Let's stop this suicidal male hatred nowYou cannot watch a TV news programme, listen to a radio programme or read a newspaper without the mantra being repeated that Donald Trump is a danger to both individual freedom and economic prosperity.In the process, Trump is consistently portrayed as a ‘dangerous madman’. He is said to be driven only by ‘vindictiveness’ and ‘nihilism’. His politics are said to be part of a deliberate effort to destroy the liberal world order and replace it with total disorder.Opinions differ only on the extent to which this ‘nihilistic’ reversal of all values is utterly irrational; a few are able to discern a certain rationale in it as well.&nbsp;The latter scenario is said to make the matter much more serious, as it only reinforces the disastrous nature of his politics, just as it supposedly allowed Putin, Xi, Erdogan, Netanyahu, Orbán and, earlier, Adolf Hitler to pursue their goals with ‘diabolical’ precision.&nbsp;&nbsp;Anyone who takes a sober look at what is actually going on will see that the import tariffs imposed by Trump by decree are still, on average, well below those of his trading partners and that, from that perspective, they represent a very moderate form of ‘revenge’. But is it really ‘revenge’ at all? Trump is happy to sit down with countries willing to do something about their own import tariffs.&nbsp;So you could call his politics a form of diplomacy. A form of ‘male’ diplomacy, admittedly: you indicate that you will no longer be led like a lamb to the slaughter, nor will you go down on your knees begging for tariffs to be lowered or abolished, but show for the first time that you are prepared to strike back, in the hope that your trading partner will change his mind and also examine his own import tariffs.That those import tariffs are imposed by decree does not mean that the democratic rule of law is undermined; this instrument is an integral part of that rule of law, at least in the US. You can only speak of a ‘dictatorship’ in this context if you wanted to retroactively declare all presidents in US history to have been dictators.Besides, how come nobody caught on when Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama called for import tariffs, urged European countries finally to honour their commitments to NATO, and advocated the deportation of criminal migrants? The only difference with Trump is that he is not just shouting it, but putting his money where his mouth is and threatening countries that fail to honour their commitments with sanctions.So the hatred towards Trump does not so much concern his politics, but his person: it is outright man-hatred.For those for whom this seems a bit far-fetched, this hatred has been around for so long that we are often not even aware of it anymore. Certainly not since this hatred has taken hold of the mainstream media and politics, ever since the father of the so-called Frankfurt School, sociologist and philosopher Theodor Adorno, wrote&nbsp;The Authoritarian Personality in 1950. Since then, this hatred has even gained scientific prestige has been nestled into American and European culture via a long march through the institutions.Adorno's book sought to explain the rise of fascism in the glorification of typically masculine values such as courage, confrontation, aggression, exclusion and (national) self-interest. As such, these values were diametrically opposed to the feminine values of the liberal world order: humility, empathy, diplomacy, dialogue, inclusiveness and (universal) solidarity.For fascism to be a thing of the past once and for all, boys also needed to be taught typically feminine values. With the help of those values, a new, left-liberal, world order of eternal peace and prosperity could take shape.With the fall of the Berlin Wall, liberals went into a jubilant mood. Its most high-profile interpreter was the political philosopher, Francis Fukuyama. He even proclaimed the end of history in 1992.&nbsp; War - that quintessentially male pastime - had been defeated by the soft forces of democratic-capitalism and would definitely be a thing of the past. At best, police actions could still push for regime change so that the democracy everyone in the world had been waiting for could finally be established.However, not only elsewhere in the world but even at home, more and more people appeared unhappy with the outcomes of the liberal world order. This was for the following reasons.<ol><li>Liberals still think you can establish democracy under any circumstances more or less by external force. But almost always, such adventures end in civil war and chaos, with dire consequences for the societies involved. &nbsp;</li><li>Liberals think they can save the whole world from imminent demise due to climate change. However, the associated Green Deals lead to ever-rising energy prices, an increasingly unstable energy supply and, with it, economic decline and increasing poverty. &nbsp;</li><li>Liberals think they can save the whole world by endlessly taking in migrants. This leads not only to repopulation and increasing poverty, but also to undermining the dominant Judeo-Christian-humanist culture that had laid the foundation for unprecedented freedom and prosperity. &nbsp;</li><li>Liberals think they can save the whole world by endlessly spending borrowed money to fund their own ideals. That citizens and businesses are weighed down by increasingly heavy burdens, and that this has a negative effect on the earning power of economies, seems to escape the governing elites. &nbsp;</li><li>Liberals think they can save the whole world with their good intentions. Anyone who dares to point out the suicidal side effects of related policies on the economy and society is dismissed as a scary populist, put under censorship and, if necessary, forcibly silenced.</li></ol>Since soft counterforces had failed so far, it turned out to be necessary to have a man who would stand aside for nothing and no one in order to strengthen the popular protest in politics as well.&nbsp;A man who was prepared to risk not only his entire life and possessions, but also his good name. A man who did not mind being despised by the sitting elites because of his criticism of the harmful side effects of the liberal world order.&nbsp;A man who, with his typically masculine bravado, reawakened the awareness among all sections of the population that resistance to the seemingly supreme elites was possible, while also giving them new hope for a better future. A man who was willing to fight to Make America Great Again.&nbsp;The bravado with which Trump confronted was loathed by representatives of the liberal order like Barack and Michelle Obama as vulgar. ‘When they go low, we go high,’ was how they interpreted their claim to the moral high ground.In The New York Times last 1 May, columnist David Brooks condemned Trump's style as ‘pagan’, because inspired by the hubris once peculiar to the Romans. See his grandiose real estate projects, his enthusiasm for pro wrestling and military parades. With Trump, everything has to be grand and compelling.Here in this country, a critic like Charles Groenhuijsen interpreted liberal sentiment. By now seriously considering that Trump would win the race for the White House, he still imagined in his Donald Trump (2015) that Obama would leave the following message for his successor at his farewell:&nbsp;Be modest.Be humble.Be patient.Or pretend…Enjoy the ride.All the best,BarackThe message from the liberal elites was clear: We know, Donald, that you are a typical alpha male, with all that bluster, pride and vigour of yours. But please pretend to be a woman. We know that deep down you will always be a fascist. But pretend for a moment that you are a liberal. Then the next time you lose the election, we can just go on with our liberal project as if nothing ever happened.Meanwhile, Trump, with his masculine way of doing politics, did manage to stand up to the prevailing current in media and politics and give broad voice to the wide-spread unrest in society. It brought him to power in 2016, only to come back even stronger in 2024.Apparently, more and more people saw in this ‘dangerous madman’ a man capable of effectively bringing an end to a liberal era in which their freedoms were increasingly infringed upon and in which they saw their prosperity evaporate faster and faster.&nbsp;That his message resonated particularly among men should come as no surprise in this regard. For too long they had allowed themselves to be patronised by an elite that treated them as pathetic females and small children. For too long, they had believed in the liberal talk that promised them heaven on earth and that even fewer and fewer women still believe in.For them, Trump is the epitome of a pride and decisiveness that enables men to have faith in themselves again, to take fate into their own hands with self-confidence and fight for home and property, wife and children. Trump is the epitome of the man which an increasing number of women also feel is there to protect them .Trump is the man fighting against the false pretence that America can save the whole world. For him, the interests of his own Americans are paramount. Together with them, he promises to make America great againWhether his masculine form of diplomacy will have the desired effect in the process remains to be seen.But this does not make Trump's policy ‘nihilistic’ at all. It was clear that continuing on the old path would be short-sighted. The ill effects of the delusion of a global free market economy were already too dire for that.This is not to mention the suicidal features of the pursuit of a liberal world order, in which not only the economic foundations of our culture, but also that culture itself, including the underlying drive to reproduce, are in danger of being destroyed.Being aware of this and finally doing something about it does not make you a ‘dangerous madman’. On the contrary, it apparently took a man to put an end to a politics in which politicians claim the moral high ground for themselves on the backs of citizens.In The Churchill Complex (2020), historian Ian Buruma predicted that Trump will one day be seen as ‘a temporary phase of insanity’ in America's proud democratic history.&nbsp;In contrast, I predict that Trump will one day be seen as the one who saved democracy from imminent demise and ushered in a time of renewed vitality.

medium_Trump_shot_bd3284af42.jpeg

small_Trump_shot_bd3284af42.jpeg

thumbnail_Trump_shot_bd3284af42.jpeg

Donald Trump: a 'dangerous madman'?

By Ulrike Reisner &amp; Edouard Husson. Despite reunification, a rift continues to run through Germany: While foreign rule in East Germany ended at the time of reunification, it has continued throughout the country ever since, coming from the West. Germany is still a militarily occupied country. A new book, published by French historian Edouard Husson and Austrian political scientist Ulrike Reisner, shows that Germany’s foreign rule prevents true reunification. In the new multipolar world order, it is even an obstacle to European unity.In their newly published book, Edouard Husson, a native of France, and Ulrike Reisner, a native of Austria, take a special look at Germany after the 2025 federal elections. They explore the political division in Germany, whose roots go back a long way. The authors trace the broad outlines of Germany's foreign and economic policy and highlight examples of misguided decisions made in recent decades. The apparent geopolitical timidity that German politics has long been accused of in Europe is critically assessed in an evaluation of Euro-Atlantic alliance policy since the end of the Cold War. The authors attempt to show that the special relationship between the United States and Germany has become a decisive obstacle to the reorientation of Europe in the new multipolar world order.Ongoing US hegemony70 years after the Federal Republic of Germany joined the North Atlantic Pact, 70 years after the Warsaw Pact was founded, the authors resume that Europe finds itself in an almost paradoxical situation: on the one hand, it has had to continue to submit politically like a colony under the hegemonic influence of the USA and has been unable to participate in new developments in other regions of the world - on the contrary, it has participated in numerous proxy wars of the United States.On the other hand, since 1945, Europe has logically never succeeded in developing independently and autonomously, like the founding members of the BRICS states, Brazil, China, Russia, India or South Africa, for example. As a result, Europe - together with the United States - has also hindered the development and growth of the United Nations. It has made a decisive contribution to paralysing the United Nations by practising a policy of alignment with the American and British vetoes in the Security Council - through a France that remained less and less faithful to General de Gaulle's policy.According to Edouard Husson and Ulrike Reisner the most important common political task would be for Europe to free itself from foreign military bases of non-European states and no longer belong to military alliances with non-European states. Instead, Europe should concentrate its military and security policy interests on safeguarding European security and sovereignty and on implementing and supporting tasks and decisions within the framework of the United Nations.The centre of Europe has a key role to play in this development with the decolonisation and true reunification of Germany. If Germany is unable to accomplish this task, the colonial divide in the centre of Europe will remain in place, with the recognisable consequence of a continued weakening of Germany and the threat of European disintegration, the authors say. If Germany's and Europe's leading political elites continue to make the mistake of only betting on one card, namely the dependent, transatlantic one, they will come to the bitter realisation that they will end up in a new conflict-ridden peripheral zone of the new multipolar world order, namely between the BRICS states and the United States, as their deployment zone and counter-wall in the event of war.The book has already been published in German and English, and the French version is about to be released. In addition, a complete translation of the book into Russian is available in PDF format from the&nbsp;<a href="https://www.institut-brennus.com">Brennus Institute</a>.Decolonise Europe – Germany Needs True ReunificationEdouard Husson &amp; Ulrike ReisnerBrennus InstituteISBN: 9783819092923Available via&nbsp;<a href="https://www.epubli.com/shop/germany-needs-true-reunification-9783819092923">epubli.com</a>

large_Cover_17_111-scaled.png

medium_Cover_17_111-scaled.png

small_Cover_17_111-scaled.png

thumbnail_Cover_17_111-scaled.png

Decolonise Europe: Germany Needs True Reunification

FVD’s Renaissance Institute in central Amsterdam is holding a book presentation this week of ‘Kremlin Propaganda’ by William Immink. William is a Dutchman living in Russia who has been baffled by the disconnect between Western propaganda and reality. This is his second book. FVD International’s director, John Laughland, caught up with William by video link shortly before he left for Amsterdam and asked him to tell us a little about himself and about why he wrote the book.<a href="https://fvd.nl/events/boekpresentatie-william-immink-kremlin-propaganda">Get tickets to the event here</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJHZpUm1Yag&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch John’s interview with William Immink here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXclJSZa2eEjihKikeIK4Yl86V8G2uLtH40EJ6UscGAJrJyLVh6sFJzy9Tw57Cgcw9-XAsh-STttzD2MDkUdfxt2zv5d2apUSwluVGugi6QLmtb5WrfHJTK9g32iIC3P-V9--D0mXA?key=g3cMiTBVNRPZMoBfK2prNQ">FVD International’s Vincent Vos was interviewed on Ongehoord Nederland (Unheard Netherlands) this week. ON! is a dissident public broadcaster – a rare phenomenon in Europe.&nbsp; The debate was about whether Donald Trump is a danger to the liberal world order. ‘I hope so!’ was, in short, Vincent’s reponse. Liberal democracy has become nothing but an excuse for a cynical power grab by elites. People are fed up with it, which is why they voted for Trump. =The ‘end of history’ was supposed to put an end to politics. But this irenic dream is in fact a nightmare because, in the name of anti-politics, elites have established an extreme centrist dictatorship.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_AHkVq0MCg&amp;t=4s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch Vincent’s video here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfqEKQbZ4g1qCbQtb3fwCUVVitpMAkx-VvSALdaYNHZenafvI0GbX5OjhN0olC-0zYeJA1qdHsfbL9TH1c7OExrA1CzuKkxzLQ7W-cytzBEIAvw7wiUyTLXWKYn01_02VDrG-q_5Q?key=g3cMiTBVNRPZMoBfK2prNQ">Vincent has also been interviewed for a German media outlet run by Raphael Machado. He was asked about Zelensky’s remarkably high declared salary (no doubt a small part of his overall takings) but also about the policies of the new German government. This led Vincent to give a long and interesting reply about the limits and contradictions of liberalism. On the one hand, it pretends to be tolerant, on the other, it is increasingly intolerant and totalitarian. Its authoritarianism, indeed, is an indication of the fact that it is flailing around, desperately reaching for ever harsher instruments with which to defeat its enemies - but in what is ultimately a lost cause.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rmt28Ha0iJU&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch Vincent’s interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXc33WNee3LN0XBHA8zSuEUmhQ9af1f2Uod85Bm9zKOHpiw4P_9CB8fnIS7_HpqYt1GD5Xv8Fc3fILLHmarGjQwION92Jnmk5uIS1VezdafRKulNV4AAQiqK0l2Ddd5coMjoIcgM9g?key=g3cMiTBVNRPZMoBfK2prNQ">On The Forum this week we were honoured to welcome the wonderful Mohammed Marandi, professor of politics at the University of Tehran, on the latest threats to that country emanating from the madhouse that is the White House.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nSz-ZXJlzlo&amp;t=3s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Listen to The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum 8 May.png

medium_The Weekly Forum 8 May.png

small_The Weekly Forum 8 May.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum 8 May.png

The Weekly Forum - 8 May

The EU is all about peace and prosperity, right&nbsp;?&nbsp; Well, it’s not about peace any more because Brussels is determined to continue the war against Russia in Ukraine.&nbsp; It is the USA which is trying to make peace.&nbsp; What about prosperity?&nbsp; Here, too, the Atlantic relationship has broken down.&nbsp; Trump is famously introducing tariffs against European imports to correct the current imbalances.&nbsp; The EU is shrieking that this is unfair, yet it imposes a 10% on American cars while the US taxes European cars at only 2.5%.&nbsp; Instead of correcting this and other obvious imbalances, Brussels elites pretended for a long time that Trump would not be re-elected.&nbsp; The EU was therefore unprepared when he was.&nbsp; Now Brussels is hiking the EU’s own tariffs even further.&nbsp; This may make sense for countries which have a trade surplus with the US but it is highly damaging for countries like the Netherlands which has a large trade deficit.&nbsp; FVD is the only party in the Netherlands to call for the country to leave the EU.&nbsp; This latest nonsense only makes Nexit even more urgent than ever.&nbsp; The EU is a ball and chain, an economic death trap - as Thierry Baudet explained in a recent speech in Parliament.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-pLY_ck-uI">Watch Thierry’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXel0EQtrqiT1Ff1OUSGzBTH_txjisEbT0JlqWObRbNiayyJXlFurIksN9wL62nvgpwFVI1JteHEyyFdmyRfqUn8tya86adrzjY3gPaMLsNtyi9Y8WCYARl1o2H8ey08HtUHb8Ar?key=djVaYb8w1SNhoEYLQTxlBHdT">You see, there is no diversity in EU trade policy.&nbsp; It is negotiated at EU, not national level and is the same for all countries.&nbsp; This is in spite of the fact that the EU slogan is ‘unity in diversity’.&nbsp; Perhaps it should be ‘diversity is unity’ because the real goal of ‘diversity’ policy – currently being abolished in the USA – is to ensure unity.&nbsp; There is no diversity of political opinions within the civil service, the media or the judiciary.&nbsp; Instead, bogus ‘diversity’ of various left-wing minorities is promoted to ensure complete hegemony of the left-liberal consensus and to attack precisely that section of the population – white, straight men – who are more likely to be conservatives and patriots.&nbsp; Thierry Baudet explained this with admirable clarity in a recent speech in committee.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/Lets-put-an-end-to-diversity">Read Thierry’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfnZbAoO4sMWnpveia6GK79DGBgM3h1CFuLkl05gK074utonvXo6qMVWwq4CopPRmpZkZQYVZSJKucgOajr0KisDoYvMO06RfrorugXaPA-BYsiBINrg4ZKt-4Sbr0vPFQIL37oEA?key=djVaYb8w1SNhoEYLQTxlBHdT">But what do we make of Trump anyway?&nbsp; He claims to want to make peace in Ukraine but seems determined not to walk away from a war which he says he did not start.&nbsp; (This claim is not quite true since offensive weapons were supplied to Ukraine during the first Trump administration.)&nbsp; Now the ‘rare earths’ deal has been trumpeted as a way of getting America’s money back.&nbsp; In reality, as Daniel McAdams argues, it is no such thing.&nbsp; Instead, it is a game of smoke and mirrors designed to keep America locked in to the war.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/end-the-ukraine-war-with-this-one-simple-trick">Read Daniel McAdams’ article here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXfXZz9hTqB--jGrlGBUVCIR3B2loo9MjfzKVXdgUsAPJTdGUJZLbn7MW1k_g0i2PtLV3A0TO_c-9zc-5hxf64AC80PdjHv4EKy71aYKKlUMjOxPAByjUpU1rOgXOlSxA64fp-Tw?key=djVaYb8w1SNhoEYLQTxlBHdT">The&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/@ForumforDemocracy/streams">Forum</a> is now live every week (Wednesdays at 4pm) on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.twitch.tv/fvd_international">Twitch</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://x.com/FVD_Intl">X</a>,&nbsp;<a href="https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLIsN-V0XCJAE7Q6w1fG5bO3cYynt7zlMN">Youtube</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://rumble.com/user/FVDIntl">Rumble</a>. You can also follow FVD International on&nbsp;<a href="https://www.instagram.com/fvd_intl/">Instagram</a> and&nbsp;<a href="https://www.tiktok.com/@fvdinternational">TikTok</a> and of course on our&nbsp;<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/">own website</a>.

large_The Weekly Forum - 2 May.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 2 May.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 2 May.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 2 May.png

The Weekly Forum - 2 May

30 April 2025If you watched&nbsp;<a href="https://the-free-foundation.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a6b3044a9fe8889c822d11c16&amp;id=86fecce969&amp;e=90926ddd9a">today's Liberty Report</a>&nbsp;you would have heard how quickly today's focus for the second story we covered changed in less than an hour. Dr. Paul sent me over a story around 7AM on how the now-infamous "rare earths minerals deal" between the US and Ukraine would finally be signed - for absolute sure this time! - today.&nbsp; When I got into the studio about an hour later I clicked on the story to begin preparing our clips and my notes. Imagine my surprise (!) when the headline had changed to suggest that the Ukraine government aircraft had turned around mid-flight back to Kiev because no deal would be signed today. Then when I went to prepare this write-up for you tonight&nbsp;I was only partly surprised to see that in fact the "deal"&nbsp;<a href="https://the-free-foundation.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a6b3044a9fe8889c822d11c16&amp;id=a773905ed8&amp;e=90926ddd9a">had been signed after all</a>. The "minerals deal" was billed as a miraculous breakthrough, an amazing journey from the dramatic confrontation between the US president and vice president and Zelensky in the Oval Office just weeks ago, to the point where President Trump can raise high his trophy: the signed minerals deal for which an enormous amount of US diplomatic effort has been spent! But the deal signed today in no way resembles the original "rare earths" deal touted by President Trump just a few weeks ago. Recall that when first launched this "deal" was a way for Ukraine to "pay back" the United States for $350 billion in assistance as calculated by the Trump people. The number is only accurate if one goes back to the US-backed coup in 2014, though,&nbsp;and, ironically, through the first Trump term (where for the first time offensive weapons were provided), and past the Biden&nbsp;largesse&nbsp;after Russia's launch of its "special military operation" in February of 2022. And it was a payback in the "rare earths" minerals said to be so critical to our technological society that had heretofore been supplied by "adversaries" like China for which many in the Trump foreign policy team were preparing to target as soon as they solved the Ukraine issue. The genius negotiator Trump was to secure the "rare earths" minerals from Ukraine that would for certainty be withheld or forbidden when the real strategy of "confronting" China was put into place. But it's all kabuki theater. First off, Trump people dropped the demand that US aid to Ukraine to the tune of a third of a trillion dollars needed to be paid back. That was the backbone and rationale of the deal in the first place. No, just days ago it was determined that we would start with a clean slate with Ukraine. Once again - as with the "Liberation Day" tariff war - maximalist demands were made, proved incredibly disruptive, and then were inexplicably reversed suddenly days later. "Just kidding." And now that the "minerals deal" was finally signed today to great fanfare, it turns out that it was not about "rare earths" minerals at all. As&nbsp;Energy and commodities columnist at Bloomberg Javier Blas reported, after looking at the radically restructured "rare earths" deal&nbsp;<a href="https://the-free-foundation.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a6b3044a9fe8889c822d11c16&amp;id=9050bad9ee&amp;e=90926ddd9a">posted on X</a>, the "deal" is primarily about "oil, natural gas and a bit of aluminum." He added, "And the critical minerals? Rare earths?" Even the supposed harsh terms&nbsp;<a href="https://the-free-foundation.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a6b3044a9fe8889c822d11c16&amp;id=896c1ac9de&amp;e=90926ddd9a">turns out to be a paper tiger</a>:- The US has no say under the agreement on when or what gets extracted in Ukraine - Both countries invest equally into an 'investment fund' - No debts for past aid are acknowledged - The US will not see a single dollar from the investment, in the best circumstances, for 10 YEARSWe've seen this movie before. Stealing oil from Syria and Iraq with negligible benefit to American citizens that was initially touted as a way to pay them back for our financing regime change wars. But only the well-connected Beltway parasites were well-paid. The ludicrous "rare earths minerals deal" is a microcosm of how absurd the Trump Administration's policy has been on the US/Russia war through proxy Ukraine in the first place. As longtime analyst Brian Berletic - with a solid track record of accuracy -&nbsp;<a href="https://the-free-foundation.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a6b3044a9fe8889c822d11c16&amp;id=d334d1d599&amp;e=90926ddd9a">wrote last week</a>,&nbsp;"Today, the US government is attempting to play the role of a frustrated mediator trying to broker peace between Ukraine and Russia, when in reality this was always a war between the US and Russia." Perhaps driven by hubris and a slightly concerning obsession with vainglory, President Trump is desperate to be able to take credit for "solving" a completely fictional Ukraine/Russia war. Any doctor worth his salt would tell you that there is no way you can treat the disease if you misdiagnose the symptoms, but here we are with an Administration hypnotized by the neocon-created fantasy of a sudden attack - without antecedent - by Russia on its neighbor as a blatant land grab mixed equally with a desire to express bestial cruelty.&nbsp; The only way they can sell this neocon fever dream is to reimagine Russian President Putin as a kind of golem-like figure who suddenly wakes up in the morning and decides who and how many to kill that day. In fact this entire chapter of post-Cold War US foreign policy is defined by a desperate search for relatively easy dragons abroad to slay while sharpening our fangs to take down rival number two, Russia, with an eye on rival number one, an ascendant China.But something happened on the road to unipolar victory: through the bad joke called NATO, the US threw everything in its arsenal short of nuclear weapons at Russia in Ukraine and it lost. In a United States thankfully defended by a wonderful geography of two protective oceans, it may be hard for our fellow citizens to understand what an existential war may look like. Indeed, even WWII was a kind of crusade to save Europe from its own excesses. We were never threatened by Hitler or any of his riff-raff. Jews were totally safe in the US. Russia on the other hand came to know up close and personal the murderous intent of the Nazis, and for the Soviet Union it was a matter of life and death - and we are talking tens of millions of lives - that savage Hitler with his view that Slavs were&nbsp;untermensch&nbsp;to be eliminated must be defeated. Life or death. Americans have not faced that since, arguably, the Civil War. So here we are in an absolutely AI kind of artificial reality where the early Trump 2.0 Administration is expending extraordinarily amounts of&nbsp;political, diplomatic,&nbsp;and other multi-layer efforts to maintain a fiction that Trump can wave his wand and remove animosity between Ukraine and Russia when all the time it was the US who was at war behind the shadows. As the process becomes increasingly less attuned to the reality on the ground - thanks in large part to a reverse Walter Durranty-level fantasist&nbsp;called "General Kellogg" who for some bizarre reason continues to dominate the debate with his asinine "plan" published with neocon&nbsp;<a href="https://the-free-foundation.us6.list-manage.com/track/click?u=a6b3044a9fe8889c822d11c16&amp;id=f87a3a28fd&amp;e=90926ddd9a">Fred Fleitz</a>&nbsp;last April -&nbsp; Trump's chimeric admonitions to his Russian counterpart to "just stop shooting" belie a kind of desperation that is doomed to fail. And he knows it.&nbsp; Russia is fighting for its survival. Neocons are surfing on Ukrainian blood to fulfill their fantasy to somehow revenge a wrong they perceive their ancestors faced more than a hundred years ago, in the time of the Tsars, in the land between today's Russia and Belarus. That's it. That's the war. So how can President Trump square this ginormous circle and escape the traps and spider webs woven for him by all the neocons he has again hired to direct his foreign policy?&nbsp; Ron Paul is often dismissed as&nbsp;jejune&nbsp;for his&nbsp;bons mots&nbsp;that "we just marched in we can just march out." However in systems analysis many times it turns out that the simplest solution is the best solution. President Trump can end the war in Ukraine in a day (as he once promised) by simply announcing that it is not his war and he will no longer have anything to do with it. That means no shuttle diplomacy with absurd plans, no more Witkoff trafficking in Kellogg's gilded turds. Simply a recognition of reality: literally no American who voted for Trump to save them from Biden's inflation and woke tyranny could give a flying fornication who rules Ukraine or how it gets along with Russia. Polls back this idea as well. To win Ukraine, Trump must wash his hands, Pontius Pilate-like, of the whole affair.&nbsp; The neocons who have again steadied their swagger in Trump 2.0 love to revise the "peace through strength" mantra, as if they are the heirs of Reagan. But the real strength that brings on peace is the strength to stand up to all the Beltway neocons and desktop warriors and say, "enough." "This is not my war and I want to have nothing to do with it. Americans elected me to bring jobs to Middle America, not to pursue a crusade for the bloodthirsty neocon elite who fantasize&nbsp;of using American might to right all their perceived historical wrongs." America first is the real and only&nbsp;solution to the Ukraine problem.Daniel MAdams is Director of the&nbsp;<a href="https://ronpaulinstitute.org/">Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity</a>.

cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA1L2xyL2ZsNTIwMDQ5NzQzOTYtaW1hZ2UuanBn.webp

large_cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA1L2xyL2ZsNTIwMDQ5NzQzOTYtaW1hZ2UuanBn.webp

medium_cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA1L2xyL2ZsNTIwMDQ5NzQzOTYtaW1hZ2UuanBn.webp

small_cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA1L2xyL2ZsNTIwMDQ5NzQzOTYtaW1hZ2UuanBn.webp

thumbnail_cHJpdmF0ZS9sci9pbWFnZXMvd2Vic2l0ZS8yMDIyLTA1L2xyL2ZsNTIwMDQ5NzQzOTYtaW1hZ2UuanBn.webp

End The Ukraine War With This One Simple Trick

Speech to the Home Affairs Commitee of the Dutch Parliament, 24 April.Today, we are discussing the functioning of the civil service. I would like to use my speaking time in this debate to criticise the so-called ‘Diversity Policy’ which, according to reports in De Telegraaf, among others, is being continued, and even stepped up, by this government.&nbsp;When I asked oral questions about this a few weeks back, the minister confirmed that this is indeed happening.&nbsp; He said he did not see any conflict with Article 1 of our Constitution, which states precisely that everyone has equal rights.&nbsp;However, that is my main objection to this policy: favouring one group, say ‘women’, automatically and inevitably means disadvantaging the other group - in this example, men.&nbsp;Any form of ‘positive’ discrimination against one, always and everywhere means ‘negative’ discrimination against the other.That is unjust and fundamentally wrong. In the United States, we see that President Donald Trump has put and end to this.&nbsp; I am going to table a motion calling on the government to do the same in the Netherlands.&nbsp;But there is a bit more to say about it.&nbsp;This whole diversity discourse is not really about real diversity - diversity of ideas, of characters, of personalities. You never hear anyone say that there are too few climate sceptics working at the Dutch public broadcasting corporation, or too few supporters of Geert Wilder’s Freedom Party or Forum for Democracy in the judiciary. You never once hear anyone complain about the decidedly left-wing orientation of our universities.&nbsp;No, apparently people don't think ‘real’ diversity is that important at all. Could it secretly be about something else?&nbsp;The civil service is also predominantly left-wing, according to numerous surveys. Certainly the Civil Service, the carousel of Directors-General. I don't think any of those people are in favour of a the Netherlands leaving the European Union, for instance, shall we say. Or unvaccinated. Or against the war in Ukraine.&nbsp;But nowhere do we see a word about that kind of diversity.&nbsp;No, the ‘diversity policy’ is always about LGBTQI+ people, about immigrants, about Muslims, about women, and so on.&nbsp;In the plans now before us, even 50 per cent of top managers must be women, and at least 13.8 percent of employees of foreign origin, and the quotas are undoubtedly going to be expanded further.&nbsp;Chairman, what do all these groups actually have in common?&nbsp;What they have in common, according to all statistics, is that they are on average significantly more left-wing than the one group against which discrimination is practised: the heterosexual white male.&nbsp;Seen this way, so-called ‘diversity policy’ - and here it comes - is actually about uniformity.&nbsp;It is about making the agencies it affects even more leftist.&nbsp;That is the actual agenda.&nbsp;And all kinds of so-called ‘minority groups’ are to further push away the heterosexual, white man, the ‘authoritarian personality’ as Theodor Adorno called him, the hard core of right-wing Holland.&nbsp;That's what it's all about.&nbsp;And I was actually wondering if the minister is aware of that.&nbsp;

Schermafbeelding-2022-11-15-om-09.40.30-860x611.png

medium_Schermafbeelding-2022-11-15-om-09.40.30-860x611.png

small_Schermafbeelding-2022-11-15-om-09.40.30-860x611.png

thumbnail_Schermafbeelding-2022-11-15-om-09.40.30-860x611.png

Let’s put an end to ‘Diversity’

FVD International’s director, John Laughland, was delighted to be invited for a long interview with the conservative news outlet Nieuw Rechts (New Right) in Utrecht last week.&nbsp; The conversation turned mainly on East-West relations, specifically Russia.&nbsp; John insisted that ‘Russia’ was nothing but a pretext, or a cudgel, with which to beat European and American conservatives.&nbsp; We saw this with Russiagate (2016-2019) and the first Trump indictment in 2019; we have seen it again in Europe with the cancellation of the Romanian election earlier this year and the ongoing threats against Hungary.&nbsp; Russia is ‘the other Europe’, a mythical space either of infinite possibilities (as during the Enlightenment when French philosophers imagined it was a blank slate they could draw on) or of strange, dark and dangerous demons which loom over us, as during the Cold War and now.&nbsp; These various fantasies dangerously distract attention from a very important reality, which is that Russia is by far the largest country in Europe, both in terms of surface area and population, and that it is not going to go away.&nbsp; We are going to have to live with it, one way or the other.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQfy3f2rF0U&amp;ab_channel=NieuwRechts">Watch John’s interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXcSzjBjQQJbPALhpAXWzYBk0UIFC4TgKkI-vbCCPqyW6joTLCyJHUzI2o3RwGpG9SRS_3iAuAMdT6WDd0iEYctzpLm5M6Y0O8dwF8OI5AdCb1huf7qBB4Y7m0XjG7bf1Sk9U3jndw?key=2v6476oxA-OOsOlyhsjPCQ53">Is Donald Trump a globalist or a sovereignist?&nbsp; Eric Verhaeghe, editor of&nbsp;Le Courrier des Stratèges in Paris, thinks he is the former.&nbsp; FVD International is honoured to publish an English translation of his article.&nbsp; Verhaeghe argues that sovereignists in Europe are wrong to welcome Trump’s policies.&nbsp; He claims that those policies are designed to increase American dominance over the rest of the world and not to permit the emergence of a multipolar world based on mutual respect and sovereignty.&nbsp; This article was then the subject of a subsequent debate between the author and various commentators including John Laughland.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/Trump-is-a-globalist">Read Eric Verhaeghe’s article here</a><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJjxzta98Ks&amp;t=270s">Watch the debate between Eric Verhaeghe, John Laughland and others here (in French)</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdDxff8R-vG_xD3wbUlRXv8hCbgVgNwear-BkL3eEAEmXls7T3NNlMfUhSdd9VUFiohzE1J-RO3aTALvu-pZU7_mVF0NDs20Fq5jNX2Q_0DDxNzQ_P2_Yy6ZrySJG57QyjCitng7g?key=2v6476oxA-OOsOlyhsjPCQ53">And what about the Pope?&nbsp; The man who, when he was elected, said that Rome had gone to the other end of the earth to find its bishop, always portrayed himself as an outsider - including by choosing a name which no other Pope in the last 2,000 years has ever taken.&nbsp; But what is so new about this?&nbsp; We have had ‘outsiders’ and progressives in politics now for generations; why is it suddenly interesting to have that inside the Church?&nbsp; John Laughland gave an interview to RT on the day of the Pope’s death to explain that it is not the role of the supreme pontiff to do new things but instead to breathe new life into old things and to make sure they are handed on intact to his successors.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4tPcNmeWxkw">Watch John Laughland's interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeQuBOXbXtagleCBFZTv27U-MZG8qTEtZdzQjwqxmlvkWY2qi4rIP-AqCMlnlA1uVDnShAEpmDUnVP8jRqF_cefVv5d487stBOYD-wepXjyWykCdrl29by8s1vxYSUDGsdrSJaDIQ?key=2v6476oxA-OOsOlyhsjPCQ53">We discussed the papacy on The Forum this week with Marc Fromager, former director of Aid to the Church in Need, and the conclusion was pretty negative for poor old Francis, may God rest his soul.&nbsp; As Donald Trump makes his way to Rome, let us pray that the next pope Makes the Church Great Again!<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKd-5jSso5Y&amp;t=19s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternationalhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKd-5jSso5Y&amp;t=19s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 25 April.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 25 April.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 25 April.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 25 April.png

The Weekly Forum - 25 April

<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/04/cea-chairman-steve-miran-hudson-institute-event-remarks/">Le Courrier des Stratèges</a>14 April 2025Calling Trump a globalist will be seen as highly provocative by all those who, for at least the last ten years, particularly under the influence of propagandists like Steve Bannon and General Flynn, have been convinced that Donald Trump is an enemy of globalism and a supporter of sovereignty. They promised us that Trump would never wage war and that he would wave a magic wand and bring peace to the world. The reality is a little different, and we set out to decode it step by step. First episode: what “discreet” vision of world order guides Trump's policy?Of course there is the ideological battle over the question of protectionism, which is unfolding chaotically and being resolved on the trading floors. On the one hand, there are the supporters of tariffs, who see these compulsory levies as an instrument of sovereignty and re-industrialisation. On the other, the enemies of tariffs are keeping score, watching stock market indices plummet, along with growth forecasts, as Trump erects more and more tariff barriers.I have said enough times before that, whatever the ultimate benefits of tariffs, they will provoke an immediate, predictable and well-documented mess (<a href="https://lecourrierdesstrateges.fr/2024/02/11/un-protectionnisme-comme-en-suisse-pour-sauver-lagriculture-francaise-vraiment/">which we've been predicting for a long time in our columns</a>). Trump and his entourage can be criticised for never having warned the Americans of this minor ‘turbulence’. On the contrary, on 20 January, the new President proclaimed that America's ‘golden age’ was beginning that day. Subsequent events show how he lied by omission. The golden age may come (although I doubt it very much), but it will definitely be preceded by difficult times that were not predicted.But the purpose of this article is not to take a position on the merits of protectionism. I leave it to everyone to make up their own minds on the issue. What I am interested in is sifting through another lie that is widespread in European sovereigntist circles: that Trump has broken with globalism and is a defender of the sovereignty of nations.&nbsp;These facile slogans, spread across Europe, including France, by the Bannon and Flynn networks (it would be interesting to know the sources of income of certain influential figures in France who are obsessed with promoting Trumpian policies, in defiance of the most obvious evidence), are fuelling great hopes in our country among the masses of people who have been downgraded or made precarious by globalisation. After decades of being crushed by a globalist doxa, there is a huge appetite for revenge and a blossoming of anxieties about the future which drives people to support the first huckster who comes along promising improvements.&nbsp;Against this backdrop, soup merchants have invented Trump as the white knight of the downtrodden and the disenfranchised. This white knight is supposedly there to restore peace in the world, to reduce American domination and to make possible fraternity between all the sovereignists of the world, unjustly trampled underfoot by a small group of globalists. It is this mythology that I would like to dismantle today.&nbsp;The question of reindustrialisationThe belief that Trump is a hero of sovereignty is based on a foundation of truth, unfortunately mixed with confusion and multiple ambiguities that muddy the waters.&nbsp;First point: Trump is an advocate of the ‘reindustrialisation’ of the United States and the rebalancing of American trade. These two issues are as central in France (unlike many of its European neighbours who are still industrialised and net exporters of manufactured goods, such as Germany and, to a lesser extent, Italy) as they are in the USA. This similarity no doubt explains the sympathy that Trump can inspire in many working-class French people.&nbsp;Incidentally, Trump works the same mythology as many French people on these issues. Because, when it comes to reindustrialisation, there is a long way to go: while everyone can agree on the formal principle of developing industrial employment, there are very few advocates of this principle who want to see a factory set up at the end of their garden, and even fewer who dream of working in that factory. As for the simple reasoning of calling on immigration to fill these new industrial jobs, it arouses hysterical anger among a large number of sovereignists, lulled by the (fabricated) idea that the little people are an aggregate of wonderful, hard-working, coherent people who will spontaneously cooperate in the success of the government's project, without needing an outside workforce to succeed.&nbsp;Five years have gone by since COVID, and we at Le Courrier des Stratèges are well placed to know that there is often an inverse relationship between dithyrambic sovereignist declarations and the ability of those who spread them in every discussion to act on them. Unfortunately, many sovereigntists tend to compensate for their existential sluggishness by making vehement declarations, without actually doing anything, about their commitment to France's recovery.If his policy were to work, Trump would undoubtedly come up against the same difficulty: how many of his WASP voters, who are so virulent against Latin American immigration, will be prepared to work in the factories he wants to reopen?&nbsp;In the meantime, the declaration of intent feeds the sympathy of people angry at globalism and the feeling of belonging to the sovereignist international.Bilateralism versus multilateralismAnother confusion is leading many sovereigntists in Europe to see Trump as a hero in the fight against globalism. This confusion stems from the fight against multilateralism.&nbsp;In the minds of many sovereigntists, this ‘system’ of international relations known as multilateralism appears to be the very quintessence of globalism. In particular, it encompasses ‘regional’ mechanisms such as the European Union, where diplomacy is no longer conducted between states in exclusive relations, but through bureaucracies and special treaties, as is the case in Brussels through the European Commission and the European Council, immersed in its goldfish bowl of committees - ‘COREPERs’ and various groups and agencies.One of the bodies where this multilateralism has been deployed over the last few decades is the World Trade Organisation. It has conducted numerous rounds of negotiations, dominated by the United States, gradually to reduce tariffs across the board. As soon as he came to power, Donald Trump decided to crush this legacy and reintroduce protectionism, calling on each of the world's almost 200 states to negotiate a more appropriate tariff individually.&nbsp;It is easy to understand the logic behind Trumpism. In the old system, the United States remained dominant, but its power was counterbalanced by the collegiality of nations. In the one-on-one confrontation, America is stronger and can exert direct pressure.Paradoxically, many sovereigntists, who denounce the weight of NATO in post-Soviet wars, applaud this return to bilateralism, which nonetheless enshrines American hegemony more than ever. But this paradox can be explained by a misunderstanding, or even a misinterpretation. Many sovereigntists confuse globalism with multilateralism, and believe that the battle to be waged should be against multilateral institutions rather than against America's global hegemony. It is because of this confusion that the same sovereigntists denounce multilateralism while calling for it to be strengthened within BRICS.&nbsp;In reality, the real subject of globalism is none other than the American desire to transform the planet into a global market in which US companies will be dominant. But the cognitive infiltration carried out by Bannon, Flynn and a few others has succeeded in making people mistake a regionalisation technique (multilateralism) for globalism itself. And confused minds are convinced that the fight against multilateralism is a fight against globalism.&nbsp;Why Trump is an out-and-out globalistHere we come to the heart of the Trumpist ‘misunderstanding’. In reality, although Trumpism is hostile to multilateralism, it is nonetheless a form of globalism, i.e. a doctrine that considers that the United States should perpetuate its global domination and fully assume it. Quite simply, in Trump's mind, American hegemony in multilateralism is economically costly and must be corrected by a forced reorganisation of trade relations between countries.&nbsp;To understand this, we need to reread the speeches made by Stephen Miran, an economist appointed by Trump to chair the Committee of Economic Advisers. A graduate in economics from Harvard University in 2010, Miran has theorised about protectionism, with arguments whose lack of precision takes your breath away.&nbsp; If you have any doubts about Trump, you may find it useful to read&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wsj.com/economy/trade/trump-tariffs-economost-stephen-miran-1d8f31f2?mod=Searchresults_pos1&amp;page=1">the Wall Street Journal's portrait of Miran in January 2025.</a>&nbsp;Miran gave a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/2025/04/cea-chairman-steve-miran-hudson-institute-event-remarks/">speech</a> at the Hudson Institute *** Today I’d like to discuss the United States’ provision of what economists call “global public goods,” for the entire world.&nbsp; First, the United States provides a security umbrella which has created the greatest era of peace mankind has ever known.&nbsp; Second, the U.S. provides the dollar and Treasury securities, reserve assets which make possible the global trading and financial system which has supported the greatest era of prosperity mankind has ever known.&nbsp;Both of these are costly to us to provide.&nbsp;This is the change in the United States' globalist vision. Until now, America has taken the view that it naturally played the role of world policeman, and that one of the natural attributes of this role is to provide the world with a reserve currency. Army and currency: these were the two mainstays of American domination.&nbsp;I'll come back to the contradictions inherent in this belief in a later paper.&nbsp;In the meantime, Trump's protectionist entourage leaves no doubt as to his desire to change things: the fact that the dollar is a global reserve currency is very costly for America, because it leads to an rise in the value of the currency and therefore to higher export prices for American products. For the team in power in Washington, this is the main cause of the country's de-industrialisation, and its increasing dependence on China.&nbsp;To remedy this, the Trump team intends to reconcile the preservation of the dollar as an international reserve currency (to ensure American domination) with a negotiated depreciation of the currency, through an agreement similar to the one negotiated by Reagan in 1985. At the same time, Trump intends to make those who profit from a strong dollar and thus from the loss of competitiveness of American industry pay by imposing tariffs. &nbsp;Here again, Miran's reasoning is perplexing: this economist knows that retaliatory tariffs are more harmful than beneficial to the US economy. He believes that America should use its political clout to prevent its trading partners from retaliating against US tariffs!This is the hallmark of true Trumpist globalism: it consists in unilaterally imposing on other countries a world order in which America can protect its economy but its partners cannot.&nbsp;Trumpism: exacerbated American economic dominationThose who saw Trump as a vigilante capable of imposing other rules of the game on the global balance of power have therefore misunderstood his intention.&nbsp;Admittedly, Trump does not share the multilateral vision of the globalists. But neither does he intend to renounce the prerogatives of the United States. His intention is to strengthen them by demanding legal privileges for his country, and a kind of tax on the reserve role that the dollar plays today.&nbsp;Given the negative externalities that the status of reserve currency produces, Trump intends to make the rest of the world pay to reimburse him for the alleged prejudices he is suffering.In this sense, Trump appears to be the bearer of a new form of globalism. In his mind, American domination should be exercised directly over the rest of the planet, through a system of bilateral relations which will be just as powerful as the current multilateralism. Trump's pressure on Greenland is a case in point.&nbsp;In short, Trump is proposing a different kind of globalism, one in which American domination can go as far as sanctioning European companies for pursuing internal policies which run counter to the ideological orientations of the American President, as we saw in the case of the letter sent by the US embassy to French candidates for American public contracts.

medium_donald-trump.jpg

small_donald-trump.jpg

thumbnail_donald-trump.jpg

Trump is a Globalist

For the last decade, the West has claimed to uphold the ‘rules-based international order’. In reality, of course, it makes up the rules as it goes along and then applies them as it likes. Take, for instance, the plan to confiscate hundreds of billions of euros belonging to Russia. Quite apart from the danger to the European banking system which such an assault on property rights would represent, what rules are being applied here? Apparently the West has suffered damages as a result of the Ukraine war and so the seizure would be a sort of compensation. But, as Pepijn van Houwelingen pointed out recently, the same thing could be said about the 2003 Anglo-American invasion of Iraq which caused huge flows of refugees into Europe (not to mention horrendous deaths in Iraq).&nbsp; By the logic of rules, US or UK assets should be seized. But the mere suggestion of this is so obviously ridiculous that the notion that the West abides by any ‘rules’ is, in turn, simply absurd.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/the-hypocrisy-of-international-law">Read Pepijn’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXdsuIcVh4GxgEzWhgeb6exyVsjqbHKB4auhBnYLeMUr4cU30YB67mGi8184uSP2TiN75nsemNJXbM3q4sRHH3q6Woi4BcvQTLxEdYnkX-N4BFX7rn2DzFXJVji6K5GwOjQYGGGF4w?key=EAtb7qm8QcApA3-fY1MpmPZJ">While we are on the subject of double standards, what about Extinction Rebellion which threatened to throw butyric acid into shops across the Netherlands? Such an action would constitute a widespread and systematic attack against the civilian population, with the goal of causing disruption and fear. Inhaling the acid can cause irritation to the nose, throat and lungs. Towns targeted by this threat have left it up to the shopkeepers themselves to take the necessary precautions, offloading the fear factor onto the working population. At a time when the security services are contemplating banning right-wing political parties for allegedly causing a lack of confidence in the democratic system, does XR not qualify as an immediate threat to the state of law? And what, if anything, are the forces of law and order going to do about it?<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/is-extinction-rebellion-a-terrorist-organisation">Read Pepijn’s questions here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXewPzPXLtWg6GKxZ9ckEPPYk3HDuLICfBioJHoBiXgSb3Ktu0XyhizJwiEWLMmQM4LDJVcmzhrMSOts8gsJ8Gq6E2Vvs1n1qN4s-FsHdOoQav1RQmgo9QEeZumrDY86tdSVz61HiA?key=EAtb7qm8QcApA3-fY1MpmPZJ">When faced with the dire state of the world today, the question is often put, ‘What can we do about it?’ Thierry Baudet addressed it forcefully in a speech given to The Patriots network in Amsterdam on 15 March, when he said the political change comes not from politics but instead from meta-politics – clubs, media, parallel societies, commercial links and so on. Luckily history gives us some examples of meta-political activity which have been strikingly successful, as Professor Hei Sing Tso of Hong Kong has kindly laid out for us in an exclusive article for us.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/metapoliticians-and-stratagem">Read the professor’s article here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeM8CafPQyKBSc4cAsugk1xkBVA60pIReu7hqvzyVk7PRIRyUjPGG9MD2d-cRzBYsA6gYIr0SuFAmuHVrHbIpn0pr2IP_hd35bArWJlC2BQvUAn2aB0tHO89cAp7wWAfZvH2RbH?key=EAtb7qm8QcApA3-fY1MpmPZJ">Does Britain control America? Churchill boasted that Britain would be the brain to America’s brawn but it seemed like a vain boast at the time. On The Forum this week, we hosted Kit Klarenberg, Alex Krainer and George Szamuely who think there might be something to it after all.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NkticqEkVXU&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 17 April.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 17 April.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 17 April.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 17 April.png

The Weekly Forum - 17 April 2025

Forum for Democracy International

Leader of FVD and Member of Parliament of the Netherlands

David Engels is a Belgian historian and is a research professor at the Instytut Zachodni in Poznan.

Director of Forum for Democracy International

Diana West is an award-winning journalist and author of Death of the Grown-Up.

Max Denken is a Polish-American former university lecturer and TV producer, and since his retirement author of over 100 articles and one book.

Václav Klaus is the former president of the Czech Republic.

Member of the Executive Board of the Vaclav Klaus Institute.

Member of the European Parliament for FVD.

Eric van de Beek is an independent journalist.

Stefan Korte is a foreign policy adviser who worked with Bundestag members from the AfD.

Authors