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

What are you allowed to say in Parliament? Not much, it seems. Thierry Baudet questioned a Christian MP in committee recently and asked him why his party did not support remigration but instead only zero net immigration. Thierry’s view is that if immigrants come in and Dutch people leave, that may be net-zero but it is still bad. He said that this would lead, over time, to a replacement of the Dutch population by means of ‘homeopathic dilution’. He was immediately interrupted by the chairman of the committee – a member of Parliament for Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party - and told to mind his language, after another member of the committee protested that Thierry was being racist. Yet Dutch Members of Parliament are constitutionally protected from prosecution for things they say in Parliament and in any case there is a fundamental right to free speech. The phrase ‘homeopathic dilution’ is not exactly an incitement to violence! Yet if you think that your nation is being slowly eradicated, why should you not be allowed to say it?&nbsp; And what does it say about those who try to stop you from even speaking about such a topic?There is great confusion about the Dutch word ‘omvolking’ which is said to be a Nazi term (Umvolkung). This was one of the expressions Thierry was told not to use.&nbsp; But ‘omvolking’ means ‘population replacement’, i.e. when one population is replaced by others, for instance through replacement migration, whereas Umvolkung refers to the process by which a population, e.g. the historic German populations in Russia, loses its own culture and language and adopts instead those of the host country: Russlanddeutsche stopped speaking German. So the two terms have really nothing to do with each other, while the knee-jerk reaction speaks volumes about the intellectual level of debate on this important issue.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x8yKfr4A4FE&amp;t=338s">Watch Thierry’s debate here</a><img src="/uploads/image_f18f438605.png">‘Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.’ Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights lists private correspondence, and privacy generally, as a fundamental right. Many countries punish any interference in private correspondence - France, for instance, with one year in prison or a 45,000 euro fine. Yet the European Commission proposes to abolish private correspondence completely by scanning all electronic communications, supposedly to root out child pornography. As usual, only FVD protests against this, most recently when FVD MP Gideon van Meijeren spoke about it in a committee hearing of the Dutch parliament. Luckily some other parties abroad have also spoken out, including not only the AfD in Germany but also the CDU there. However, experience shows that when the Commission decides something, it generally goes through because the EU is dominated by it and member states are dominated by the EU.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La8NY_c75fI&amp;t=3s">Watch Gideon van Meijeren here</a><img src="/uploads/image_83c1ae2cf1.png">FVD International director John Laughland was interviewed on Unprecedented TV this week to discuss the political crisis engulfing France. The country has been adrift since July 2024 when a snap general election produced a hung parliament. Macron has let things drag on until the latest crisis, when the third government in a year collapsed after 14 hours. Incredibly, the latest crisis seems to have given encouragement to the Left which wants even more state spending at a time when the country is drowning in debt because it cannot bring its finances under control. This would do even more damage to the reputation of the euro, as German industrial production is already in free fall. Metaphors like ‘the house of cards’ and ‘the king has no clothes’ seem inadequate to describe the wholesale collapse of the European project of which Emmanuel Macron is one of the most perfect embodiments.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/live/soi86H9fVdo">Watch John Laughland’s interview here (starting at 31:40)</a><img src="/uploads/image_3ed44d66e9.png">Under the title: “The West: Greatness and Decline”, the Renaissance Institute is organising a reading group in Dutch. Together, we will read, over five sessions, the recently published book by Ricardo Duchesne, Greatness and Ruin (2025).Prof. Duchesne is a historian and professor at the University of New Brunswick, Canada. Over the past decades, he has become a true nightmare for left-wing academics who have made it their habit to burden us with guilt over our past. In contrast, he offers a scholarly and well-founded tribute to the unparalleled greatness of the West.We warmly invite you to join us in discussing Prof. Duchesne’s book. The sessions will take place on Friday evenings – 17 October, 31 October, 14 November, 28 November, and 12 December – at the Herengracht 74, from 7 to 10 p.m.Cost: €100 for the full series, and €50 for JFVD members, including snacks, drinks, and a PDF version of the book.Interested? Send a WhatsApp message to Hans van de Breevaart at 06-14186770. In your message, please explain who you are and why you would like to take part. From the submissions, we will select 10 participants to join the first round. Not selected this time? Don’t worry! If there is enough interest, we will simply organise another round.We look forward to your participation and a series of highly engaging and enlightening evenings!Kind regards, Hans van de Breevaart

large_The Weekly Forum - 10 October.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 10 October.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 10 October.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 10 October.png

The Weekly Forum - 10 October

The Schoof government promised a historic change of direction but fell before any real policy could be made. According to political scientist, Isabelle Buhre, this rapid collapse of the government is not a coincidence, but instead a symptom of a deeper democratic crisis. Parliament has been sidelined, real power lies with international organisations, the civil service and the judiciary, and criticism of that system is actively discouraged. In conversation with NieuwRechts, she provides numerous options to turn the tide.We recently experienced another government collapse. The media immediately started talking about “the puppets”. Why is that?We pay a lot of attention to people, especially party leaders and prominent figures, but not to underlying ideas, their short- and long-term consequences and the system as a whole. Form takes precedence over content. Mainstream and social media reinforce this. You see it reflected in disproportionate attention to someone's “statements”, tweets, “tone” or things from someone's past. As if one “statement” nullifies many good solutions, vistas or an entire party programme! The way Thierry Baudet was handled is a textbook example of this.This is not only a process, but also a deliberate tactic of the establishment: attention is diverted from the content, the debate is postponed or not held, and persons with good alternatives are sidelined. So it is up to us to get much less involved in this. Literally. "You are now talking about this old tweet, but that is completely irrelevant. What does matter to talk about..." And then shift the focus.To what extent does this say something about the sustainability of the Dutch political system?Within the current frameworks, many of our problems cannot be solved, or those frameworks are themselves the cause of them. Think of the European Union, the UN Refugee Convention, but also NATO commitments, the WHO and binding agreements with the WEF. Because most legislation comes from the EU and we are stuck with binding treaties, the Lower House has been completely sidelined. The original idea was: Parliament is the supreme body, the legislature, and the government executes. Now it is: international organisations decide, and the government comes and announces. That was never the intention. This is the main cause of political discontent and loss of trust.It leads to what I call the cycle of political engagement. People gain information about an issue. That leads to the realisation that there is a problem. That realisation then leads to involvement, resistance, commitment or action. Then comes disillusionment: people see that they cannot change anything within the current frameworks. That disillusionment and mourning is followed by political apathy: 'It's all pointless anyway!' Then information emerges on a new issue, and the cycle begins again.If your voice no longer matters because all the decisions are made above you, you end up with political apathy. People then no longer want to vote, or set their sights on emigrating. They shift their focus to daily life, distractions, entertainment or culture, just like the people in the GDR and the former Soviet Union.&nbsp;Or they focus on a social movement, in order to actually be involved and be able to change something in the culture, instead of only by parliamentary means. That's what FVD does with us. That is crucial for developing ideas, for forming a new elite, and for bringing people together. But even for that, it is still necessary to vote, otherwise this movement will not get access to funding and the necessary attention. So do vote.&nbsp;Why is there so little attention for system criticism?This is more abstract and difficult than one superficial fuss after another. Besides, system media belong to the system, like NOS. You cannot expect a state-owned broadcaster to attack its own interests. Or from newspapers that are all owned by the same company, DPG Media.We see more and more fragmentation, long formations and unstable coalitions. Are these inevitable consequences of proportional representation, or can they be different?A variety of ideas and parties is partly part of proportional representation, but it is also a consequence of this excessive focus on individuals: the many break-offs with seat retention and new parties. I see this mainly as an unwillingness to cooperate, to put aside own feuds and opinions for a higher purpose.I would not advocate an electoral threshold, but rather an obligation to pass on your seat to the next person on the list if you resign for any reason. So de facto a ban on splitting off. Representation of the people is not for ego-tripping, personal feuds and holding the money of the job.Are there systemic reforms that could make governance more effective and democratic?Yes certainly, many. First, we need to get out of oppressive international frameworks that prevent us from pursuing our own sovereign policies that are in the Dutch interest. So out of the UN Refugee Convention, out of EU treaties that oblige us to accept asylum seekers, and out of the EU itself: the debt machine, which keeps expanding and heading for war; one size fits none. An exit from the WHO is important to protect people from mandatory vaccination programmes and preserve free choice and bodily autonomy in this.Secondly, we should ban parties and organisations that want to politically Islamise the Netherlands and eventually turn it into a caliphate. This is sensitive, but even Muslim countries ban organisations we naively allow, such as the Muslim Brotherhood.A business government is a good idea, i.e. one that seeks varying majorities on each issue. The left-right contradiction is often outdated in our times. This will put political primacy back in the hands of parliament.&nbsp;It is also a good idea to elect mayors and provincial governors. To prevent another mayor popping up somewhere who has never lived there, has no ties, does not share the political preferences of many residents, but is still looking for a job. In principle, I am very much in favour of the royal house as a unifying, traditionalist element that stands above the parties. However, it is up to politicians to frame their role more tightly, which means not suddenly making pleas for a digital programmable euro or showing up at the WEF.Next, we need to learn from other countries. Hungary does manage to steer a clear sovereign course, even while they are still part of the EU. To advocate de-escalation and peace with Russia, and to structurally oppose mass immigration. How do they do that, and what would it take to replicate that in the Dutch context? We are a net contributor to the EU, they are a net recipient. So we should be able to negotiate this much better.&nbsp;Next, we should convert the monistic system to a dualistic one. This means that international treaties will no longer have direct effect in the national legal order, but will be decided by parliament.&nbsp;We should introduce binding referendums on the Swiss model in order to increase the level of democracy again, to turn the involvement and commitment from the cycle into results and satisfaction instead of disillusionment and apathy.By the way, it is noteworthy: Switzerland is not a member of NATO, it is structurally neutral. We also had that tradition of neutrality up to and including the First World War. Switzerland does not participate in the euro. It has referendums. Yet you don’t hear anyone claim that the Swiss are dangerous fascists or “Putinlovers”. They do exactly what we advocate, but we get that kind of accusation. A travesty, then, that you can pierce right through.Finally, I would like to note that in the long run demography has a major effect on democracy. You can already see this in polls among young people, where DENK is on many more seats than among the rest of the population. We can make efforts to restore democracy, but there is no point if they vote themselves into a caliphate in a few decades, if they want to vote at all. That is why border closure is strictly necessary also from a democratic point of view, and remigration policies are needed. We need to start working out how to do that, what categories and criteria there should be, and what is needed legally, practically, politically and financially to make remigration policy a reality. A person’s skin colour or origin can never be a criterion, but illegality, criminality or Islamic radicalism and rejection of Dutch society can be. Failure to integrate into Dutch society, cultural incompatibility. What are these people doing here?You briefly mentioned a dualist system, binding referendums and a ban on secession. Do you think further legal changes are needed to improve our system?Yes. You see in Europe more and more political use of the judiciary, or lawfare. Judges are being used to silence political opposition: look at Marine Le Pen in France, the pre-emptive banning of AfD in Germany, and trials of FVD MPs. There are also (subsidised!) organisations that use the judiciary to enforce policies in lawsuits against the state, think of the nitrogen rules. I think there should be a law to curb the politicisation of judges and start restricting their role to reviewing national laws again. The system has started to "proliferate.In addition, and this is very important: the Dutch constitution dates back to the 19th century and is not equipped to protect citizens in the digital age. We need fundamental digital rights at the national level, protection against far-reaching digital control by the government, international organisations - think digital ID and digital euro from the EU - and by companies. Against trafficking in our data and medical records. An example of a basic digital right could be anonymous access to the internet. Participation in digital banking without social credit-like conditions. Access to knowledge and courses available on the internet. Free speech on the internet within the limits of the law. And the right to establish and maintain contact with other people worldwide, even if their governments are in conflict.&nbsp;Indeed, I believe that personal contact and friendships is one of the antidotes to propaganda and enemy images, indeed it can lead to citizen diplomacy, citizens being able to say things that officials should not or do not want to. What does a government that wants to tighten its grip do first? Flatten social media and news platforms where people can hear a different voice and really get to know each other. Russians have to turn on a VPN to get on YouTube, we to watch Russian sites like RT or be anonymous on the internet. With us, the open space to express your opinion is indeed greater, but nothing is then done with that collectively accumulated knowledge and mandates, that is the problem.&nbsp;In the Cold War era, we could not read the media from the “other side”. Now we technically can, but we remain largely in a created mainstream information bubble that narrows our view.Should this topic, “systemic change”, be more central to the election campaign?Not directly, but using major themes you can show that this is behind it, and necessary to make real change. For example, immigration, nitrogen rules, the huge debts we incur within the EU, and being sucked into NATO and the EU’s anti-Russia course, which is unnecessary and very dangerous. On our cultural kinship with Eastern Europe and Russia, and our now missed opportunities there for trade and mutual benefit, I would need a separate article. As Slavist Marie-Thérèse ter Haar so beautifully puts it: our seat at the table in Eurasia is now empty, but it is still there, accompanied by an outstretched hand.How can citizens themselves change anything? Or has the system become too much of a self-protective bastion?It certainly can; that is precisely where renewal is going to come from in the long run. Become part of that social movement. Support local initiatives, such as peaceful opposition to an asylum seekers’ centre in your neighbourhood. Where you spend your money is also a good example, think local products and local retailers. Do you spend money every month on a Netflix subscription with American woke-series, or do you go to a classical concert or a museum? What do you donate to? Not to the Postcode Lottery.&nbsp;It manifests itself in paying attention to your family, relationship, wider family, to friendships, club life, people in the neighbourhood. Find tradition in your leisure activities, a choir or orchestra, an association. And be “the other voice” there, because you will find that you are not the only one. Herein is also a piece of antidote to polarisation, because within this midfield you will automatically meet people who think differently and put the focus on what you do have in common.&nbsp;Reading, sharing and supporting alternative media, of course. People are usually not stupid, they just have a huge information gap and only have the time to open the NOS app once a day.&nbsp;Two years ago, I was in Serbia and visited an Orthodox monastery that had survived under Ottoman attacks. There had been a fire, the murals had been partly chopped down and scratched away. But it had retained its culture. And now, centuries later, the monastery still functioned exactly as it was meant to. After the Ottomans, after communism, after the Yugoslav civil war. This is how I see European civilisation right now: under fire from enemies within its walls as well as from our own elites. The question is going to be: can we as a social movement also establish such a sanctuary and preserve what is valuable to us?In short: we will first try to change it ourselves. Our own movement, our own culture with, in time, a different politics. Not immediately fleeing to Hungary, Serbia or Spain - but taking inspiration from there for a better life here.

large_rutte-leyen.jpg

medium_rutte-leyen.jpg

small_rutte-leyen.jpg

thumbnail_rutte-leyen.jpg

How EU and NATO are eroding our democracy: 'We need systemic reforms'

‘Now, what I want is Facts. Facts alone are wanted in life. Stick to Facts, Sir!’ Mr Gradgrind in Dickens’ Hard Times is an absurd figure because he, like the positivists of which he is a caricature, imagines that life can be reduced to administration. What these people do not understand is that there can be disagreement not just about the interpretation of facts on the basis that the ‘facts’ have been established. Closing off the discussion on the basis that ‘facts’ have been established is ridiculous if those ‘facts’ are disputed. It is even more ridiculous when the same person also refuses to accept certain facts which even he does not doubt. This is what happened in a recent exchange between Lidewij de Vos, FVD’s lead candidate, and a progressive leftist Green member of Parliament, Jesse Klaver. Klaver refused to accept that the arrival of 1.5 million immigrants into the Netherlands had anything to do with the housing crisis; but when Lidewij disputed the existence of a nitrogen problem (the basis for green policy in the country) Klaver deplored the fact that in today’s politics there is not even agreement about these so-called ‘facts’. So on the one hand he refuses to accept an obvious fact – immigration puts pressure on housing – and refuses to debate a policy, in this case on nitrogen, because it is allegedly based on ‘facts’. Pff.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNJWRQsNYJg">Watch Lidewij’s debate here</a><img src="/uploads/image_72499635a5.png">What could be more at the root of economics than money? FVD party leader Thierry Baudet surprised the Lower Chamber recently with a magisterial lecture about economics - and specifically about inflation and fiat money. These issues are never raised in European politics even though there is endless discussion about monetary policy and interest rates. Monetary creation is hardly ever mentioned – at least by politicians – as a cause of rising house prices and stock market booms. Yet there is nothing more fundamental than the ability to create money out of thin air.&nbsp; For more than 50 years, ever since the last definitive abandonment of the gold standard in 1971, this is what the world has been doing – with catastrophic consequences. The debt burden is now unbearable in many Western countries and will likely lead to even more inflation. Only FVD goes to the very root of the problems, instead of dancing around silly debates about how to implement or whether to delay this or that policy. Only FVD seeks to solve problems at their root, instead of attacking the symptoms like Geert Wilders’ Freedom Party which recently announced it intends to limit inflation by imposing price controls - a totally self-defeating Socialist fantasy.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-nCoTUXUjfM&amp;t=88s">Watch Thierry’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_8d0dca1a3c.png">And while we are on the subject of gold, why is European gold still stored in America? Is it even still there? Bring it back! And why shouldn’t people be able to open ordinary bank accounts in gold? Only specialised companies offer this. And what about Bitcoin? That has become part of the furniture of the financial system and should logically be integrated into the reserves of central banks. All these things Thierry Baudet proposed in a series of motions put before the Dutch parliament recently. No other party comes close to making such interesting and novel proposals.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfYM16LLBsI">Watch Thierry’s speech here</a><img src="/uploads/image_be644ae793.png">If you want a comprehensive overview of the philosophical world view underlying FVD’s policies, there is no better tool than the series of videos Thierry Baudet made last year,&nbsp;The Movement.&nbsp;It would be difficult to find another party in Europe which can claim anything like this sort of intellectual depth.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIsN-V0XCJAHltpKo4OykF9y9cb9mb9yP">Watch&nbsp;The Movement here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 3 October.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 3 October.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 3 October.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 3 October.png

The Weekly Forum - 3 October

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