5 December 2023 was Pepijn van Houwelingen's last day as a member of parliament.On 6 December he was summoned to appear in court.&nbsp;So said the summons from the public prosecutor's office that dropped onto Van Houwelingen's doormat some time ago.It is so absurd that it is almost unbelievable: Van Houwelingen has to 'answer' for his work as a member of parliament.&nbsp;At the very last minute, our lawyer managed to postpone the political trial against Van Houwelingen, which was actually supposed to start on 6 December. But the public prosecutor led by Dilan Yeşilgöz (the VVD Minister of Justice) is not letting up and is pressing ahead with the prosecution.Van Houwelingen is charged with having made a 'written insult' of health minister Ernst Kuipers (D66). With a tweet from a year ago, he allegedly defamed his "honour and good name".Van Houwelingen is known as a strong critic of Kuipers' Covid policy and has exposed several abuses in his ministry. Now that, to our great regret, he has not been re-elected, the prosecution smells blood.Let there be no doubt: this is pure intimidation by the establishment. The judiciary is being used to silence political opposition. It is unworthy of a democracy.&nbsp;It is crucial not to drop Van Houwelingen now. We are eternally grateful to him for his sharp criticism of Covid policy. He has always kept his back straight and stood up for our fundamental rights like no other. Now it is time to give something back.The best way to support Van Houwelingen is to become a member of our party. Or by making someone else a member if you are already a member. That way, we can give him the legal defence he deserves - and, through political and social means, launch an attack on the cartel that has held our country in its grip for years.

large_data78712738-022a50.jpg

medium_data78712738-022a50.jpg

small_data78712738-022a50.jpg

thumbnail_data78712738-022a50.jpg

Political Persecution

On Tuesday, the Lower House formally bids farewell to all outgoing MPs. Among them are MPs who wish to retire themselves and therefore did not stand for re-election, but also MPs who simply did not get enough votes to be re-elected. Pepijn van Houwelingen, to our great regret, falls into the latter category.That Pepijn has to wave goodbye as an MP is a great loss - not only for Forum for Democracy, but for the whole of the Netherlands. With his departure from the Lower House, a wealth of knowledge is lost. A true representative of the people must make way for someone else.Pepijn has meant a great deal in the Lower House for a until recently unheard-of group of Dutch people. Like no one else, he has given great thought to people's lack of understanding during the Covid crisis. He addressed the disproportionality and injustice of the policy. And he has always kept his back straight at times when it really mattered. Pepijn is, in short, a steadfast, critical checker of power - as you would expect from a representative of the people.His critical stance has not always earned him gratitude from government officials. "Why do you distrust us so much anyway?" Pepijn's response to this kind of feigned indignation is always, “Trust is good, but control is better.”And so it is. People's representatives are not elected in order to cosy up to ministers for tea. They have to check power, enforce accountability. And Pepijn has done that like no other. For all Dutch people. For instance, he was the only one to expose and get to the bottom of the financial abuses at the Ministry of Health and Sport.Citizens whose concerns are invariably ignored by other parties have Pepijn's number. They are welcome at his office, they are offered a listening ear. By Pepijn. He is the only MP who personally answers all his e-mails (and there are many thousands of them). He makes time for that, he considers it important.We will never forget Pepijn's tireless commitment, his hard work until late hours and his accessibility as a people's representative. Not to mention his excellent research work.It was once joked at the FVD party that if Pepijn ever quit, they could lay off 30 full-time employees at every ministry. That is how many parliamentary questions he asks, including about the World Economic Forum. The information he has managed to bring out with his highly specific and substantive questions has been shared worldwide - and also used to put other governments on the block. The entire globalist power structure has been mapped out by Pepijn. Craftsmanship. And we cannot thank him enough for that.Of course, Pepijn will remain closely involved in our party. In another role within our broad change movement. We are very happy about that. And who knows what the future will bring? But for now, we would very much like to say a heartfelt thank you on behalf of the entire Forum for Democracy organisation:Pepijn, thank you for everything!

0-LXHhxy0Fmzqh4IaTOjjc-zwAczPY6ot2z75w36h1U.webp

small_0-LXHhxy0Fmzqh4IaTOjjc-zwAczPY6ot2z75w36h1U.webp

thumbnail_0-LXHhxy0Fmzqh4IaTOjjc-zwAczPY6ot2z75w36h1U.webp

Farewell, Pepijn – and see you soon!

On 30 November, FVD party leader Thierry Baudet spoke to Ronald Plasterk, the parliamentary “scout” about the election results and the steps he believes should be taken in the formation of a new government. Baudet handed over the letter below and explained it in detail.<hr>&nbsp;Dear Ronald,It is with great pleasure that I address you through this letter. Your appointment as scout in this formation process has positively surprised me, especially because - as you know - I often read your columns in De Telegraaf with approval and I expect that - precisely because of your background as a (nota bene!) 'left-wing' politician - you can help bring a fresh and connecting wind to The Hague.Forum for Democracy sees in the election results of 22 November a clear call from the Dutch population for a different political course. The big themes were immigration, climate politics and the associated rising costs for the population, the increasing influence of the European Union on our lives and, in general, a feeling of having lost our 'grip' on our own existence.Although our party is obviously not among the big winners, we are nevertheless very pleased with the result. It now seems important to translate the will of the people into policy - something that obviously can only happen if a cabinet can be formed.We will - within our limited possibilities - do what we can to help the winner of these elections gain a majority. And we will see with great interest what will turn out to be true of all kinds of election promises by the other parties - VVD, NSC and BBB - on the restriction of migration, the restoration of sovereignty and the improvement of purchasing power (a goal which, implies putting unaffordable climate targets into perspective).Should there be a need for our experience which is wider than just parliamentary seats to fill one or more ministerial posts, we will not shy away from it.With cordial regards,&nbsp;Thierry Baudet

large_b8ssmit9oxpjy2g5wwha.jpg

medium_b8ssmit9oxpjy2g5wwha.jpg

small_b8ssmit9oxpjy2g5wwha.jpg

thumbnail_b8ssmit9oxpjy2g5wwha.jpg

Baudet's letter on the formation of government

Elections are coming up again in the Netherlands.&nbsp; On 22 November, everyone can go to the ballot box to vote in the Dutch parliamentary elections. With confidence in politics plummeting at a rapid pace, more and more people are deciding not to vote. While it may sound sympathetic that the system has legitimised itself so much that people choose not to participate in it anymore, not voting has major negative consequences which paradoxically legitimise the system itself.&nbsp;The paradox of controlled oppositionWhen it comes to decreased trust in our system as a reason for not voting, people have many arguments. It starts with simply just not participating in the voting process in elections and ends with people who have deluded themselves into believing that they are no longer citizens of the Netherlands, and therefore do not have to meet the obligations that citizenship entails.Support for the system is twofold. On the one hand, these people support the current political order by actively not voting, which proportionally helps the largest system parties the most. Not voting means acquiescing in the status quo in which the cartel parties remain in power. So this is disadvantageous for a fundamental opposition party like FVD.On the other hand, these people also legitimise the liberal lies of the system: by claiming that a government acts illegally, you hold on to the liberal idea that governments act on the basis of law. As a citizen, you have rights. Rights function in modern liberal democracies only as a means of giving people the illusion that they should be taken into account. However, the opposite is true. For those who really wake up from the matrix, the realisation descends that a government acts only from power. Thus, by definition, a government cannot act illegally because it ultimately determines what rights will be respected. Laws and rights have value only when they are enforced. The Covid era showed us in a very harsh way that those people who are expelled from society have no rights at all.The most extreme cases of people not voting are people who have declared themselves "autonomous". Among these people, there is even the illusion of some kind of voluntary membership of the Dutch state. Individuals would have an opt-out choice of no longer being a citizen of the state with all the proposed benefits.&nbsp;Scammers were quick to capitalise on this. These included people offering diplomatic passports and suggesting to others that they would no longer have to wait at the airport for customs. These passports cost several hundred euros. Needless to say, these people using this service are stopped at the airport. Others believe they no longer have to pay taxes. As a result, the government takes everything from these people with fines and lawsuits. After all, you can no longer want anything to do with the government, but the government still wants something to do with you.Some theories even go so far as to make people believe that when they have unwound themselves from the Dutch state, there is a sum of several million reserved for them in a Swiss bank account.Not only has the scammer industry used this phenomenon, the government is also doing the same. In shielded Telegram groups and on other social media, there are large accounts everywhere calling for people to stop voting. People should not give away their vote according to such accounts but keep it for themselves.Still, the drive for freedom and the militancy which comes with it is not a lost cause. While the focus may be in the wrong place now, this energy can be transformed into something fruitful. After all, political struggle does not just take place once every four years. On the contrary, politics is about so much more than just voting. In this area, we can learn a lot from the Left. For they know what meta-politics is and apply it successfully on a daily basis.&nbsp;MetapoliticsAs mentioned earlier, politics is so much more than just voting once every four years. The Left has understood this very well. The Left has discovered that in the modern world, political change can happen only through socio-cultural change. Contrary to the liberal illusion in which we are led to believe, most people slavishly follow the reality presented to them by the dominant culture, and therefore the reality presented to them by the dominant politics. The cultural hegemony of the current political order therefore ensures that our current political parties remain dominant. Politics can only change when this cultural hegemony, or false cultural consciousness, which our social institutions project onto us, changes. This can only happen when the people who have woken up from the liberal dream actively work to influence society in such a way that the consensus moves their way. The Left has done this with the march through the institutions. We can do this too.A dominant political culture is embedded in interpersonal relationships everywhere, in both the workplace and everyday life. These are things that the ideologically active individual can directly influence. If everyone does his bit, we can influence society. However, it is also important to keep one foot within the system. Our system works the way it does now, so representation in parliament is definitely needed to keep the stage set, to keep telling the truth and thus to normalise our ideas for a wider public.&nbsp;Waking up to reality requires waking up from the liberal dreamAfter all, we are dealing with a reality that we now have to work from. Yes, it is true that liberal democracy no longer works in this century.&nbsp; Yes, it is also true that the government is not moral, but nothing is going to change that if people continue to believe in the illusion of the system.To approach the world as a place in which influence and power are the most important things is to see the world as it currently works. This awareness is something that makes a person truly free. Be aware of power relations, know what influence you yourself reasonably have on others and then use this influence to change society. FVD leads the way in this, but we cannot do it without all the enthusiastic people who follow us and make a difference in their own lives and by voting for us. THAT is how you really pull a society your way. THAT is real power.&nbsp;You don't just get change. You force change by making yourself heard. It is time for us to apply this trick of the government ourselves.&nbsp;Be the change in your own environment, stand up for your ideals and above all VOTE! &nbsp;

large_baudet.jpg

medium_baudet.jpg

small_baudet.jpg

thumbnail_baudet.jpg

Why voting matters

On 22&nbsp;November, the Netherlands will head to the polls for a national election. It is no surprise, then, that these weeks are some of the most important of the year for political parties. The same goes for journalists and other figures in the media. They have set up a plethora of debates, interviews, panels and other events to inform the Dutch public. Now, it is not news to anybody on the dissident right-wing anywhere in the world that the media holds a lot of power to shape opinion. But it remains useful to illustrate how prevalent and how insidious this power can be. Using some examples from the problems Forum for Democracy faced in this election season, we will illustrate how the media can and does cripple political movements, as a warning and a reminder.The first and perhaps simplest way to hamstring any movement is to not give it the time of day. This &nbsp;is what the Dutch media has been doing to FVD. For over a year, FVD has not been granted any form of podium by the mainstream media. From newspapers to TV-shows, we have simply not been invited anywhere. There has been quite literal radio silence; no interviews, no panel shows, nothing at all. This goes for both the Dutch public broadcaster and private news organisations.&nbsp;Only a small and select number of dissident media channels gave FVD airtime to present its ideas and political solutions to the many problems that face our country. This, of course, forced FVD to alter its media strategy. We now wage our political campaign almost exclusively online, on social media. Tik-Tok, X, Facebook and Instagram are our tools of trade. On the one hand, we are convinced there is an untapped market of potential voters to be found through these channels; on the other, we have little choice. Mainstream media channels are simply not open to us.To illustrate: the private RTL media network set up a large debate including the leaders of the parties that were polling highest at the time, including the Liberals, the Farmers’ Movement and the Social Liberals. However, two party leaders cancelled beforehand, creating space for two new parties to jump in. Which parties did they pick? The Christian Democrats and the Animal Rights party, both of which were consistently polling lower than FVD. FVD was not even approached. Why? Because the media gets to decide which voices the public gets to hear, and they do not want our voice to be heard.In the runup to the 2023 general elections, the Dutch public broadcaster decided to alter its unwritten “silent treatment” policy slightly.&nbsp; It did invite party leader Thierry Baudet to a one-on-one debate with the leader of the Social Liberal party. We can only guess as to their reasoning, but perhaps they figured it would be too overt to ignore a party completely in the runup to national elections – a party which is actually polling higher than some other smaller parties they had already invited.Baudet and his opponent were sat down in front of a panel of six young people, three men and three women. One of these men turned out to be gay, and questioned Baudet on his supposed “homophobia”; one turned out to be “non-binary” and accused Baudet of creating a climate of hate and violence; and the last man just happened to Ukrainian, and questioned FVD’s neutrality in the Russo-Ukraine conflict.Of course, Baudet’s opponent was not faced with any similar criticism. The worst he got were some comments that his political solutions were not strong enough, that he wasn’t trying hard enough. We can only assume this disparity in the panel arose completely by accident. We would not suggest that the public broadcaster, the one that is funded completely by Dutch taxpayers, stacked the panel in favour of one political party. We could never suggest such a thing.But let us imagine that they did - purely hypothetically, of course - it would illustrate perfectly a form of power held by the media. The power of the norm. By carefully selecting the questions they ask, by selecting the members of a panel that question and criticise a politician, they can set the norm. And by extension, they decide what is to be seen as aberrant. Just by the way the panel is constructed and the question is asked, the “non-binary” man is no longer an aberration, but instead simply normal. And anyone questioning the veracity of his “identity” is suddenly the weirdo. Worse, they are portrayed as actively endangering the other man’s safety by not “accepting” his identity.At least in this last case, the media’s attempt at a trap seems to have backfired. The interaction between Baudet and the “non-binary” man has gone viral, being <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeH2F9V6qIM">shared all over social media</a>, with many people taking Baudet’s side. Their attempt to present radical “gender diversity” as the standing norm may have been a slight overstep. We can only guess what impact this may have on the eventual outcome of the elections.

fvd-vaart-mee-op-de-cultuurmarxistische-golf.jpg

large_fvd-vaart-mee-op-de-cultuurmarxistische-golf.jpg

medium_fvd-vaart-mee-op-de-cultuurmarxistische-golf.jpg

small_fvd-vaart-mee-op-de-cultuurmarxistische-golf.jpg

thumbnail_fvd-vaart-mee-op-de-cultuurmarxistische-golf.jpg

The Media and its Power

On 2 November, the FVD party leader, Thierry Baudet, was interviewed on News Hour, a mainstream news programme of the public broadcaster in the Netherlands. &nbsp; He was asked about his party and the manifesto for the elections on 22 November. The presenter of the programme tried to ambush him, as is the way of every MSM programme where Thierry is still invited.&nbsp;This ambush included a former voter who said he was initially attracted to Forum because of its vision of democratic renewal but that he disagreed with the party for focusing too often on what he called conspiracy theories. He wondered what talking about so-called conspiracy theories had to do with the party’s agenda of democratic renewal.&nbsp;An agenda of democratic renewal involves highlighting the hidden structures of our systemAnyone who has studied politics in recent years knows that liberal democracy in today's West works differently from what we were taught. The government claims again and again that the power in our "democracy" lies in parliament. This is how it theoretically should work. However, empirical reality shows that only the margins of policy are debated in parliament. The major ideological lines to which the Netherlands is committed are drawn up internationally at meetings of, for example, the World Economic Forum, Bilderberg, NATO conferences, the EU and the UN.Some call this reality a conspiracy theory, but it is in fact an honest empirical look at the political playing field. FVD's position in this is that the Netherlands should be allowed to operate independently again, and that sovereignty should revert to the Dutch people. After all, things are decided in these international clubs that, to put it mildly, are not in the Dutch interest. These organisations are influenced by shadow figures who influence the agenda for their financial and ideological interests. The primacy of power should actually lie in parliament, or even preferably more directly with the people, through referendums. To achieve this change, a correct analysis of the current situation must first be made. This can only be done when this real power situation is called out. From only this position a way to change can be formulated.This critique of the functioning of our liberal democracy is therefore necessary to bring about change. That the illusion of our political system still persists and is still spread among that many people is a consequence of the wrong image of man that we have been taught. We no longer see the empirical reality because of this theoretical delusion.&nbsp;Human imageThe dominant image of man in our society has its foundation in a theoretical fiction that flows from the foundations of the system. This view on humanity, the Utopian idea propagated by Fukuyama in his famous essay "The End of History and the Last Man," is still alive and kicking. According to it, there is only one way to the future and one way to have "progress" as humanity. According to this vision, we are living in a new age - a time where the “last man” arrives. The last man is democratic man: power structures in society are created bottom-up, are democratic and the government acts transparently in the interests of the people.&nbsp;However, we see that despite this Utopian thinking, the real power structures of the old world are still in place. Power, through global structures, still works top-down.&nbsp; This order, which so far has known no serious opposition, has become so self-forcing, its ideas have become so dominant, that no opposition could arise against it. It has become commonplace.&nbsp;No matter how hard the political status quo tries to instil in people the illusion that the new democratic man actually exists, human instincts cannot be indoctrinated out of reality. The old-world hierarchy is still alive and well, and denying it is precisely the illusion in which liberal democracy is shrouded. The only difference is that despots no longer rule through decrees, but from the shadows.To get real democratic change, this realisation should become commonplace in our society. Since the system is based on faulty assumptions, these assumptions must be actively questioned in order to change the system. For this, political uproar is needed.&nbsp;The agenda of political uproarSome time ago, Thierry Baudet wrote <a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/the-utility-of-uproar">an essay</a> about FVD not shooing away from uproar. Major media publications ran with this essay, claiming that Thierry Baudet's essay argued that FVD is a party that wants to cause uproar for the sake of the commotion itself.&nbsp;However, the opposite was the case. In his essay, Thierry Baudet clearly stated that causing outcry has a purpose, which is to raise and tackle the faulty foundations of the current political order that many have taken for granted. Critically examining these foundations (such as the neutrality of state institutions, the functioning of the separation of power, the financial system, etc.) will hopefully start making people think about the things that are taken for granted and that they will come to the conclusion that these foundations do not correspond to our presented reality.&nbsp;This is where the cultural aspect of so-called "conspiracy theories" comes in.&nbsp;The conspiracy as deconstruction of the foundational mythTo avoid speech confusion, it is important to define a foundational myth as the following: a foundational myth is a story or narrative or event which is culturally used as a central assumption for the ideological premises of a political order. There are events that are defining for an entire generation or political order.&nbsp;When FVD is associated with so-called conspiracy theories, it is almost always about Thierry's statements on 3 topics: 9/11, the moon landing and reptiles.The attacks on 11 September 2001 marked the beginning of a new era of politics. In response to the attacks, the US rolled out the aggressive War on Terror. While the regime change agenda is already taking more than the initial <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWxKn-1S8ts">5 years budgeted at PNAC</a>, by now almost all countries on the familiar list have been thrown into (civil) war by the USA.The agenda to destabilise countries to supposedly bring democracy and prosperity has failed. Now in 2023, the USA is still engaged in these wars on multiple fronts and these so-called democracies the USA wanted to set up are proving to be no more than a farce. It was always only about the power of the American Empire.Where this is coming from is obvious to many, since the last couple of years the speculation about the immediate cause of these wars (September 11) keeps growing. So many years on, there are plenty of arguments to be made as to why the official story stinks.&nbsp;Could it be then that the US knew more about this attack beforehand? Surely not?&nbsp;If we assume that 9/11 did not occur according to the official story, this would mean that the US is not the moral actor bringing democracy and prosperity to the entire world and that it is ultimately only concerned with its own interests. This is especially true if it turns out that the US itself took this action. That view would be shattering for the moral high ground of the post-Cold War order.&nbsp;The second example of the moon landing also eats at the foundations of the liberal order. The cultural myth of the US being the first country to go to the moon is an affirmation of supposed meritocracy on which the liberal democratic political order in the West is based. This political frame of the US as a model for the West, which has achieved the highest point of humanity with its "democratic" institutions, namely going to the moon, is one of the important foundational stories on which morality in this political order rests. This is the foundation that liberal democracies are meritocracies. Doubting the moon landing works directly on the myth here, namely it is doubting the supremacy of meritocracy in the West.The last conspiracy theory the media always uses to frame FVD in a negative light is the so-called "reptile statement" from Thierry Baudet. Thierry Baudet allegedly dismissed political leaders in the West as "reptiles". Much hilarity followed from the media who claimed that Baudet believed that our elites would literally be reptilian creatures. Baudet was obviously making a comparison here that is as old as the Bible.&nbsp;Indeed, reptiles/snake-like creatures are often used as symbolism to indicate the traditional view of evil (a force that deceives individuals through subversive acts to carry out its agenda). This is something opposite to the modern view of evil.&nbsp;Certainly, after WWII, the West's view of evil has changed so dramatically that the role of the reptilian Satan has been taken over by the atrocities the Germans did in the Second World War (the strong leader who forces a hierarchical order on others with a hard hand).&nbsp;The cultural way Hitler is perceived is the great Satan-like villain in the myth of the post-WW2 political order in the West. This is the vision of liberal democracy. Traditional hierarchies are now falsely deconstructed, because of the terrible things Germany in the Second World War did. Every institution in liberal democracy is therefore set up to dismantle any form of traditional hierarchy through cultural Marxist techniques: "Never Again".That these three examples keep recurring in the media are recurring because of the cognitive dissonance which enters the stage. These three examples are important, because they cut into three important foundational myths of our current political order (the new moral (last) man, meritocracy and the nature of the ultimate evil). When foundational myths are questioned, people are snatched away from their current reality and are forced to think for themselves.Examples like the three above attack the foundational myths that are a reality for many people. This is why people react so emotionally to such counterpoints.By now, we know better. Yet these kinds of assumptions about the course of history force the tendency that our current political order is the most democratic, most moral, but also the best.&nbsp;Therefore, if we want to bring about ideological and thus the potential for democratic change for this political order, it is precisely important to keep attacking the assumptions of this current political order with phenomena that will destroy the current ideological framework.&nbsp;Long live the uproar, long live the conspiracies! &nbsp;

large_images-original.png

medium_images-original.png

small_images-original.png

thumbnail_images-original.png

Conspiracy Theories and Democratic Renewal

Ever since Forum for Democracy was founded, the party has regularly been "brought into disrepute", as they say. There is "commotion" - great outrage in media and politics over a statement, a text message or an interlocutor.Over the years, there have been many who have supported me and the party on all sorts of positions - but who have had difficulty with this "commotion". They felt that these were "side issues", and that it distracted us from our "political work". That, in short, we should focus on the widely accepted, centre-right hobbyhorses and otherwise stay within the range of what was acceptable. That is how we could operate most effectively. Become socially acceptable. Able to appeal to a wide audience.I disagree with this view. That is why I do not shy away from causing "commotion". That is why I defy these media storms time and again and have even been willing to let splits arise within the party.But I have never really explained my reasoning for this. I have never explained why I see the things that cause "uproar" precisely not as side issues but as the essence of what we must do. &nbsp;What do we gain?I can well imagine that this feels counterintuitive to many. They might even get angry with me about this recurring "commotion". After all, as a political party, why would you want to be constantly embroiled in all sorts of scandals? Why those philosophical questions all the time? Why those provocative tweets? What do you stand to gain from that?The key lies in the effect intended by scandals - which are created and hugely whipped up by the establishment. The establishment always makes something into a “scandal”; they determine when a word or a joke or an encounter is something very suspicious or dangerous. It is by no means always possible to predict exactly when this will happen, how something small suddenly becomes big, or why something big remains remarkably small. But íf it happens, it is always for a reason, with a purpose: to declare a point of view or an opinion out of order, to demarcate the acceptable discussion space. In order ultimately -&nbsp; and this is the core - to delimit the boundary conditions of the debate in such a way that the establishment always wins.&nbsp;Breaking taboosSo, the things we politically oppose - such as mass immigration, climate policy, European unification, coronavirus rules - are "protected", so to speak, by the frames that the establishment puts on opponents - frames which are a translation of a deliberately created and maintained taboo.I will give some examples of frames and taboos that I have identified and - hopefully – broken, to some extent, in my life.&nbsp;NationalismFirst: the taboo on "nationalism". In my youth, it was simply accepted that this view would lead to war. The socially acceptable right-wing position was that nationalism was indeed dangerous, but that there might be practical or temporal obstacles to European unification. Anyone who was given the frame of "scary nationalist" or “xenophobe” was done for. As a result, no one dared to defend the nation state outright and so European unification went ahead without much opposition.I tried to break that taboo by showing (with enormous anger and uproar as a result) in&nbsp;<a href="https://winkel.forumvoordemocratie.nl/products/thierry-baudet-the-significance-of-borders">The Significance of Borders</a> that nationalism can actually lead to peace, and imperialism and unification can lead to war. I defied the frame ("scary nationalist!") and unmasked the underlying taboo.As a result, the argumentative space to oppose the EU has been radically expanded.&nbsp; Our opponents, the proponents of unification, have effectively come up empty-handed. Their whole "argument", so to speak, was the taboo on nationalism. Whoever breaks that taboo, wins the argument.&nbsp;ClimateI came across something very similar in the climate debate. "CO2 leads to climate change and must be reduced" - that was the position of the "acceptable right". They simply went along with the narrative about "pollution", about "clean energy" and "sustainability" - with adding nuclear power to the energy mix being the maximum possible political outcome. Meanwhile they remain powerless against the Green story in itself, against the international climate agreements, the Climate Act, the Kyoto protocol: and finally, against the religion of sustainability as such.Again, I initially received the ire of the whole country (and a large section of FVD's initial supporters) when I said: we are going to break the "CO2 is dangerous" frame! There ís no accelerated warming, if you look at the phenomenon over a longer time frame. And CO2 actually leads to the greening of the planet. There is no imminent shortage of oil and gas - because the fossil fuels may not even be fossil at all and will be available for thousands of years anyway.Again: an enormous taboo. Something unthinkable. And pretty much no one around me dared to touch it. Everyone shouted: stay away from that, focus only on immigration and the EU, or if necessary, only on the costs of the climate plans, not on the underlying philosophy, it leads to commotion, people do not understand it, it is unnecessary!Nevertheless, I did it, and subsequently we gained enormous leeway to step outside the framework set by the opponent. As a result, the establishment is now effectively without a story on this subject as well. Because their weapon, the taboo on "scarcity", "pollution" and the frame of "you are not sustainable, you are destroying the planet", has been defused.&nbsp;The Covid tabooSomething similar played out with Covid. Here, the frame was that of "crazy conspiracy theorists", and the taboo was "flu". Criticising the absurd press conferences with sign language interpreters, as if we were dealing with a nuclear disaster or a dyke breach, led to a kind of national hate orgy. And - most importantly - it was strictly forbidden to equate Covid with the flu - which then made it impossible to counter the government's factually incorrect frame of a “pandemic”, with a more factually correct counterframe of a “severe flu wave”, which, after all, is what Covid was.So again, we went through the necessary commotion, broke the frame and unmasked the taboo in order to fight the battle. Had we not done so, we would never have been able to organise an effective opposition to the Covid measures. Instead, we would have continued to do what detractors, among others, wanted us to do: criticise the measures for inconsistency, but say nothing about the mortality of Covid, the risks or the unnecessity of vaccinations, or the hysterical nature of the “crisis”.&nbsp;More establishment taboosBut these three taboos are far from all. Because our adversary (the left-liberal bloc that holds power in our country, has access to some 110 out of 150 seats in Parliament, has the support of media, academia, the civil service, and multinationals) utilises many more taboos or semi-unassailable claims to push through its own agenda.One of these - not to be missed - is World War II, which has been used for decades to promote mass immigration and multiculturalism, and stifle any and all criticism. Until we refute that, we will never be able to effectively protect our people and our identity. Because they will always start shouting things like, "Oh, do you want the trains to the East to start running again...!?"And there are many more combinations. Take the anti-Russia propaganda, deployed to propagate European unification, push the climate agenda - for Russian gas must not be allowed - and maintain the US geopolitical upper hand vis-à-vis Europe. For as long as contacts with Russia are out of the question, the natural European "bridging function" between the Atlantic world and Eurasia cannot be established, and we will remain totally dependent on the big brother in DC. Here, the frame by which people are cancelled is "Putin fanboy". For fear of having that label stuck on them, the establishment hopes that no one will dare to speak even somewhat sympathetically about Russia and that the desired political direction can continue uninterrupted.“Misogyny” is another one of these frames, meant to protect the taboo on the downsides of feminism. Anyone who talks about the differences between men and women, the challenges of working and raising children, the importance of marriage, the beauty of Yin and Yang, gender roles, etc. - is called out as a "sexist". Outcry. Fear. They demand you distance yourself - and the discussion is closed.So on and so forth. Every frame that causes uproar protects a taboo. A taboo that in turn supports a key ideological position of the establishment.&nbsp;ConclusionAs long as we remain afraid of all these frames, the underlying taboos remain untouched and we fight with one arm tied to our back. This way we will always remain on the defensive. And so we never win.That is why it is absolutely essential to continue to refute the frames one by one, and break the taboos piece by piece. That is why it is inevitable that FVD will remain "controversial" in the eyes of the establishment, and therefore does not need to become "socially acceptable". The controversy stretches the available space for the debate. It provides breathing room. Not only for ourselves, but for everyone who feels oppressed by the ever-shrinking framework of discussion put on us by the establishment. In this way, we are effectively a liberation movement. We throw off the yoke of established power every time.&nbsp;And for the record, in our own eyes we are not "controversial" at all, but extremely moderate, reasonable, calm and worthy of governance - but because we challenge the moral order, we are not seen that way.That means our work is tough - much tougher than just being "reasonably right-wing" within the set margins - and it requires people with very strong minds. With courage, even heroism. It also requires great intelligence, because you have to look "behind the curtain" every time. When a frame is employed, the normal human reaction is to look away. To say: oh, oops, sorry! But we have to look every time anyway. To enter the forbidden space. Opening the door, showing that there is no monster hiding underneath the bed. And never to say "sorry". Never! Because then we acknowledge the moral power of those who have laid the frame upon us. Then they win.That is why I keep entering the fray. That's why FVD is "always embroiled in something". That is why it is often not "fun", not "pleasant": exactly that is our assignment. Our job. Only then do we do something that has any meaning. FVD shall be uproar - or shall not be. Enjoy the ride.

large_1240.jpg

medium_1240.jpg

small_1240.jpg

thumbnail_1240.jpg

The Utility of Uproar

large_Jordan_Peterson_(28058501817).jpg

medium_Jordan_Peterson_(28058501817).jpg

small_Jordan_Peterson_(28058501817).jpg

thumbnail_Jordan_Peterson_(28058501817).jpg

Why Jordan Peterson is wrong

The European Commission has come up with a <a href="https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:52022PC0209">proposal</a> to enable “client side scanning”. This would check text messages - even before they are sent - for specific content. Experts warn of mass surveillance at European level.&nbsp;The Lower House held a round-table discussion about the proposal on 11 October with several experts: Jaap-Henk Hoepman, Frederik Zuiderveen Borgesius, Michel van Eeten and Bert Hubert.Frederik Jansen MP spoke on behalf of Forum for Democracy.&nbsp; &nbsp;Technically trivial&nbsp; Client side scanning is said to be necessary to stop the spread of child pornography and grooming. &nbsp;A little programme on your phone, linked to an EU database, would check messages for content, before they are sent. If the imagery, or text messages, are flagged as criminal by the algorithm, a light will flash at the European Union. The message will then be blocked and an official will then check whether it was actually pornographic material. According to Jaap-Henk Hoepman, associate professor of privacy and technology at the University of Groningen, however, this technology can scan for anything. He even calls it "trivial" to tweak the technology - whether you are looking for cat pictures or grooming. Professor Frederik Borgesius adds that it is therefore also possible to filter for words like “demonstration” and “cartoon”; the road to totalitarianism then lies&nbsp;wide open. Proportionality&nbsp; There are also practical concerns. Billions of messages are sent every day. Even with a margin of error of 0.001%, there will be millions of people who are “flagged up” incorrectly. Think, for example, of a child's picture on the beach being sent to grandparents. According to Bert Hubert, wrongful reports are not without consequences: there will be investigations, phones will be emptied, Child protection agencies like the Dutch ‘Safe Home’ NGO will come over to investigate.&nbsp; Moreover, those distributing actual criminal material will be aware of this new technology and will take measures to circumvent it. It is therefore also ineffective, according to Michael van Eeten. What would be left is a very strong surveillance system which will mainly be applied to innocent citizens. Forum for Democracy's commitment is clear. This proposal must not be allowed to pass. The technology is incredibly dangerous. Frederik Jansen will continue to oppose it in the Lower House and defend the fundamental rights of Dutch citizens.

large_Tbal_jgnmAwP0d7b.jpg

medium_Tbal_jgnmAwP0d7b.jpg

small_Tbal_jgnmAwP0d7b.jpg

thumbnail_Tbal_jgnmAwP0d7b.jpg

Client Side Scanning: a loophole for mass surveillance

Forum for Democracy International

Videos

Articles

Subscribe to our international newsletter

Thierry Baudet: The General Michael Flynn Interview

Thierry Baudet meets Roger Stone: &quot;Never give up!&quot;

Thierry Baudet and Robert F. KENNEDY Jr. talk about the DEEPSTATE, COVID and the elections

&quot;What is Non-Binary?&quot; Thierry Baudet in LGBT-debate

FVD Party Leader Thierry Baudet attacked at Ghent University

&quot;The EU is a danger for European civilisation!&quot; - Stanislav Stoyanov (Revival) at the FVD Festival

&quot;We have to fight together!&quot; - Gunnar Lindemann (AFD) at the FVD Festival

The GLOBAL Anti-Globalist Alliance: Thierry Baudet's speech at the ReAwaken America conference.

Thierry Baudet on the Israel - Hamas conflict

&quot;Protect your nation!&quot; - Dóra Dúró (MHM) at the FVD Festival

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