https://email.email.fvd.nl/c/eJwUy7tOwzAUANCvsUfL9xXHgwckyMbAyOgnqZQQRFMH_z3qeqRTAjjKWdcAbgKCCSfUa2giTIhWskcr6JL3TSbXYIYqVFjfgo9NJHETz3NFcZWppLnEYjPPAFWxbb2Y701vYT3Pn7uiF4WLwuW6LjOOx_lI1eRjf0o886po6Ypex9sY185_7x-f-jdE000y_bh7p9h-7fG2PY_uAf8DAAD__93eNvc">Watch the interview with George Simion here</a><img src="/uploads/image_174936b103.png">The Forum has been running as a weekly video podcast for over two years now. We have had more than a hundred guests in that period and we get many thousands of viewers every week. FVD International is pleased to announce the creation of a new Substack where the videos will be collected in one place. (Currently they can be seen on the ‘<a href="https://email.email.fvd.nl/c/eJwUy8tqxSAQANCv0aXEx0SzcFEo-Y_Rmem9EGsxL-7fl2wPHMo2-lo1Zxtn6-3sZqdfOXpbqiAwQEyyUCjgMAGTlUhein7nBQWgBIElJHYQOXgqiZCmGpK1rMIkF5nfTW_5dRx_u_Jfyq3Krfd9m08_j7Owqb09GKa1j7NJH9_ceh1YP8qt-zEY265HRnOZYq6-L1GF6afhe3uqvrL7DwAA__9toDuG">Live</a>’ section of the FVD International Youtube channel.) As we build up the Substack, it will become an interactive forum (appropriately enough) where our viewers will be able to contribute to the conversation. Subscribe now so as to be kept abreast of every edition of our wonderful show.<a href="https://substack.com/@theforumfriends">The Forum &amp; Friends Substack is here</a><img src="/uploads/image_5ea21c0c6b.png">Our guest on The Forum this week was the formidable Simon Elmer. Based in Hong Kong, Simon has recently travelled to mainland China, like our co-host Jeremy Nell. Both shared their sometimes conflicted opinions about this astonishing country, its achievements and likely future development.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69JSEAp6v-U">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_unnamed.png

medium_unnamed.png

small_unnamed.png

thumbnail_unnamed.png

The Weekly Forum - 24 October

FVD International is honoured to republish this important new report by journalist and author Thomas Fazi, first released by MCC Brussels. In this detailed investigation, Fazi exposes how the European Union’s Jean Monnet Programme, long presented as an academic initiative under Erasmus+, functions as a global network for promoting pro-EU narratives within universities worldwide.Drawing on official EU documents and project data, the report reveals how millions of euros in public funds are used each year to align academic teaching and research with EU policy objectives, transform scholars into “intellectual ambassadors” of the Union, and marginalise dissenting perspectives.By shedding light on this powerful yet under-scrutinised mechanism of influence, Fazi raises urgent questions about academic freedom, political neutrality in education, and the integrity of scholarly inquiry in Europe and beyond.Link to the original Substack article&nbsp;<a href="https://www.thomasfazi.com/p/embedding-pro-eu-propaganda-in-the">here</a>.In a&nbsp;<a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/publication/professors-of-propaganda-how-the-eus-jean-monnet-programme-corrodes-academia">bombshell new report</a> for MCC Brussels, I reveal how the European Union’s Jean Monnet Programme, ostensibly an academic initiative, is in fact a taxpayer-funded, global propaganda network designed to embed pro-EU narratives, quash dissent and shape public opinion far beyond the classroom. This programme, part of Erasmus+, funnels an estimated €25 million of public money every year into universities worldwide, transforming academic institutions into vehicles of institutional propaganda.<img src="/uploads/image_95c67af08c.png"><h4>An explicitly political project — beyond academic study</h4>While proponents often frame the Jean Monnet Programme as fostering excellence in academia, my report demonstrates that its core purpose, as openly acknowledged by the European Commission itself, is not merely to study European integration — but to “promote” it. The EU’s own directives require Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence and Designated Institutions to maintain “continuous and frequent alignment” of their teaching and research with EU policy priorities and to promote European identity. This goes far beyond neutral academic inquiry.<h4>Enormous reach and funding for political influence</h4>The Programme channels around €25 million per year to universities and research institutes globally and reaches around 500,000 students annually across more than 70 countries.This is not for open-ended research; it’s an investment explicitly designed to influence academic curricula, align educational content with the EU’s political agenda and promote Brussels’s legitimacy. As former Jean Monnet Chair Joseph H. H. Weiler candidly admitted: “Part of our mission as [a] Jean Monnet Professor is to disseminate the values of European integration. The EU Commission think of us openly as intellectual ambassadors of the Union and its values”. This directly challenges any claim of impartial academic freedom.<h4>Explicitly pro-EU agenda</h4>Direct quotes from funded projects reveal the ideological mission of supporting EU institutions: funded projects openly aim to “promote EU integration”, “foster European identity”, “enforce EU values” and “challenge the rise of euroscepticism and of populist, extreme right parties”. They are also designed to “counter anti-EU disinformation and propaganda” and “reverse de-Europeanisation dynamics”.<h4>Transforming academics into activists</h4>Recipients of Jean Monnet funding are not just expected to produce EU-aligned research, but to act as “outreach agents”, organising public events, engaging with media and NGOs, and disseminating EU-approved narratives to the public. This creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop where EU-funded research legitimises EU policies<h4>Academic freedom under threat</h4>The funding structure incentivises conformity with EU priorities, discourages critical perspectives and promotes research with predetermined political outcomes. This undermines the Humboldtian principles of academic autonomy and transforms students into subjects to be moulded into “right-thinking” citizens.<h4>Narrative control</h4>While the EU claims to combat “disinformation”, my report demonstrates that this is often a strategy to curtail dissenting views, narrow the spectrum of public debate and consolidate institutional control over the flow of information. Projects explicitly target “eurosceptic framing of EU activities” and what are labelled as “denialisms and conspiracy theories” related to EU policy positions on issues like climate change and Covid-19. I highlight how this provides academic justification to the EU’s increasingly pervasive online censorship framework, exemplified by the bloc’s adoption, in 2022, of the Digital Services Act (DSA), which aims at secretly controlling the online narrative.As I write in the report:The report concludes that the Jean Monnet Programme is explicitly structured, at all levels, as an academic tool aimed at projecting and promoting the EU’s policy preferences. It is a stark example of how the EU’s politicisation of higher education represents not just a distortion of scholarly priorities, but a direct challenge to academic freedom itself. This is not education; it is indoctrination.<hr><h4>Report overview</h4>The Jean Monnet Programme, launched in 1989 and now part of Erasmus+, was originally framed as an initiative to promote excellence in teaching and research on European integration. It has since evolved into a powerful instrument for embedding the EU’s political priorities and integrationist agenda within academia and society at large.Scope and reach<ul><li>The Jean Monnet Programme channels around €25 million per year to universities and research institutes worldwide through professorial chairs, modules, Centres of Excellence and Designated Institutions.</li><li>Activities extend beyond classrooms into media, civil society and policymaking circles.</li><li>Jean Monnet activities are spread across more than 70 countries, involving over 1,500 professors and reaching around 500,000 students annually.</li></ul>Ideological alignment<ul><li>Many funded projects explicitly aim to “promote EU integration”, “foster European identity”, “enforce EU values”, “challenge the rise of euroscepticism and of populist, extreme right parties”, “reverse de-Europeanisation dynamics in the EU and beyond” and “counter anti-EU disinformation and propaganda”.</li><li>These are clearly designed to shape students’ perceptions of the EU and to amplify pro-EU narratives, by embedding them in all the fields of social sciences: history, law, political science, economy, etc.</li><li>Jean Monnet activities are structurally aligned with the EU’s strategic prioritises — from the Green Deal and “countering disinformation” to rule-of-law initiatives and global governance.</li><li>Overall, the programme transforms academic research — which should be open-ended, free from political influence and ultimately aimed at advancing knowledge and understanding — into advocacy research, which begins from a value position (“the EU is beneficial”) and aims to produce “evidence” in support for it.</li></ul>Top-tier actors<ul><li>Jean Monnet Centres of Excellence and Jean Monnet Designated Institutions are the central hubs of the EU’s academic propaganda branch. They are formally required to maintain “continuous and frequent alignment” of their teaching and research with EU policy priorities and to promote European identity.</li><li>The seven Designated Institutions, such as the European University Institute and the College of Europe, work closely with EU institutions and receive substantial funding.</li></ul>From the classroom to society at large<ul><li>Jean Monnet Activities aren’t aimed at promoting the EU’s policies and goals just within education — but among society at large. Recipients of Jean Monnet Funding grants aren’t just expected to produce research that aligns with the EU’s normative and geopolitical agenda, but also to act as outreach agents — organising public events, engaging with the media, NGOs and other civil society organisations, and spreading the content of their “research” to the public. This is another trademark of advocacy research, as opposed to academic research.</li><li>This may described as a form of “propaganda by proxy”, where research is funded and shaped according to EU priorities, which then produces EU-approved narratives that are subsequently disseminated to the mainstream through conferences, media engagement and outreach activities.</li></ul>Public diplomacy<ul><li>The EU’s enlisting of academic institutions for political goals isn’t limited to the Union itself. The Jean Monnet Programme today operates in over 70 countries, where is it part and parcel of the EU’s broader public diplomacy or soft power efforts, shaping how the EU is perceived internationally and promoting the bloc’s geopolitical interests.</li><li>The programme’s foreign operations tend to focus on countries that are pivotal to the EU’s geopolitical strategy: in recent years, for example, hundreds of Jean Monnet projects have been implemented in Ukraine, many explicitly aimed at furthering Ukraine’s integration into the EU and the Euro-Atlantic bloc more in general.</li><li>The Jean Monnet Programme is also used to advance EU enlargement by pre-aligning the national legal, regulatory, and educational systems of prospective member states with EU standards.</li></ul>Integration into a wider propaganda network<ul><li>These academic entities form part of a larger EU-NGO-media-academia complex, in which each sector amplifies and legitimises the other’s narratives.</li><li>Partnerships with media and civil society on initiatives like the “anti-disinformation” European Digital Media Observatory blur the lines between research, advocacy and institutional propaganda.</li></ul>Erosion of academic freedom<ul><li>Funding structures incentivise conformity with EU priorities, discourage critical perspectives, and promote research with predetermined political outcomes — i.e., advocacy research.</li><li>This undermines the Humboldtian principles of academic autonomy and the pursuit of knowledge free from political interference.</li></ul>Key finding<ul><li>The Jean Monnet Programme, far from being just an educational initiative, is explicitly structured, at all levels, as an academic tool aimed at projecting and promoting the EU’s policy preferences — by embedding pro-EU content in curricula, shaping discourse around European integration and extending the EU’s ideological reach far beyond its borders.</li></ul>Policy recommendations<ul><li>Safeguarding academic integrity requires ending politically driven funding mechanisms, restoring institutional independence and reaffirming the Humboldtian model as the cornerstone of higher education, for example by:</li><li>De-politicising research funding</li><li>Respecting academic freedom and authority</li><li>Allocating grants based on scientific and intellectual merit</li><li>Encouraging diversity of views and critical inquiry</li><li>Rejecting the use of academia as a tool of propaganda</li><li>Promoting transparency and accountability in EU-academic relations</li></ul><hr><h4>Introduction</h4>The Jean Monnet Programme was launched by the European Commission in 1989 to encourage teaching and research on European integration in universities. Since then, it has evolved into one of the European Union’s most effective — and least scrutinised — tools for shaping the way Europe is taught, researched and understood. Under the respectable banner of “fostering excellence in teaching and research on EU matters”, it channels millions of euros into universities and research institutes, rewarding those that align their work with Brussels’ political agenda. What began as an academic initiative has grown into a sprawling network of Chairs, Modules, Centres of Excellence and Designated Institutions that now function as the EU’s academic outreach arm — embedding pro-integration narratives across curricula, producing research that mirrors official priorities and extending influence far beyond campus walls into media, civil society and policymaking circles. This paper examines how the programme operates, the ideological assumptions built into its funding mechanisms, and its role in what can be described as the EU-NGO-media-academia complex — a self-reinforcing ecosystem that blurs the line between education and political advocacy. It also explains why this politicisation of higher education represents not just a distortion of scholarly priorities, but a direct challenge to academic freedom itself.Read the full report&nbsp;<a href="https://brussels.mcc.hu/publication/professors-of-propaganda-how-the-eus-jean-monnet-programme-corrodes-academia">here</a>.

large_image.png

medium_image.png

small_image.png

thumbnail_image.png

Embedding pro-EU propaganda in the classroom: the Jean Monnet Programme

Forum for Democracy International

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

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

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

🏛️ The Forum and Friends: Venezuela with Diego Sequera

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

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

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