<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

11 April 2025Once again, the radical climate action group Extinction Rebellion (XR) is in the news, this time because of their plan to bombard shops in several Dutch municipalities with butyric acid, a caustic and pungent-smelling substance which can cause respiratory and other health problems.&nbsp;In one Dutch city, people became unwell in late January after the action group threw this substance inside a clothing shop.&nbsp;XR seems to want to dismiss the action as a ‘joke’.&nbsp; Municipalities take the announcement at face value but in several cases they put the responsibility for safety measures on the shopkeepers themselves.This is unacceptable. FVD MP Pepijn van Houwelingen has put down parliamentary questions to the ministers of Justice &amp; Security, the Interior and Economic Affairs.You can read the questions below.<ol><li>Are you aware of Extinction Rebellion's intention (now dismissed as a supposed ‘April Fools’ joke’) deliberately to cause a stench nuisance in several cities on Saturday 12 April and to bombard shops with butyric acid, a caustic and pungent-smelling substance which can cause respiratory problems and other health complaints besides panic? &nbsp;</li><li>Can you provide an overview of all known actions by XR (and affiliated organisations) in the past 5 years in which damage has been caused to infrastructure, property or people, as well as the detection and prosecution actions taken? &nbsp;</li><li>How much economic damage has been suffered so far as a result of the actions of XR (and related organisations), including disruption of traffic, business operations and shop closures? Can you break this down by sector and year? &nbsp;</li><li>What is your opinion of the fact that in some municipalities the responsibility and possible extra costs for limiting damage as a result of the announced actions are being placed on the entrepreneurs, who have been informed by means of a letter from the municipality that they themselves have to weigh up the risks, possibly deploy extra security and take “appropriate measures”? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you share the view that it is unacceptable that the government is failing in its primary task of enforcement and protection, and that responsibility is being shifted to shopkeepers, citizens and small and medium enterprises? &nbsp;</li><li>Are you willing to have XR as an organisation investigated for its structure, funding sources, networks and links to possible extremist or foreign influences, given its radicalisation and increasing law-breaking? &nbsp;</li><li>Do you agree that the right to equal treatment is at stake when the government treats some demonstrations more harshly than others, and if so, what steps are you taking to correct this inequality? &nbsp;</li><li>How do you explain that in their threat analyses, the Dutch security services AIVD and NCTV mainly focus on right-wing and ‘anti-institutional’ extremism - movements which rarely commit criminal offences in the Netherlands - while left-wing radicalisation, which is regularly accompanied by violent actions such as those of XR, receives scant attention? &nbsp;</li><li>Can you answer these questions separately and within the timeframe set?</li></ol>

large_01JRJNG7Y0A46SVN7K360BYBAA.webp

medium_01JRJNG7Y0A46SVN7K360BYBAA.webp

small_01JRJNG7Y0A46SVN7K360BYBAA.webp

thumbnail_01JRJNG7Y0A46SVN7K360BYBAA.webp

Is Extinction Rebellion a terrorist organisation?

Even though metapolitics is a basic and powerful tactic which originated in Europe, I think we can learn and borrow stratagems from metapoliticians in other continents. In this article, I will introduce three prominent metapoliticians from North America, South America and Asia respectively. Most people think that metapolitics is conducted before real politics, taking a long and slow approach for a cultural transformation ahead of electoral success. This is very similar to the “Yin” approach of Chinese cosmology and wisdom. Recently, some European thinkers have started to blur the boundary, suggesting that metapolitics should also be connected with political practice. I will also discuss this from the perspective of stratagem.Olavo de Gravlho, Guru of BolsonaroismOlavo Luiz Pimentel de Carvalho (1947-2022) was a Brazilian professor, philosopher, writer, essayist, and journalist. As a prolific author, he wrote more than 40 books, more than 44 courses, tens of thousands of pages of handouts and articles, starred in a film; and, for 14 years, taught his Online Philosophy Course known as “COF” weekly ( totaling more than 570 classes).He received his philosophical training through his self-taught studies and began his career as a journalist at the Folha da Manhã S/A company at the age of 17. Olavo later got a journalism job in São Paulo for Jornal da Tarde. He was an essayist and columnist for several publications: Folha de São Paulo , Bravo!, Planeta, First Reading , Jornal do Brasil , Jornal da Tarde , O Globo , Época , Zero Hora and Diário do Comércio .Still in the 70s, Olavo gave up his journalism job and started working as a freelancer. During the 1980s, he worked for several magazines, such as Nova, Quatro Rodas, Cláudia, etc. These were publications about public and private administration, economics, politics and various other topics.The first philosophy course taught by Olavo de Carvalho outside of São Paulo was in Rio de Janeiro and he also taught courses on History of Philosophy and Thought and Current Affairs in Aristotle at the Casa de Cultura Laura Alvim. In 2002, Olavo de Carvalho created the website Mídia Sem Máscara (MSM, Media Without Makeup), with the aim of combating the left-wing bias he saw in the mainstream Brazilian media. He was also the creator of the internet radio program called True Outspeak.In 2009, Carvalho founded the Online Philosophy Course, in which he delivered hundreds of lectures containing original insights in epistemology, metaphysics, the philosophical method, political science, and modern philosophy. He intended to establish a right wing, nationalist, hegemonic doctrine by means of videoconference, articles, tweets, and Facebook posts, etc.&nbsp; His social media accounts attracted many followers. Brazilians from different walks of life were interested to attend his online classes.Olavo had developed personal relationships with members of the Bolsonaro family before Bolsonaro’s election. The future President adopted the philosopher’s ideology. Indeed many students of Olavo had been recruited to the government and formed a group known as Olavists.&nbsp; Olavo even directly appointed two ministers. The first was Ernesto Araujo as Foreign Affairs Minister and another as Minister of Education. There were other followers appointed too. Olavo had turned down a government post offered to him and started to distance from Bolsonaro later since he had disagreed with some of the President’s policies and decisions.&nbsp;Masahiro Yasuoka, Mastermind of Showa EraMasahiro Yasuoka (1898-1983) was a Japanese philosopher and Scholar. He had been&nbsp; active before World War II as a conservative thinker from the standpoint of Japanese-ism.&nbsp; He was trained in traditional Chinese thought and was keen to arouse the Japanese Spirit of the people.&nbsp;In 1927, Yasuoka established a private school known as Kinkei Gakuin, teaching Oriental political thought and wisdom.&nbsp; It gained supporters among military, government and business circles. In 1931, he also set up another school for farmers, creating an education movement.Later Yasuoka founded a right-wing group known as Kokuikai (National Ikai Association” with the aim of “reforming national politics based on Japanese ideas”.&nbsp; It became the headquarters of the new bureaucrats. This group attracted public attention when some members were appointed to the cabinets of two prime ministers.As early as 1922, Yasuoka published a book on “Yangmanism”.&nbsp; Through the circulation of this book, he met many friends in politics, military and commerce. This formed a base of his connections. Throughout his activities, Yasuoka had been friends with many military officers and politicians of Japan, in particular those from the Japanese Navy. During World War II, in 1944 he was even appointed as an advisor to the Ministry of Greater East Asia.After the War, the Allied forces ordered that his private school be disbanded.&nbsp; Yasuoka himself was also removed from public office. In 1949, he founded the Shiyukai (later the National Shiyukai Association) to train the next generation of leaders by publishing the journal “Shiyu”, and to promote classical Eastern thought through lectures around the country and radio talks. Since 1950, he maintained connections with the political and financial world and acted as informal advisor to Liberal Democratic Party politicians, so as to preach about the study of Oriental leadership wisdom and to spread Oriental thought based on Yangmanism. In 1958, he formed the New Japan Council and became involved in the movement to revive the old Japan-US Security Treaty.Most importantly, Yasuoka had close relationships with most post war prime ministers of Japan. They always asked him for guidance and coaching when facing critical problems in policy and leadership. He was known as a “spiritual leader" and “instructor to the Prime Minister”. While he devoted himself to study of Oriental classics and training of talented people, he continued to have influence in political, financial and government circles as a “conservative elder”, earning him nicknames such as “the greatest mastermind of the Showa era”.Irving Kristol: Godfather of Neoconservatism&nbsp;Irving Kristol (1920-2009) was the pre-eminent communicator of the ideas attached to the movement known as neoconservatism in the United States. He played an influential role in the intellectual and political culture of the latter half of the twentieth century.After graduation from university, he became a journalist.&nbsp; For the next decade, he worked as a writer or editor with relatively small, relatively liberal ''opinion-moulding'' magazines - The New Leader, Politics, Commentary, The Reporter, Encounter - that shared a resolute anti-Communism. Kristol was the executive vice-president of the publishing house, Basic Books, from 1961 to 1969, and co-founder and co-editor of The Public Interest from 1965 to 2002. He was the founder and publisher of The National Interest from 1985 to 2002.Apart from writing and publishing, Kristol was an educator. He had a weekly class at the N.Y.U. Business School, where, as Professor of Social Thought, he lectured on ''Capitalism: Its Defenders and Its Critics.'' In 1973, he joined the American Enterprise Institute, and thus started to develop connections with the business and corporate world.Kristol saw possibilities in ideas as well as people. He was a mover and shaker who tried different ways to help young people. A young author helped by Kristol said,&nbsp; “Now I'm working on a book about political economy. Irving has certainly shaped my thinking, pushed me along in that direction.” Kristol also played the role of 'facilitator''. He got a job for a person in that magazine, another one to write an article, this one to teach in that university.&nbsp; As a great mentor of the right people to the right people, he was indeed the centre where neoconservatives met as a network.Kristol also joined some civil organizations in action. For example, he had joined such friends as Midge Decter, Norman Podhoretz and Jeane Kirkpatrick on the board of directors of the Committee for the Free World, which sought to arouse the West to the Soviet threat behind terrorist attacks, ''liberation'' movements and anti-American campaigns all over the world.For actual politics, Kristol worked behind the scenes. He is not interested in any government job but he had contacts in the American Enterprise Institute, company bosses, authors found in The Public Interest, Commentary and the American Spectator.&nbsp; Further, he exerted influence through former colleagues and students who have found their way into government and even the White House. “'I don't pick up the phone and tell them how to run the country,'' says Kristol, ''but I will occasionally pick up the phone, and some people return my calls.''Education-Connection-GovernmentWe can learn three lessons from these metapoliticians, First of all, the use of education. Olavo launched online courses, Yasuoka set up a private school while Kristol taught business students. Apart from publications reaching the masses, there is further advantage in the use of education. Through teaching, students can interact deeply with the metapolitician so that trust and confidence are built up. Some students may even enter the government later so that they can influence policies and politics in favour of the metapolitical struggle. The second lesson is the value of connection. Metapolitics is not political philosophy. A metapolitician does not just read and write at home. He needs to go out in the real world for connection by different means. Yasuoka founded and participated in some organizations and movements. Also, he engaged with readers of his book on “Yangmingism” in order to expand his reputation and friendship in military, government and business circles. Kristol was similar in joining and participating in some civil organizations. Further, his teaching in business school and working for an enterprise think tank broadened his influence in the commerce sector. We can see that Kristol did more by being a mover or shaker or facilitator in deploying different right persons in a variety of posts of the society for disseminating the influence of his ideas. This requires social and communication skills.Thirdly, these metapoliticians exerted influence in government by different means. Through close relations with the Bolsonaro family, Olvao could directly appoint two Ministers and other high rank officials of the Brazilian government. This is very impressive. In post-war Japan, Yasuoka was the spiritual teacher of several Prime Ministers who always sought the master’s guidance and coaching at critical times. In the latter half of last Century, Irvin Kristol could phone different officials of the government if necessary. All three metapoliticians did not serve any official posts in government but distanced themselves from actual politics. They preferred to work behind the public scene.&nbsp;&nbsp;Stratagem PerspectiveTraditional Chinese Stratagem originates from I-Ching, also known as Book of Change. According to I-Ching, the cosmos is made up of two forces, Yin and Yang. Yin means moon, soft, weak, etc, while Yang refers to sun, hard, strong, etc. However, Yin and Yang are not just opposite but form a dialectic wholeness. Yin gradually transforms to Yang and vice versa. Yin and Yang both have a seed of the opposite inside. The opposite seed will germinate slowly and complete total transformation. This cosmology can also be applied in the context of metapolitics.Basically, metapolitics is a long and slow strategy, focusing on subtle change of culture as precursor for actual political struggle. This is the Yin part while actual politics is the Yang part of the process. Hence, metapolitics should not be limited to reading, writing and publication. Metapolitics should promote germination of the seeds of actual politics even before complete cultural transformation. As we can see above, education-connection-government tactics used by the three metapoliticians can be very useful for bridging the Yin and Yang of the process. I have the following two advices for metapolitical practitioners. Firstly, political, social and diplomatic skills should be also be cultivated for success of these tactics. We do not just sit, write and publish. Education, networking and direct influencing government require practical wisdom. Secondly, even though metapoliticians should engage with government, they need to stay in the Yin sphere, that is to keep low profile and work behind the scene, waiting the coming Yang era, that is the new cultural hegemony and political success.

small_0c8.jpg

thumbnail_0c8.jpg

Metapoliticians and Stratagem

Speech to the Foreign Affairs Council of the Dutch Parliament, 10 April 2025&nbsp;Mr Chairman,&nbsp;From the letter sent by the government to the House of Representatives on 4 March 2025, it is clear that the government is not unsympathetic to the confiscation of Russian assets by the Netherlands. The government writes, ‘It can be argued that the aggression of the Russian Federation has disadvantaged the EU and thus also the Netherlands in particular.’&nbsp;&nbsp;Under international law, this is obviously highly controversial because it would mean that a country which is not (formally) a party to a conflict can start confiscating assets from one of the warring parties if it believes it has been harmed by the conflict.&nbsp;Would it therefore not be conceivable - no, indeed, completely logical - if countries (including our country, by the way), which suffered disadvantages from the illegal American aggression attack on Iraq in 2003 - just think of the refugee flows this caused, an attack for which, we now know, there was no justification because the weapons of mass destruction were never found - started confiscating American assets? No, this minister will surely be against that.&nbsp;Does this not demonstrate very well the hypocrisy of so-called “international law,” or the so-called “rules-based order” which globalists are so fond of flaunting? Should we not recognise that this “rules-based order” has nothing to do with “international law” and is merely “our order” that serves “our interests”? At least that is how it is viewed in much of the world, and rightly so.&nbsp;The showpiece of this so-called “international law” is, of course, the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Hungary, quite understandably, has recently announced it is going to leave the International Court of Justice. The United States, quite rightly, wants nothing to do with it.&nbsp; Indeed, in February this year, President Trump announced sanctions against the International Criminal Court and anyone who helps the court, for example by detaining prisoners.&nbsp;My first question to the minister, are not the Dutch and the Netherlands also affected by this? Specifically, are President Trump's sanctions therefore also directed against the Scheveningen prison, a Dutch prison, where the court's suspects are incarcerated? Does this not mean that the presence of the international criminal court in the Netherlands is contrary to the Dutch interest? Not only because the international criminal court is the jewel in the crown of a globalist hypocritical so-called “rules-based order,” in which only those are arrested and tried if it happens to be politically convenient - so Duerte is, Netenyahu is not - something that as a country you should not be proud of but ashamed of, but also because, with Trump's imposition of sanctions against the ICC, Dutch interests may be directly harmed. This is quite apart from the fact that wanting to try world leaders like Putin for war crimes is precisely a danger to a peaceful international order because it seriously impedes the maintenance of relations and the start of peace negotiations with, in this case Russia. Also, the willingness of the Netherlands to take Netanyahu to task now that this can't be helped, the relationship with Israel is under pressure? How is the Dutch interest served by this? Can the minister explain? And shouldn't all this mean that the Netherlands, following Hungary's lead, should also decide to stop recognising the International Criminal Court?We look forward to the minister's response.

International_Criminal_Court_at_The_Hague_(ICC)_(54032051190).jpg

large_International_Criminal_Court_at_The_Hague_(ICC)_(54032051190).jpg

medium_International_Criminal_Court_at_The_Hague_(ICC)_(54032051190).jpg

small_International_Criminal_Court_at_The_Hague_(ICC)_(54032051190).jpg

thumbnail_International_Criminal_Court_at_The_Hague_(ICC)_(54032051190).jpg

The Hypocrisy of International Law

Which is more important – democracy or woke rights? We have known the EU’s answer to this question for some years. When the European Parliament voted a&nbsp;<a href="https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2022-0324_EN.html">resolution</a> on Hungary in 2022, saying that Hungary was violating European values, it mentioned sexual issues like LGBT rights and gender far more often than it talked about elections or democracy. Three years on and little has changed. When the Volt party asked Dutch parties this month to sign a letter protesting about LGBT rights in Hungary, a majority of parties did so. But when FVD MP Pepijn van Houwelingen asked Dutch parties to sign similar letters about the cancellation of elections and candidates in Romania and France, all of them refused. ‘Liberal democracy’ has disappeared so far up its own backside that it is no longer either liberal nor democratic.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/lhbt-more-important-than-democracy">Read Pepijn’s article here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXcG66mmRZ8ySEPFcHaMmUPz0Iqywzg5hyC0sF3xLCqDZU_1DVJcB3X7hDsMnOMBvh4j2MUevQj9zmhgaxcoNsB-PdrOaeKCHarZzHTWgpxAy1-Gqav3MJ_DhZQCskZF6FlTH5QP?key=wOk5T1Yozc3-dR16CWqTk-lV">FVD International director, John Laughland, was Peter Lavelle’s guest on Crosstalk to discuss this very matter. Everyone has rightly been shocked by the developments in Romania and France – they seem to be adopting the Iranian model for presidential elections, where candidates are vetted in advance by the religious authorities before being allowed to stand – but unfortunately they are only the latest in a very long series of outrages committed against democratic principles, going back at least to 1992 when Denmark was forced to vote a second time on the Maastricht treaty. The discourse against ‘populism’ is nothing but elitism and snobbery dressed up in clever language, a way of pretending to be democratic while in fact holding the people in contempt.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsKCkeYdHCY&amp;t=6s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch John Laughland’s interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXcACyy8B10amGzmA9gpdyrAmxTCFI-pE_tQyNi98F_9WFRxI5nI65IjFlVEdDKHaJOMEnwgmbpl9D0Ds7LUyIcKEafzlJtkwbpQvDcknOHpllwa7V4_zSwHcv-rMPKd9fVUO1iu6A?key=wOk5T1Yozc3-dR16CWqTk-lV">One of the key structural problems about modern democracy, apart from the cancellation of elections, is the way that government spending is outsourced to agencies which are then not controlled by parliaments. This is the USAID scandal. But the USAID problem exists in other countries too, including in Europe. Pepijn van Houwelingen pressed a Dutch minister on this recently. USAID works closely with other countries and – worse – some countries, including the Netherlands, even give money to USAID. (Its budget is already in the billions, so one wonders why.) There are lots of conspiracy theories about the deep state but this scandal is sadly a very clear illustration of the deep state in operation.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/end-development-aid">Read Pepijn’s speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXeE_pxuEglHmicR8ADYvPOWIFe0nSrHRZ4yBMlf86YyUF7k7heI4E6NP7DJGj2-RTosyBwPgmimUS8xZVSgIbTCfZtoBxhag9D2EUTzISwkyXrBFIEboKsiO1NXQKQtCPzFX3HMTg?key=wOk5T1Yozc3-dR16CWqTk-lV">On The Forum &amp; Friends this week Dr Andrew Kaufman questioned germ theory – the belief that we catch diseases from germs and thus from other people. Instead, he argues, illnesses come from malnutrition, trauma and poisoning. It was a fascinating talk which shakes to their very foundations our assumptions about illness.<a href="https://x.com/FVD_Intl/status/https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gfvnuJGHj_8&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Listen back to The Forum here</a>

large_The forum 11 april 2025.png

medium_The forum 11 april 2025.png

small_The forum 11 april 2025.png

thumbnail_The forum 11 april 2025.png

The Weekly Forum - 11 April

In March, a member of the Dutch Parliament from the Soros-backed Volt party, invited the political parties represented in the Second Chamber to sign the following open letter to the Hungarian ambassador in the Netherlands.A majority of parties agreed to sign it.Your Excellency,I am writing to you on behalf of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands to express our deepest concern and strongest condemnation regarding the recent developments in Hungary concerning the rights of the LGBTQI+ community.We have recently learned that the Hungarian Parliament has passed a law effectively banning Pride marches in your country. This law not only violates fundamental human rights and freedoms enshrined in international treaties, such as the right to freedom of assembly and expression, but also undermines the core values of the European Union. The European Union is founded on the principles of respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. These values are enshrined in the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. By restricting the rights of the LGBTQI+ community, Hungary is violating these fundamental European values and jeopardizing the unity and integrity of the Union.The House of Representatives of the Netherlands is convinced that the protection and promotion of the rights of all citizens, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, is crucial for a democratic and just society. We therefore urge you to immediately repeal this law and ensure that the rights of the LGBTQI+ community in Hungary are respected and protected.We stand in solidarity with the LGBTQI+ community in Hungary and will continue to support their struggle for equality and justice. We hope that the Hungarian government will align itself with these international norms and values and take steps to guarantee the rights of all citizens.Yours sincerely,A week or so later, FVD MP Pepijn van Houwelingen offered the following two letters to the political parties asking them to sign them.&nbsp; They concern not LGBT rights, as in Volt’s letter to Hungary, but the cancellation of elections and the barring of candidates in Romania and France.&nbsp; The letters are reproduced below.To the Romanian ambassador&nbsp;:Dear Sir,I am writing to you on behalf of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands to express our deepest concern at the cancellation of last year’s presidential elections in Romania and at the Central Electoral Bureau’s decision to prevent Calin Georgescu from standing, he having come first in the first round in November.&nbsp; Similarly, Diana Sosoaca has also been prevented from standing for what appear to be politically motivated reasons, not judicially based ones.&nbsp;&nbsp;Free elections are the very basis of democracy and a core right according to both Article 3 of the 1st protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.&nbsp; To prevent candidates from standing, and to cancel an election on spurious allegations of foreign interference, which have since been shown to be untrue, is to prevent the ‘free expression of the opinion of the people’ guaranteed by both these treaties, as well as by Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.The European Union is founded on the principles of respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. These values are enshrined in the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. By restricting the rights of the electorate to choose the candidate it wants, these basic rights are clearly violated and democracy undermined.&nbsp; By violating Europe’s core rights, Romania is jeopardizing the unity and integrity of the Union.The House of Representatives of the Netherlands is convinced that the protection and promotion of the rights of all citizens, regardless of their political orientation or identity, is crucial for a democratic and just society. We therefore urge you reinstate these two candidates for the forthcoming poll.&nbsp;We stand in solidarity with the now disenfranchised electorate in Romania and will continue to support their struggle for equality and justice. We hope that the Romanian government will align itself with international norms and values and take steps to guarantee the rights of all citizens.Yours sincerely,[xxx]&nbsp;To the French ambassador&nbsp;:&nbsp;Dear Sir,I am writing to you on behalf of the House of Representatives of the Netherlands to express our deepest concern at the decision taken on 31 March 2025 to prevent Marine Le Pen from standing for election.&nbsp; As you know, her party is the largest in the French National Assembly and she is a favourite to win in the next presidential election.Free elections are the very basis of democracy and a core right according to both Article 3 of the 1st protocol of the European Convention for the Protection of Fundamental Rights and Freedoms and Article 25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.&nbsp; To prevent a candidate from standing, especially when the candidate enjoys the support of a very sizeable part of the electorate , is to prevent the ‘free expression of the opinion of the people’ guaranteed by both these treaties, as well as by Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.The European Union is founded on the principles of respect for human rights, democracy, and the rule of law. These values are enshrined in the Treaty on European Union and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. By restricting the rights of the electorate to choose the candidate it wants, these basic rights are clearly violated and democracy undermined.&nbsp; By violating Europe’s core rights, Romania is jeopardizing the unity and integrity of the Union.The House of Representatives of the Netherlands is convinced that the protection and promotion of the rights of all citizens, regardless of their political orientation or identity, is crucial for a democratic and just society. We therefore urge you reinstate these two candidates for the forthcoming poll.We stand in solidarity with the now disenfranchised electorate in France and will continue to support their struggle for equality and justice. We hope that the French government will align itself with international norms and values and take steps to guarantee the rights of all citizens.We call on the president of the French Republic to invoke Article 17 of the Constitution of 1958 and use his discretionary powers to pardon Marine Le Pen so that this severe judicial attack on the electoral process can be reversed.Yours sincerely,[xxx]Not one single party out of the fourteen other parties with seats in the Lower House of the Dutch Parliament agreed to sign these letters.We can conclude, therefore, that LGBT rights are more important than democracy for the majority of Dutch politicians.

large_cfbocbxc3rqd1.jpeg

medium_cfbocbxc3rqd1.jpeg

small_cfbocbxc3rqd1.jpeg

thumbnail_cfbocbxc3rqd1.jpeg

LGBT Rights are more Important than Democracy for most Dutch Political Parties

Speech by Pepijn van HouwelingenLower House of the Dutch Parliament, 2 April 2005Chairman,Forum for Democracy obviously welcomes the substantial cuts in development aid that are to take effect from 2027. But why only from 2027? Is this not far too late? If the government falls prematurely, the risk is that these cuts will be reversed even before 2027.&nbsp;Forum for Democracy would like to go even one step further than cuts: dissolve the Ministry of Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation entirely and add any remnants left to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.In this regard, we could take a leaf out of the Trump administration's book on what it did with the US Department of Development Assistance - USAID. USAID was a ministry where all sorts of highly questionable practices and spending from the past have surfaced: fuelling censorship, undermining free media and influencing elections - all with the aim of thus safeguarding the interests (or rather perceived interests) of the United States. Elon Musk even called USAID a ‘criminal organisation’.This is worrying given the Netherlands’ Ministry of Development’s previous cooperation with USAID. Former minister Sigrid Kaag said in 202, “We are working very closely with USAID, with Samantha Power, newly appointed by President Biden, to see how we can use our clout, knowledge and experience even more.”I would like to know what this close collaboration consisted of and whether it still exists. Is it true, as RTL News reports, that the Netherlands has transferred 18.5 million euros to USAID since 2014? 1 Why? How can it be in the Dutch interest to transfer our tax money to a US ministry that champions the American interest?That brings me to another point. This Chamber has very limited influence on ministry budgets, since often more than 90% of expenditure is already legally fixed. From a democratic point of view, would it not be better to establish subsidy schemes for a maximum of one year, the financial year in question?Finally, the minister writes in her letter of 20 February that the commitment to climate will be reduced. That is fine. However, what I don't quite understand then, President, is that the same minister signed the UN “Pact for the Future” in New York last September. It is a pact full of alarmist texts like “Climate change is one of the greatest challenges of our time”, a pact in which countries declare that they will commit to.&nbsp; The Netherlands wants money back from USAID, but it also wants the accelerated implementation of Agenda 2030 - of which the climate agenda, as we know, is the beating heart - and its 17 sustainability goals.I would like to hear why the minister agreed at the time - or, more precisely, did not object to, which is seen as silent assent - to this Pact for the Future, and thus to the accelerated implementation of the climate agenda. How does that square with her plan to actually reduce the commitment to climate?I look forward to the minister's answers.

large_4288415235_eabf012450_b.jpg

medium_4288415235_eabf012450_b.jpg

small_4288415235_eabf012450_b.jpg

thumbnail_4288415235_eabf012450_b.jpg

End Development Aid!

Thierry Baudet and journalist Eric van de Beek have written a letter to the director of National Intelligence in the USA, Tulsi Gabbard, asking her to release information about the MH-17 flight which was shot down over Ukraine in the summer of 2014.&nbsp; Eric has worked on the MH-17 issue for years and is highly doubtful of the official story, which is that it was shot down by pro-Russian separatists using a Russian ground-to-air missile system.&nbsp; Thierry and Eric’s letter suggests that the previous US administration has withheld information, while releasing other data to incriminate the Russians - who denied having anything to do with the events in the Donbass.&nbsp; MH-17 was a turning-point in the downward spiral of East-West relations and so any re-set should perhaps start with a proper assessment of this tragic event.<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/letter-to-director-gabbard">Read the letter to Tulsi Gabbard here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXe5RWsd42iMXD6UA9-pImILS4fxVzwihq9RUUYjxcvTUNIhWll0uzylkjy42WmuzIfJ1xnZTp80pQ5urWZgPyi6algMojAWnezn6nxnNv1VmXpwelcYGKkj9OHk87HEBDWQR2YD?key=zVzeA_YKjIMUCoICnH6SzFrN">During his stint in Parliament, which came to an end on 1 April, Ralf Dekker has pursued the Ukraine issue tirelessly.&nbsp; Why on earth would Europe continue with a policy on Ukraine which America seems to be abandoning and which can never succeed without America?&nbsp; The only explanation can surely be that the EU wants to continue the war for its own reasons – to centralise power in Brussels, to create an EU army (which the Netherlands parliament recently rejected, thanks to an FVD motion) and to give Emmanuel Macron a new job after 2027.&nbsp; Above all, why does Europe continue to say that it is threatened by Russia when Donald Trump has explicitly threatened Denmark over Greenland and indirectly Britain over Canada?<a href="https://fvdinternational.com/article/Europes-Stubbornness-over-Ukraine-is-Crazy">Read Ralf Dekker’s latest speech here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXf_fi85E6vlIafLOkL-7a9xV_qjr5oa4x6_5_ODYBupqRdrorW3yyFfQJiJsTGD9FjVpos-WAg3COR9cFXo30lihrcmA1K0Arydy0pUet_p2Sgm0VqdBLIglyhZoRvfRVIw0BmhEw?key=zVzeA_YKjIMUCoICnH6SzFrN">And speaking of Emmanuel Macron, he recently said that Russia was not a democracy because it imprisons political opponents.&nbsp; Ça tombe mal, as they say in French, because this week a French judge handed down a prison sentence to the leader of the biggest political party in France, the Rassemblement National, which is also by far the most important opposition party.&nbsp; The judge also barred Marine Le Pen from standing for election, which sits ill with Mr Macron’s denunciation of such practices in other countries.&nbsp; FVD International’s director has given several interviews on this issue, of which this one, for RT, is online.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQrnGwcY970&amp;t=14s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch John Laughland’s interview here</a><img src="https://lh7-rt.googleusercontent.com/docsz/AD_4nXd-0Zxy_O-3E_1M4Nnn4SLmGJwViwlVogcokxNTbWoi0SUitLGgxpWVhjQ1ma9t-tkPPjtVtd4pzJi4WZvoq8x-zMw_WszJ2Zv03nQzgePLAKMuidd5RH32MnN2HrKve-xuomRQ?key=zVzeA_YKjIMUCoICnH6SzFrN">On The Forum this week we were delighted to talk to ex-Royal Navy commodore Steve Jermy.&nbsp; He was absolutely fascinating on the military aspects of the Ukraine war and why NATO is losing it.&nbsp; If you missed it, click below.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D0BVV0w6OsU&amp;t=1s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch The Forum &amp; Friends here</a>

large_The Weekly Forum - 4 April.png

medium_The Weekly Forum - 4 April.png

small_The Weekly Forum - 4 April.png

thumbnail_The Weekly Forum - 4 April.png

The Weekly Forum - 4 April

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