Gideon van Meijeren, the dangers of the WHO pandemic treaty.Speech given in the Lower Chamber of the Dutch parliament on 10 April 2024.Dear Chairman,The outgoing government of Mark Rutte – I emphasise&nbsp;outgoing - is about to transfer total control of our public health policy, in the event of a supposed health crisis, to the World Health Organisation, WHO.If the current proposals for a Pandemic Treaty and the proposed amendments to the International Health Regulations come into force, it will henceforth be the WHO that determines when there is a potential health crisis.&nbsp; It will be the WHO that then determines what measures should be imposed. Quarantine, isolation, travel restrictions, digital vaccination passports, the WHO will soon be able to prescribe it all, with disruptive consequences for our society.While at present the WHO is authorised only to make recommendations regarding public health risks, it is now proposed to extend this authority to "any risk with a potential impact on public health."While it is currently still stipulated that WHO recommendations are non-binding, it is proposed to delete the designation "non-binding."And while it is currently still stipulated that WHO recommendations must be in line with human dignity and fundamental freedoms, it is also proposed to delete this safeguard.In addition, fully in line with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals Agenda 2030 and the wishes of the World Economic Forum, a so-called "One Health approach" is being implemented, under which issues such as climate change, biodiversity reduction, livestock farming, food production and international travel are also explicitly considered as potential health risks.In short, anything we as humans do or fail to do can soon be identified by WHO as a "potential threat to public health," after which WHO can prescribe freedom-restricting and degrading measures. Through this route, virtually any measure aimed at exerting more control and power over us will soon be justified on the grounds that you are somehow protecting someone from a potential diminished quality of health.Health is thus used as a coat hanger onto which virtually all aspects of human life are hung. Therefore it is of fundamental importance that we as the Netherlands retain full control over our national health policy at all times.So even if the current individuals and organisations behind the WHO had the best interests of our public health at heart, we should not agree to these proposals.But on top of that, the WHO is already currently corrupted and operates in the shadow of a globalist elite. The WHO is largely funded and driven by private organisations, such as the Bill &amp; Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and major players in the pharmaceutical industry. Individuals and organisations that are primarily out for more money and more power and certainly do not have the interests of public health at the top of their priority list.I conclude with an urgent appeal to the outgoing cabinet. Don't go along with this. Don't. Don't yield. Don't allow just about our last remaining national sovereignty and the freedoms of the Dutch people, to be trampled on by an international organisation that is completely unaccountable to the Dutch people. Do not go down in history as the cabinet that definitively handed over the future of our public health and our hard-won freedoms.Thank you.

large_6783d91c-5e8c-3e61-a158-b94001ca2e52.jpg

medium_6783d91c-5e8c-3e61-a158-b94001ca2e52.jpg

small_6783d91c-5e8c-3e61-a158-b94001ca2e52.jpg

thumbnail_6783d91c-5e8c-3e61-a158-b94001ca2e52.jpg

Gideon van Meijeren on the WHO Pandemic Treaty

Dear ReaderControlling the narrative has become the principal - indeed overriding - obsession of Western governments today. They seem to devote more time and money on virtuality than on reality. It is striking that one of the principal instruments used to silence dissenters is moral condemnation. On foreign policy, governments denounce dissidents as fifth columnists and traitors; on domestic policy as scandalous slanderers. In a fascinating recent exchange on the floor of the Second Chamber of the Dutch parliament between FVD MP, Gideon van Meijeren, and the State Secretary for Health, Maartan van Ooijen, the discussion at first turned on the desirability of free speech and on the dangers censorship poses for truth. The minister initially pretended that his proposed anti-disinformation measures would be voluntary and only informative. &nbsp;But when Van Meijeren claimed that a senior health official had been improperly influenced to give medical advice on Covid vaccines which turned out to be unjustified, and that this became known only because of free debate, the minister leapt onto his moral high horse and condemned the remarks as an unacceptable attack on a man’s reputation, instead of refuting the substantial claim. With the support of the Speaker, the debate was shut down at that point. &nbsp;Quod erat demonstrandum.<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhCPr58YXTk&amp;t=7s&amp;ab_channel=FVDInternational">Watch the Exchange here</a><hr>&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/t_QQS_No_Z_De_Qwz_Fjg_To7w4dnu_Bykugixtk1_R4i_GTNM_e2eb4913bc.webp"></figure>&nbsp;The denial of reality can be pushed very far indeed. When the Nord Stream gas pipelines were blown up, FVD International <a href="https://email.email.fvd.nl/c/eJwczMFtxSAMANBp4JYvIFCcA4desocBu1hKSMW3_vyVusDrxee9NUvFZx8g-T2BHaUm4FohcOwxVwftYM7wRYQuoIdspbALjo8aA0IkaogUMwEl8D25xIeJjj_9NS97laH6-zb7twmnCSd_ukylNVHlmXi92nObcOJSaReZcOqgDW9a0nC-ty59E7Wr1EVTB_ZOS-bPMNGNR2-Uf-AvAAD__2QNQBg">immediately said</a> that the Americans did it. For a while, the West pretended the Russians were guilty. (Up until that point, they had claimed that the Russians were using the pipeline to obtain geopolitical leverage over Western Europe, but consistency was never their strong point.) A year and a half later, there can be little doubt that the Americans were responsible. The fact that everyone knows this but will not admit it was flushed out when FVD MP, Pepijn van Houwelingen, put down a motion saying that the state responsible should be considered a hostile actor. Every single political party except FVD voted against the motion. What possible explanation can there be for this, other than that they all know that the Americans did it but cannot bring themselves to concede that our closest ally is in fact our enemy? Humankind cannot bear too much reality.<a href="https://email.email.fvd.nl/c/eJwczDFuxCAQAMDXQOcTYDB7BUUa_2OBJSBhsPDq3h_l6pEmB-33lCQF7bUBp3cHsgYNBQ6yFB2amLXz6VDRJ4v-AI8JZAtFGVXe0RoES5QQyXoCcqCzU668hVXlk1-jyx4q8_2I_UeYU5izfHIbTGsgtzmwv9K8hDlxcUudhDmv-Q_bmIvr9vAivLa73dTboEeuEBcNrpgzrTZ-q7CqTr6wfae_AAAA__-uX0P1">Read the Motion here</a><hr>&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/at_RJ_Ey_Nk9y_F_Sr_Eo_P6_Cl_Eln_Iz_B_Pou_Qk_N_Pl6d_Wde_Vn_121c03a56c.jpg"></figure>&nbsp;Fewer projects in history have been accompanied by disinformation as much as the European Union. Brexit was a rare moment when, after decades of very intense political battles which cost several prime ministers their careers, a few key truths penetrated the fog of lies the establishment had told for so long. Naturally, the truth-tellers were then themselves attacked as liars, as they are still today, four years after Brexit was finally actioned. Thus, even in spite of the fact that the British voted not once but three times for Brexit – in the 2016 referendum, in the May 2019 European elections, and at the general election held in December 2019 – pro-EU forces are still trying to de-legitimise that decision and perhaps even reverse it. FVD International’s director, John Laughland, gave a long interview in French to J’suis pas content TV (a very French title!) in which he explains all this and more.<a href="https://email.email.fvd.nl/c/eJwUzb1ugzAQAOCnOUZkn39wBg-VEEOHqkPVjtX5bNdIYCIwQX37KOu3fNHLQTF3yctBojNSGdcVj9mxCVGZaE0gq5iDMyhIaa01udzNPgsU-RY0ktMpMVHSQ3LJOBmNMPkGWuRH7OvSLb60dj9AvQFOgNN1Xf3_drYzpJ639SXUuICaHqDGDzZX-PzJq2VA20CNKK0-AC2FXy5Ua1pAje-ABofjnI87HbzVlmr7-u52H_ZUW6EY0z7XvwJalK2tNC-v6xkAAP__liZKNg">Watch John Laughland's Interview here</a><hr>&nbsp;<figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/p_DQB_Wwy_Rtw5_I1fd_Q_Ho_UQ_1_Q_Wzlw7ep6b_Ul_U_Dan_C_Hs_1b5298a2fd.jpg"></figure>&nbsp;We discussed Russiagate this week on The Forum, our weekly X-Space. If you missed it, you can listen back by clicking below.<a href="https://twitter.com/FVD_Intl/status/1778060217588027556">Listen to The Forum here</a><hr><figure class="image"><img src="/uploads/1024x576a_image_f205420295.jpg"></figure>&nbsp;By donating any amount you like, you contribute to the formation of an international platform of patriots from all over the worldThis is not possible without your help<a href="https://email.email.fvd.nl/c/eJwcysGOxhAQAOCn4fiHQenBYS99j2HGkrQ0avv8m_z3j6L2JmfJUXsNwWnjgqwRt5TAZvageAvJB7ejQSKbt4LaZdliUaDKnixgsMwZka3nwC5ocsqVXVhVXvr0U56xrnU_wvwIOAQc5aXWF8-Oq42O5yePS8Dx_N33mEvOmCb3VZGIZ-u_VVhVx7qwfeV_AAAA__8ehDhI">Support us!</a><hr>John Laughland, Director FVD International

large_Q7beybdDfZldoPL1CWrB0mNacqgpGKf27qYeWGj0.jpg

medium_Q7beybdDfZldoPL1CWrB0mNacqgpGKf27qYeWGj0.jpg

small_Q7beybdDfZldoPL1CWrB0mNacqgpGKf27qYeWGj0.jpg

thumbnail_Q7beybdDfZldoPL1CWrB0mNacqgpGKf27qYeWGj0.jpg

Newsletter 11-04-2024

SOFIA DECLARATION, 12 April 2024.Europe is in an existential crisis. The values that founded European civilization are threatened and called into question by aggressive globalist ideologies. Democracy and the people’s right to self-determination are being replaced by the dictatorship of an unelected bureaucracy accountable to no one. Economic security is threatened by the interests of international corporations and financial institutions. Freedom of speech is giving way to massive censorship. A war is waged on the European continent that could engulf it entirely – for the third time in the last 100 years.&nbsp;In its current form, the European Union cannot provide an institutional response to these challenges. The agenda of those who claim to be its leaders is fundamentally different from the agenda of the majority of citizens. The crisis of confidence in this EU has reached alarming levels that threaten the future of European civilization. Guided by our principles, we unite behind the following goals in the next mandate of the European Parliament:1. Europe must stop being an economic area dominated by the interests of multinational corporations and financial institutions. Our continent must be a political space of relationships and connections between equal and sovereign states.2. The power of the unaccountable bureaucracy must be stopped. Democratic power rests with the citizens and they, not the Brussels bureaucrats, should decide how they want to live.3. The war in Europe must be stopped and that can only happen through peace negotiations. European civilization is based on peace. And on this basis, the countries of Europe must become an independent and powerful factor in international politics.&nbsp;The upcoming European Parliament elections are taking place at a very important and historical point in time. If we do not now categorically state that we cannot continue like this anymore, we face the threat of losing our Europe. We, who stand behind this declaration with our signatures, will not allow it!&nbsp;Kostadin Kostadinov (Revival) BulgariaEvangelos Tsiompanidis (Agricultural Livestock Party of Greece) GreeceNatalia Parasca (Revival Party) MoldovaRalf Dekker Forum for Democracy The NetherlandsMilan Uhrik (Republic) SlovakiaGoran Igić (Oathkeepers) SerbiaJános Árgyelán (Our Homeland) HungaryGustav Kasselstrand (Alternative for Sweden) SwedenNicolaas Rimoldi (MASS-VOLL!) Switzerland&nbsp;<img src="https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/UJy5Uk6rn9Riw4elji9qBlnFdyI6NZhXa1zvTMe4phLkwc86svNm2xTQ1ghCsyhqrmNwwZm_6orY8phXfYndjZ7xYmbWCWS3TsXjSOnGRn-UaYm-TFUtK3-cbt9BfRzBavu_Ir9gi6eXcKIwLRU6cQc">&nbsp;

large_Sofia Declaration.jpg

medium_Sofia Declaration.jpg

small_Sofia Declaration.jpg

thumbnail_Sofia Declaration.jpg

The Sofia Declaration

Dear Future leaders of Europe, dear ladies and gentlemen,It is with great pleasure and pride that I address you here today in the beautiful city of Sofia. My name is Ralf Dekker. I am the leading candidate on the list of Forum for Democracy for the European Parliament elections.Forum for Democracy, FVD, is the political party in the Netherlands with the largest number of members, around 60,000. At this moment in time FVD holds five seats in the Dutch parliament and one seat in the European parliament. FVD aims to be more of a movement than a political party. We have set up an app where vendor and client can meet across all business sectors, thousands of businesses are on it as well as tens of thousands of FVD-members. We created a non-woke primary school. We set up a publishing company, Amsterdam Books, a food box delivery company that connects food farmers directly to consumers, Eerlijk Eten (‘Eat Honestly’ or ‘Honest Eating’). And we have a studio where we do a weekly video news show, Forum Inside, with up to over 100,000 viewers weekly.We are also active internationally.&nbsp; FVD International has a weekly Newsletter in English which reaches a large audience – I encourage you to sign up!&nbsp; It also organises a weekly X-Space, on Wednesdays at 5pm Sofia time, also in English to discuss the great issues of the day.&nbsp; This way, FVD aims to become a hub for woke-free thought around Europe and the world.All this to create and help develop a community of the like-minded.The main political theme of Forum for Democracy can be summarized as: forcefully opposing&nbsp;globalist directions and tendencies and actively promoting traditional values, responsible citizenship and common sense.We feel that our approach to politics and society rests on the quest for truth and honesty. We did not seek political careers, but we find ourselves being the only true opposition party in the Dutch parliament. All the other parties bicker over minor details but do not seem to differ on the major themes. The mega-trends that almost come naturally, where hardly anyone in the larger public is in favour of, never have been voted for, but seem to happen anyway.For example: the numerous ‘transitions’ that seem to be unavoidable and are presented as positive worldwide developments that will bring society to a state of Valhalla.Like the ‘energy transition’. Instead of reliable traditional fuel based power we need to go to intermittent, unreliable, landscape and nature ruining energy sources that do not work and are eye-wateringly expensive. A scam, enriching a handful of rent seekers at the expense of the little man who sees his energy bill skyrocket and his landscape demolished. And all that because of a supposedly worldwide, completely made-up fake ‘climate-problem’.How about the Healthcare transition? With the WHO as the worldwide ministry of health. Apparently our governments have feel no hesitancy in blindly following WHO-procedures and forcing the public into submission, locking them up, pressing and gaslighting them into taking unproven injections. Creating considerably more harm than benefit. All based on corrupt science and outright deceit. All of course being sold as ‘for your own protection’.&nbsp;And what to say about the ever increasing control and grip of governments and governing structures? Controlling and limiting freedom of speech, censoring. But also increasingly monitoring all the whereabouts of citizens through BigTech and through BigFinance, culminating into digital ID and CBDC projects.&nbsp;A trend where The Netherlands unfortunately seems to be a frontrunner is the LGBTQI-plus promotion. Male and female, husband and wife are concepts of the past. Where sexuality is concerned there are dozens of preferences, called ‘genders’, of which heterosexual male and female are only two. The old-fashioned ones. Children in school are actively introduced to this wide variation and are also made aware of the range of sex-change procedures available. That is the T category, trans. Another ‘transition’ as I mentioned earlier.And then, last but not least, we are lured into a war against the biggest military and nuclear power of the world, based on a largely made-up and completely one-sided narrative that all the Western media blast out all the time. Diplomacy seems to be out of the window, war is peace, ignorance is bliss. The military industrial complex profits. The little man suffers and dies.These and other megatrends are being managed and promoted by governing structures that are more and more supranational. Ever further away from the public, from the electorate.&nbsp;A technocracy, constantly on the lookout for increased efficiency. Where democratic processes, civilians and voters are seen as obstacles to efficient management of society. Where ‘divide and conquer’ is applied. Where humanism is a mere inefficiency.&nbsp;That is the globalism we are opposing.&nbsp;Ladies and gentlemen. These are grim times, where normalcy is often being framed as outrageous. The absurd seems to have become the norm.In this context it seems strange at first glance for FVD to apply for seats in the European Parliament. And also it feels counterintuitive to some, for FVD to develop an international profile and network. ‘Should we not concentrate on domestic issues and refrain from internationalism?’ is an often heard criticism.To that we say ‘On the contrary!’ First of all, it is inspiring for our movement to meet like-minded people from other countries. Secondly, although we do not intend to create international political party structures, we think that we can learn from each other’s experiences, work together in the EU madhouse to stop or at least slow down developments and through contacts and exchanges strengthen each others’ structures and movements.&nbsp;It is a thrill to further cement relationships, build new ones and create a strength in togetherness.&nbsp;We are up against a global cabal. Let’s create strong international networks ourselves to counter that.Thank you.

medium_Ralf speech.png

small_Ralf speech.png

thumbnail_Ralf speech.png

Ralf Dekker's Speech at The New Leaders of Europe Conference in Sofia

On 19 March 2024, FVD MP Pepijn van Houwelingen put down a motion in the Dutch parliament saying that if a state were found to have blown up the Nord Stream pipelines, it should be considered a hostile power.&nbsp; Now that no one believes Russia did it any more, and that the finger points clearly at the USA (or perhaps Ukraine), every single party in the parliament, except FVD, voted against the motion. &nbsp;<img src="https://lh7-us.googleusercontent.com/5bzFl232HdPhDcE-lZDMAaj6FBFCYKfXDE6KqFV-atUXK80WWwrakOsH-FYm3q5cHH11zhS1bzGraInJz3Gx_xniqAmcEFqAPErAp9BMDZAmKNXpBWcrywbTy8pyOK-FtiaTA92ik3IqQkqV8ie0nas">&nbsp;MOTION BY PEPIJN VAN HOUWELINGENProposed 19 March 2024The House,having heard the debate,noting that the Nederlandse Gasunie is a shareholder in the Nord Stream gas pipeline with an interest of 9%;considering that the blowing up of vital infrastructure such as Nord Stream by a state actor is considered an “act of aggression” under international law;declares that any state actor responsible for blowing up the Nord Stream gas pipeline will be considered a hostile power by the Netherlandsand proceeds with the order of business.Van Houwelingen

large_ejyfo93ssnwscuuu2no6.jpg

medium_ejyfo93ssnwscuuu2no6.jpg

small_ejyfo93ssnwscuuu2no6.jpg

thumbnail_ejyfo93ssnwscuuu2no6.jpg

Motion Pepijn van Houwelingen about the North Stream Pipelines

This article was originally published by the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity. Find the original <a href="https://ronpaulinstitute.org/why-did-washington-insist-on-the-kosovo-war/">here.</a><hr>&nbsp;The following remarks were delivered at a conference marking the 25th anniversary&nbsp;of the NATO bombing of Serbia: “The 1999 Red-Green Bombing Terror against Serbia,” held on March 20, 2024, at the Bundestag in Berlin hosted by MdB Dr.&nbsp;Rainer Rothfuß and his&nbsp;Alternative for Germany&nbsp;parliamentary group.In 2004, I appeared as the second defense witness called by Slobodan Milošević at his so-called “trial” before the so-called “International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia” at The Hague My testimony was not as an expert witness but as a witness of fact concerning the formulation and implementation of US and western policy. I addressed one specific charge: that –&nbsp;beginning&nbsp;no later than October 1998&nbsp;– Mr. Milošević was the initiator of a criminal conspiracy to drive the Albanians out of Kosovo and Metohija on the basis of their ethnicity.There was one little problem with this accusation: there was absolutely zero direct evidence for it. No written order to this effect was ever produced. No person testified as to having received, transmitted, or even heard of such an instruction. Rather, the claim was based solely on circumstantial inferences of events starting from October 1998.Thus, the heart of my testimony related to a paper I issued on August 12, 1998, as an analyst at the US Senate Republican Policy Committee, titled “Bosnia II: The Clinton Administration Sets Course for NATO Intervention in Kosovo.” In that paper, working solely from open sources, I detailed how, at that time – fully&nbsp;two months before&nbsp;the Milošević-led supposed “criminal conspiracy” came into effect —&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;<blockquote>“ … planning for a U.S.-led NATO intervention in Kosovo is now largely in place, …. The only missing element appears to be an event—with suitably vivid media coverage—that would make intervention politically salable, even imperative, in the same way that [the] Administration finally decided on intervention in Bosnia in 1995 after a series of ‘Serb mortar attacks’ took the lives of dozens of civilians—attacks, which, upon closer examination, may in fact have been the work of the Muslim regime in Sarajevo, the main beneficiary of the intervention. . . That the Administration is waiting for a similar ‘trigger’ in Kosovo is increasingly obvious: [As reported in the&nbsp;Washington Post, August 4, 1998], ‘A senior U.S. Defense Department official who briefed reporters on July 15 noted that “we’re not anywhere near making a decision for any kind of armed intervention in Kosovo right now, … [but] I think if some levels of atrocities were reached that would be intolerable, that would probably be a trigger”.’ ”</blockquote>Now, if I was aware of this as early as August 1998, so were a lot of other people in Washington. I submitted to the “Tribunal” that in light of my paper, all interpretations of events would have to be drastically reevaluated. The issue wasn’t any longer whether Belgrade was planning an expulsion but that Washington was looking for a pretext for aggression.(My cross-examination by prosecutor Geoffrey Nice (later&nbsp;Sir, based on his work at The Hague), asked me barely a word about my testimony. Rather, he interrogated me about my ethnic origins (Greek, from four Spartan grandparents), my religion (Orthodox Christian), and my opinions about the Islamic challenge to European, Christian civilization (negative).)As we know, in due course the suitable “trigger” was found, with the so-called “Račak massacre” of January 1999. The key figure in “selling” Račak was William Walker. As described by Mark Ames and Matt Taibbi (now of&nbsp;Rolling Stone) in their article “Meet Mr. Massacre,” published in the now-defunct&nbsp;The Exile&nbsp;of February 10, 2000:<blockquote>Years from now, when the war in Serbia is over and the dust has settled, historians will point to January 15, 1999 as the day the American Death Star became fully operational. That was the date on which an American diplomat named William Walker brought his OSCE war crimes verification team to a tiny Kosovar village called Račak to investigate an alleged Serb massacre of ethnic Albanian peasants. After a brief review of the town’s 40-odd bullet-ridden corpses, Walker searched out the nearest television camera and essentially fired the starting gun for the war. From what I saw, I do not hesitate to describe the crime as a massacre, a crime against humanity,’ he said. ‘Nor do I hesitate to accuse the government security forces of responsibility.’ We all know how Washington responded to Walker’s verdict; it quickly set its military machine in motion, and started sending out menacing invitations to its NATO friends to join the upcoming war party.</blockquote>Focus on that phrase: “the American Death Star became fully operational.” Kosovo became the template that we then took on the road in one form or another in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen. Ukraine.But the question still lingers:&nbsp;Why?&nbsp;Why was Washington so insistent that we and our NATO&nbsp;<s>satelli</s>– oops – “allies” needed to launch that war? Why did then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright reveal in confidence, according to a reliable source, that at Rambouillet “We intentionally set the bar too high for the Serbs to comply. They need some bombing, and that’s what they are going to get”?Some people will tell you it was about putting a NATO base, Camp Bondsteel, in a strategic location. Or that we wanted to clear the way for an East-West energy pipeline across the Balkans. Or that we coveted the mineral wealth of the Trepča mines. Or to secure the transit route for Afghan opium processed into heroin bound for Europe.Certainly, all of our various interventions line a lot of a pockets, but in more than three decades of work in and around the Washington&nbsp;apparat,&nbsp;I never heard anyone point to such concrete and, frankly, normal if immoral imperial considerations.Rather, answers must instead be sought within the larger perspective of American policy since the end of the first Cold War in 1991 and the development of the current one in the course of the 1990s: the American “unipolar moment,” as the bipartisan US policy&nbsp;nomenklatura&nbsp;sought to consolidate and perpetuate its hegemonic control over the entire planet, taking advantage of the vacuum left by the demise of the USSR. Perhaps the fullest expression of this was a 1996&nbsp;Foreign Affairs&nbsp;article by neoconservative ideologists William Kristol and Robert Kagan (NOTE: Victoria Nuland’s husband), misleadingly titled “Toward a Neo-Reaganite Foreign Policy,” in which they called for the US to establish and maintain indefinitely “benevolent global hegemony” — in other words, perpetual American world domination.Kristol and Kagan laid out virtually all of the elements that have guided US global policy during the ensuing years. It is no accident that Republican neoconservatives were enthusiastic supporters of Bill Clinton’s Balkan interventions of the 1990s, under the guidance of people like then-Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once opined regarding the sanctions-related deaths of a half million Iraqi children that “the price is worth it.” In the US establishment, there is little dissent on either side of the partisan aisle with Albright’s view that a militant United States has a special wisdom: “If we have to use force, it is because we are America; we are the indispensable nation. We stand tall and we see further than other countries into the future …”The result is a kind of neo-Bolshevik ideology, where, as the vanguard of all progressive humanity, the US leadership class sees itself as the midwife of history. America took the path (as characterized by Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov) of the “replication of the experience of Bolshevism and Trotskyism”—morphing ourselves into a new Evil Empire in place of the old one. (Anyone familiar with the origins of America’s neoconservatives understands that the Trotskyite reference is not just rhetorical.)Which brings us back to the “Why?” regarding Kosovo. When the dissolution of Yugoslavia kicked off in June 1991, largely at the initiative of Austria and Germany, official Washington was terrified that with the end of the Soviet bloc Europe might become “whole and free” – but without us. What then could be the future of Lord Hastings Lionel Ismay’s mission for NATO of keeping the Americans&nbsp;in&nbsp;Europe, the Russians&nbsp;out, and the Germans&nbsp;down? Europe, the crown jewel of the Global American Empire (the GAE) was slipping away.Hence, as former Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee Richard Lugar (R-Indiana) indicated, NATO needed to go “out of area or out of business.” Starting in spring 1992, Washington moved swiftly to expand the conflict from Slovenia and Croatia (where it had been relatively contained) to Bosnia and Herzegovina. There the US became the vociferous champion of the Muslim faction, illegally shipping in al-Qaeda fighters and Iranian weapons via covert C-130 flights into Tuzla. We then engaged in a little demonstrative bombing of the Bosnian Serbs to set the stage for the Dayton Agreement. The arsonist sets the fire, so then he can be the hero rushing to the rescue: “See, you silly ‘dispensable’ European children? You just can’t get along without us …”Following Dayton, Kosovo was the other shoe that needed to drop – with appropriate violence – to ensure that Europe was totally, abjectly, humiliatingly subservient to the United States through NATO, with the passive complicity of NATO’s concubine, the European Union. The corollary was that, just as the Serbs had no legitimate voice in determining post-Yugoslav structures, the Russians understood they had no legitimate voice in European security arrangements. These would be decided without them.Now, of course, with defeat looming in Ukraine and with the broader Middle East on the edge of a regional conflagration, with many in Washington beating the drums for war with Iran or even China, the GAE’s “unipolar” moment is coming to an end, one way or the other, either with a bang or with a whimper. Unfortunately, neither in Washington, nor in Berlin or other European capitals, with the exception of Budapest, are decisions made by people who can be regarded as mentally and morally healthy human beings, much less patriots.The next few months and years promise to be a period of disorder and acute danger. The question is, can we – Americans and Europeans alike – find a path to governance that can secure a future for our peoples?

small_nato-bomb-serbia-train.jpg

thumbnail_nato-bomb-serbia-train.jpg

Why Did Washington Insist on the Kosovo War?

The last week has seen a barrage of attacks against FVD accusing the party of being an agent of Kremlin propaganda.&nbsp; All fact-free, of course.&nbsp; John Laughland has been one of the main targets.&nbsp; What has struck him this week, apart from the malevolence of the attackers, is the fact that they repeat the same old stories.&nbsp;They go online, find what they want, and recycle it.&nbsp; Very ecological!&nbsp; Nothing said in the last week has not been said before; on the contrary, it is all obsessive repetition. To illustrate the point, we are publishing a text John Laughland originally wrote in March 2020, four years ago, after Tom-Jan Meuss of NRC Handelsblad published two articles attacking him, in September 2019 and March 2020.&nbsp; There really is nothing to add to this text.&nbsp; It is four years old now but what it says remains as true of the recent attacks as of the older ones.&nbsp; No doubt we will be able to re-reprint the same text next year, and the year after that, because, like children, our enemies never tire of hearing the same fairy tale told over and over again.<hr>&nbsp;24 March 2020&nbsp;When we survey the ruins of European civilisation, one of the things which stands out - in addition, of course, to the collapse in education, and of law and order - is the terrible corruption of journalism.&nbsp;The internet has massively inflated the quantity of written words available and thereby debased the value of the basic commodity.&nbsp; Journalism is no longer about communicating truth or even thought, but instead is but an instrument in the hands of people of bad faith to wield power for political ends.&nbsp;In the case of the recent attack on me by Tom-Jan Meuss, the goal is to get at Thierry Baudet by destroying me.&nbsp; His article is only the latest example of this trend of ever-rising journalistic stupidity.&nbsp; &nbsp; I have never met Tom-Jan Meuss - and he has certainly never made any attempt to meet me or even to contact me, which tells us a lot about his journalistic ethics.&nbsp;Yet I feel I know him already.&nbsp;This is because his article is only the last in a long line of identical attacks against me, starting perhaps with the one by David Aaronovitch in The Guardian in 2004.&nbsp;These attacks have been repeated identically over the years, using the same untruths, distortions and outright lies as those deployed by Meuss.&nbsp; The authors of these attacks think (or at least pretend to their readers) that they are clever and that they have uncovered original information; in reality, they merely copy the articles of earlier liars from the internet.Although the attacks started in 2004, they picked up in pace while I worked for IDC from 2008.&nbsp; Usually, as in Meuss’ case, the attack would come out of the blue without the so-called ‘journalist’ having made any attempt to get in touch beforehand.&nbsp;In the rare cases where there was contact, the interviews were just set-ups.&nbsp; On not one single occasion - and Meuss is no exception to this universal rule - has there ever been a single quotation from me, or a single attempt to engage with any of the arguments or even questions I have advanced in 30 years of writing books and articles.&nbsp;Instead, there is just condemnation and insults.&nbsp; The goal of such writers is not to refute but to destroy.&nbsp; They do not allow facts to get in the way of what they think is a good story.&nbsp; Their story-telling recalls the stories parents tell to their children - always the same, always reassuring, always with the same ending.&nbsp; Anything else would, it seems, disturb and upset the readers.Let us take the claim that the Institute I worked for from 2008 - 2018 was funded by the Kremlin.&nbsp; It was not.&nbsp; It was funded by Russian companies who gave money to the work of our president, a well-known Russian historian and public figure, because they supported what she stood for.&nbsp; For over 10 years, we denied to various journalists that we were state-funded, but they never took No for an answer.&nbsp; Eventually, when the Institute ran into financial difficulties,&nbsp; our president used her personal contacts within the Russian government to try to find new sponsors.&nbsp; She failed, even though one of those contacts is Sergei Lavrov, whom I personally chaired at a meeting in the UN while we were going through a severe financial crisis.&nbsp; If Sergei Lavrov could not pull a few strings to help us out, this is surely proof that IDC was privately funded.&nbsp; But has a single journalist ever reported on the reasons for the closure of IDC?&nbsp; Not one.This is because the accusation of Kremlin funding is not intended to be an affirmation of truth.&nbsp; It is intended only to be an insult, saying I am an intellectual prostitute.&nbsp;It is also to present all other conservatives who reject the EU or NATO or other aspects of Western political correctness as stooges of Russia, a country of which they have convinced themselves that everything is controlled by Putin but which generally they know nothing about.&nbsp; Meuss and his colleagues, as terrifyingly narrow-minded liberals, do not accept that anyone can arrive at an anti-liberal position without being dishonest or stupid.&nbsp;Liberals today do not realise how much they resemble Jack D. Ripper in Dr Strangelove, foaming at the mouth about how Russia is poisoning our precious bodily fluids.Their blindness causes them, incidentally, to miss a very interesting story, which is how little soft power Russia wields.&nbsp; Apart from RT, the surprisingly successful TV station, Russia does not have any soft power at all.&nbsp; It does not fund any think-tanks or NGOs; it does not seem to have many lobbyists in the West.&nbsp; This distinguishes it from other former Soviet states like Ukraine, Kazakhstan or Azerbaijan.&nbsp; Why is this so?&nbsp; Do not expect Meuss or his friends to answer this question because even to put it would deprive them of ammunition against people like me.Yet when I read articles like Meuss, I am overcome more by sadness than by anger.&nbsp; Sadness for myself, who as a man with a wife and children is more real than Meuss seems to allow.&nbsp; Sadness because it seems that this unfair attacks will never end.&nbsp; But sadness, too, because they drive home the horrible power of lies and accusations, against which defence always seems somehow inadequate.&nbsp; Mentez, mentez, il en restera toujours quelque chose.The sadness extends, further, to an existential realisation that this battle is one between intelligence and stupidity, and between the demonic and brutal power of accusation and the delicate and difficult task of defence.&nbsp; When Meuss writes that I have defended&nbsp;Slobodan Milosevic, he displays not only his ignorance but also his lack of civilised values.&nbsp; He not only hides from his readers the fact that the arguments I deployed in my books - which I assume he has never read - have been subsequently used to exonerate Milosevic, posthumously, by the same Tribunal which originally indicated him, as by the International Court of Justice; he also works on the unspoken assumption that defence itself is dishonourable.&nbsp; This is the end of the rule of law as we know it.The same goes for his claim that I ‘dispute’ the genocide in Srebrenica.&nbsp; He links to a lecture I gave in 2010 but he evidently has not read the text - or, if he did, he has not understood it.&nbsp; Perhaps the technical arguments about international law were a little too academic for him.&nbsp; &nbsp; Re-reading the text, I cannot find any sentence which disputes the genocide.&nbsp;Instead, I discuss the origins of the accusation, the way the conviction was obtained, and its implications for international law.&nbsp; Meuss is evidently unfamiliar with the widespread existence in legal literature of articles dissecting and discussing legal decisions.&nbsp; He certainly seems unfamiliar with the practice of disagreeing with them.It is in these moments that I think of my late uncle who, after a brilliant career as a barrister became a judge at the Old Bailey.&nbsp;He was mainly known for defending people many thought were guilty.&nbsp; These included a young black man accused of a particularly brutal murder, a case so famous at the time in Britain that the very thought of defending him seemed shocking.&nbsp;But defence, especially of unpopular causes, is a key part of the very fabric of civilisation: it is what separates us from the lynch mob.&nbsp; Today’s journalists like Meuss provide the rope, build the scaffold and encourage the mob to kill.&nbsp; Those of us who are prepared to sacrifice our careers by standing up for the accused, asking difficult questions, or drawing uncomfortable conclusions, are what holds back - at least for the time being - the barbarians at the gates.

large_john2.png

medium_john2.png

small_john2.png

thumbnail_john2.png

A Reply to my Critics

Petr Bystron is a Member of the German Bundestag and foreign policy spokesman for the AFD.<ol><li>The closure of the Voice of Europe is a blatant attack on press freedom which I strongly condemn.&nbsp; The goal of this campaign of slander is to damage opposition politicians in several European countries and to silence critical journalists.&nbsp; Anyone who stands for peace and against the continuation of the war in Ukraine is defamed as a Russian agent.</li><li>As in many previous election campaigns, those in power are trying to push back against the high opinion poll ratings of the opposition, using campaigns of slander carried out with the help of the secret services.&nbsp; In the previous elections to the Bundestag, this was done with the Verfassungsschutz, the German secret service. In this European Parliament election campaign, it is the Czech secret services.&nbsp; In this way, those in power are trying to prevent a strong showing by six political parties across Europe.</li><li>It is no coincidence that this globalist campaign started in the Czech Republic.&nbsp; The government of the Czech prime minister, Petr Fiala, is one of the strongest supporters of the continuation of the war in Ukraine; the Czech arms industry is one of the world’s biggest profiteers from this conflict.</li><li>The campaign was initiated by the defamation platform “Deník N” and the notorious German magazine Der Spiegel. The campaign was spread on social media in various languages by the globalist NGO, “The European Values Centre for Security Policy“ based in Prague.&nbsp;</li></ol>The financiers of this NGO are:USAIDUS Embassy in PragueUS Foreign Ministry (State Department)Konrad Adenauer StiftungHans Seidel StiftungFriedrich Naumann StiftungCzech Foreign MinistryAmong others.&nbsp;<hr><a href="https://europeanvalues.cz/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/CS_Bezpecnostni_centrum_Evropske_hodnoty-Vyrocni_zprava_2022.pdf">Source</a>

large_D7490-0023.jpg

medium_D7490-0023.jpg

small_D7490-0023.jpg

thumbnail_D7490-0023.jpg

The ‘Voice of Europe’ affair is an election manoeuvre

The original article was published in Dutch on the website <a href="https://reactionair.nl/">Reactionair</a>. Read it <a href="https://reactionair.nl/artikelen/oorlogsretoriek-ontmaskerd/">here</a>.<hr>&nbsp;DISINFORMATION! Ruben Brekelmans MP recently claimed in a&nbsp;<a href="https://twitter.com/rubenbrekelmans/status/1762044036288827394?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1762044036288827394%7Ctwgr%5E347c44f3c58574f9fe40f79818807680dffe7f99%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Freactionair.nl%2Fartikelen%2Foorlogsretoriek-ontmaskerd%2F).">tweet</a> that he and fellow MP Derk Boswijk had become victims of a smear campaign.According to the allegdly false rumours, the two were part of the warmongering Atlantic Council, an entity widely perceived to be as an extension of the American military-industrial complex which would benefit financially from any escalation in the war in UkraineThe truth, Brekelmans said, is that he and Boswijk are actually are linked to the Dutch Atlantic Commission, an organisation whichhe claims, is completely separate from the Atlantic Council.&nbsp;Time to separate the wheat from the chaff. What exactly is the Atlantic Council? And the Atlantic Commission? And are these organisations connected?AtlanticismThe word that unites the two is of course 'Atlantis', the legendary island described by Plato from which the Atlantic Ocean takes its name. From this in turn stems the word 'Atlanticism', which refers to the political and ideological bond between the United States and the countries of Europe, based on democracy, freedom, rule of law and market economy. With the advent of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) in 1949, Atlanticism fused with the American-led military alliance, giving it a military dimension as well. Atlanticism employs liberalism as a geopolitical strategy, to which US political scientist John Mearsheimer devoted a book. In this book,&nbsp;The Tragedy of Great Power Politics, he contrasts liberalism with realism. Since this article is about Atlanticism, we will focus only on the former.According to Mearsheimer, the liberal strategy is based on three principles. First, states are the main actors in international politics. Second, the internal characteristics of states differ and these differences have a great impact on the behaviour of states. Some of these characteristics are inherently better than others, which is why there are good and bad states. Good states cooperate in peace, bad states cause war and use violence to get their way. Third, good states are not out to expand power, while bad states are. This leads us to the main principle of liberalism as a geopolitical strategy; the world must consist of good states. These states are also liberal, democratic, have a functioning rule of law and have a market economy. A world made up of liberal democracies is a peaceful and stable world.According to Mearsheimer, there are three currents within liberalism, each focusing on a different mechanism that brings about liberalism. First, economic interdependence ensures that countries do not fight each other. Second is democratic peace theory, which argues that democracies do not declare wars on other democracies. Third, international institutions increase cooperation between states and reduce the likelihood of war.Although there is much to criticise liberalism as a geopolitical strategy, it guides the foreign policy of the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, the Netherlands, Poland and a number of other Western countries.One of the criticisms made by Mearsheimer is that it denies anarchy in international politics, namely that there is no central power in the theory of liberalism. In practice, of course, there is, the United States, and other liberal democracies hang on the US military drip for their survival. Also, the many coups orchestrated by US intelligence show that liberal democracies also push their interests through violence, as was the case with Iran in 1953, Guatemala in 1954, Laos in 1960, the Dominican Republic in 1961, Operation Mongoose and Northwoods in 1961-1962 against Cuba, the 1963 Iraqi Ramadan Revolution, the 1964 Tonkin Incident, the 1964 coup in Brazil, the Congo Crisis, Operation Condor in the 1970s in Latin America, QRHELPFUL in Poland in 1982, Nicaragua in 1985, Panama in 1989, Haiti in 1994, Yugoslavia in the 1990s, Afghanistan in 2001, Iraq in 2003 and Syria and Libya in 2011.In addition, the US government-funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) plays a major role in organising, directing and financing "democratic" opposition in Serbia, Ukraine, Russia, Georgia, Belarus and Taiwan. For instance, in 2013, NED chairman Carl Gershman declared that Ukraine was "the biggest prize" to remove Putin from power. The same Gershman was mocked in 2020 by Russian comedians Vovan and Lexus, who convinced him that he was talking to the Belarusian oppositionist, Svetlana Tichanovskaya. Gershman explained that the NED supports a lot of groups and has a very active programme in Russia. His colleague Barbara Haig added that the NED is even in "grassroots" organisations around Moscow at the local level. About the NED, co-founder Allan Weinstein said in 1991 that many of their activities 25 years ago had previously been carried out by the CIA. The NED is also behind several opposition parties, such as Otpor! in the former Yugoslavia, which fought against President Slobodan Milošević.Another criticism can be made of the argument that the internal characteristics of liberal democracies prevent wars with each other. The same argument can be applied to the former Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc, within which countries with communism as their political ideology were linked together. So there is nothing special, in this regard, about liberalism.The tiesOn its official website, the Netherlands Atlantic Association presents itself as a platform dedicated to disseminating knowledge and conducting research related to transatlantic relations.&nbsp;This refers to relations between the United States and European Union countries, NATO, and similar entities. Despite claims by Brekelmans to the contrary, the website explicitly confirms a connection with the Atlantic Council, naming it as a partner organisation.&nbsp;This is further supported by John Jacobs, director of Atlantic Forum, who identifies the Atlantic Commission as a sister organisation of the Atlantic Council. The Atlantic Commission bases its articles and events in part on articles emanating from the Atlantic Council. The director of the Atlantic Council's programme on international security came to speak in The Hague at the Atlantic Commission's invitation in 2007.In reality, the Atlantic Commission appears to be the Dutch branch of the Atlantic Council. Brekelmans’ claim that they have nothing to do with each other is like claiming that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and that of the United States had nothing to do with each other, when both were in fact part of the Comintern. Even the 2022 annual report of the Atlantic Commission still mentions the Atlantic Council as an organisation with which it cooperates. Brekelmans' claim that these organisations have nothing to do with each other is misleading, to say the least.Project for a New American Century and neoconservatismAmong other organisations mentioned on the Atlantic Commission website are the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) and the Project for the New American Century (PNAC). The PNAC in particular is noteworthy. Founded in the 1990s, this neoconservative stronghold is one of the key players in the Israel lobby and one of the driving forces behind the 2003 Iraq war. Co-founder and director Robert Kagan (husband of Victoria Nuland) played a notable role by spreading unsubstantiated claims of Iraqi intelligence involvement in the September 11 attacks, which then served as a pretext for the invasion of Iraq. As early as 1998, he advocated US military intervention to remove Saddam Hussein from power. According to Mearsheimer and Walt's analysis in their book on the Israel lobby, the PNAC viewed US hegemony as both beneficial to the United States and the world. In line with this view, the PNAC published a petition in 1998 calling on the US government to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, a position strongly echoed by its director Kagan himself.Leading members of the PNAC played a crucial role within the George W. Bush administration, being staunch supporters of the invasion of Iraq. These influential figures included Bill Kristol, son of former Trotskyist and pioneer of neoconservatism Irving Kristol, alongside Max Boot, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz. Douglas Feith and Richard Perle wrote the controversial Clean Break memo in 2000 for Benjamin Netanyahu, already by then Prime Minister of Israel. This report advocated an aggressive form of Israeli foreign policy, including removing Saddam Hussein in Iraq and containing Syria by waging war by proxy and emphasising the possession of weapons of mass destruction. Feith and Wolfowitz created and headed the Pentagon unit Office of Special Plans (OSP) from September 2002 to June 2003: this unit is known to be the source of unsubstantiated claims of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and played a central role in the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal. This scandal, part of a wider FBI investigation, revolves around the unauthorised transfer of confidential information regarding US policy towards Iran to Israel, through the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). Feith's involvement in these issues is also the subject of the investigation. Quoting the Guardian:“The OSP was an open and largely unfiltered channel to the White House, not only for the Iraqi opposition. It also maintained close links with a parallel, ad hoc intelligence operation within Ariel Sharon's office in Israel, specifically to bypass Mossad and provide the Bush administration with more alarmist reports on Saddam Hussein's Iraq than Mossad was willing to allow. ‘None of the Israelis who came were let into the Pentagon through normal channels,’ said a source familiar with the visits. Instead, they were waved in on Mr Feith's authority without having to fill in the usual forms.”Elliott Abrams played a key role in rejecting an Iranian peace proposal after the US invasion and was previously convicted in connection with the Iran-Contra scandal, which involved illegal arms sales to Iran for the purpose of funding rebels in Nicaragua. Bill Kristol continued to defend the invasion of Iraq until 2015, viewing the US intervention as a liberation effort aimed at bringing democracy to Iraq, despite misleading information about the presence of weapons of mass destruction. In an open letter to President Bush, dated 20 September 2001, he argued that, “Even if the evidence does not directly link Iraq to the 9/11 attack, any strategy aimed at eradicating terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq. Failure to undertake such an effort will mean an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war against international terrorism.”We see a pattern of warmongers making false accusations and falsely linking regimes to terrorist acts in order to trigger and prolong wars. Nota bene: it is this organisation, the PNAC, with which the Atlantic Commission voluntarily associates itself.Military-industrial complexThe five major military companies which play a major role in the military-industrial complex are Boeing, General Dynamics, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon. In 1999, Boeing had 22.8% of the market share of military sales to foreign countries. United Technologies is also mentioned, this company merged with Raytheon. If we look at the links between Atlantic Council and the military-industrial complex, we find individuals who play a role in both.Mark Esper: Secretary of Defence under Donald Trump between 2019 and 2020. Esper was also lobbyist and vice president for government relations at Raytheon as well as chairman of several committees at the Atlantic Council.Deborah Lee James: Secretary of Air Force under Barack Obama from 2013 to 2014. James worked for SAIC (Science Applications International Corporation) and was vice president for international operations at United Technologies. Like Esper, she chaired several committees at the Atlantic Council.Robert O. Work: Deputy Secretary of Defence under Obama from 2014 to 2017. Work was also a board member at Raytheon during this time. Work also works at the Center for a New American Century, another Atlantic Commission partner organisation.James L. Jones: National security adviser from 2009 to 2010. Jones was a board member of the Atlantic Council as well as a board member at both Boeing and General Dynamics.Barbara Barrett: Minister of Air Force from 2019 to 2021. Atlantic Council board member and board member at Raytheon.This is just a sampling of key Atlantic Council figures working in the military-industrial complex. At the Atlantic Commission's sister organisation, political scientists, historians and former members of US administrations are prominent among the employees.A quick word about Brekelmans and Boswijk, to show how original their thoughts are. Mitch McConnell said in November 2023 that Reagan would turn in his grave if he saw that the Americans were not helping Ukraine. On 28 February 2024, Derk Boswijk imitated McConnell word for word by stating that "Ronald Reagan... would turn over in his grave."&nbsp;Brekelmans shared a letter in March 2024 which spoke of Russia as the "axis of evil". Gee, where have we heard that before? Well, from President Bush Jr. of course! In 2002, after the 9/11 attacks, he named Iraq, Iran and North Korea "the axis of evil" who would use weapons of mass destruction or supply terrorists. Brekelmans’ letter uses exactly the same terms the Bush administration used for its 2003 invasion of Iraq. We all know how this ended.The same rhetoric, the same labels, the same arguments and the same organisations going all out to escalate the war, all for "freedom" and "democracy". Meanwhile, Brekelmans is already working on the next war; arguing for supplying Lockheed Martin F-35 fighter jets to Israel, a country that Boswijk says shares important values with us.

697fd91d-90e7-4dec-bf32-491c5b314905_hu9d04924f625e38b943e32872f7ea929a_900526_1035x500_fill_q75_h2_lanczos_bottom_2.webp

large_697fd91d-90e7-4dec-bf32-491c5b314905_hu9d04924f625e38b943e32872f7ea929a_900526_1035x500_fill_q75_h2_lanczos_bottom_2.webp

medium_697fd91d-90e7-4dec-bf32-491c5b314905_hu9d04924f625e38b943e32872f7ea929a_900526_1035x500_fill_q75_h2_lanczos_bottom_2.webp

small_697fd91d-90e7-4dec-bf32-491c5b314905_hu9d04924f625e38b943e32872f7ea929a_900526_1035x500_fill_q75_h2_lanczos_bottom_2.webp

thumbnail_697fd91d-90e7-4dec-bf32-491c5b314905_hu9d04924f625e38b943e32872f7ea929a_900526_1035x500_fill_q75_h2_lanczos_bottom_2.webp

War rhetoric exposed: The truth about the links between MPs and warmongering organisations

Forum for Democracy International

pawel_czerwinski_Huhz_Izuj_Hm_Y_unsplash_9cbc70646e.jpeg

large_pawel_czerwinski_Huhz_Izuj_Hm_Y_unsplash_9cbc70646e.jpeg

medium_pawel_czerwinski_Huhz_Izuj_Hm_Y_unsplash_9cbc70646e.jpeg

small_pawel_czerwinski_Huhz_Izuj_Hm_Y_unsplash_9cbc70646e.jpeg

thumbnail_pawel_czerwinski_Huhz_Izuj_Hm_Y_unsplash_9cbc70646e.jpeg

Support our movement

'Our Own Government spreads Disinformation' - MP Gideon van Meijeren vs. Deputy Minister

PANEL DISCUSSION - Thierry Baudet, Candace Owens and Pearl Davis at the FVD Congress