Thierry Baudet

Founder of the most energetic anti-globalist movement of our time | @fvdemocratie | Bestselling Author | Member of Parliament | Philosopher

[Thierry Baudet @thierrybaudet]

Lidewij de Vos: “Mijn boodschap aan Nederland.”

[Iem al Biyati @biemyati]

We kunnen ons belastingsysteem stapsgewijs hervormen. De staat moet dan minder uitgeven:

👉🏻 Expatregeling à 1 miljard p/j
👉🏻 Massale immigratie à 23 miljard p/j
👉🏻 Toeslagen à 22 miljard p/j
👉🏻 Biomassacentrales à 1,5 miljard p/j
👉🏻 Ontwikkelingshulp à 6,5 miljard p/j
👉🏻 Klimaat- en stikstoffonds à 40 miljard
👉🏻 Oekraïne à 23 miljard (tot 2030)

En dan hebben we het nog niet eens gehad over het ambtenarenapparaat, de EU, “groene” subsidies, windturbines, zonneparken enz.

Er zijn zó veel opties. We kunnen dit gewoon doen.

[Forum voor Democratie @fvdemocratie]

Waar is de Tweede Kamer mee bezig? Het oplossen van de woningnood? Het terugsturen van immigranten? De belastingen verlagen? Nee, het hijsen van de “regenboogvlag”! @tomrusscher reageert op deze bizarre situatie.

[Forum voor Democratie @fvdemocratie]

Ons belasting- en toeslagenstelsel is véél te complex. Geen wonder dat de belastingdienst kampt met uitvoeringsproblemen.

@biemyati pleit voor een belastingvrije voet van €30.000 en een vlaktaks van 20% zodat toeslagen grotendeels overbodig worden en werken écht weer loont.

[Forum voor Democratie @fvdemocratie]

Een persoonlijke boodschap van @lidewij_devos! ❤️

[Forum voor Democratie @fvdemocratie]

De box 3-problematiek kan eenvoudig opgelost worden door box 3 af te schaffen.

✅ Versimpeling belastingstelsel
✅ Geen dubbele belastingheffing
✅ Spaarzaamheid belonen
✅ Financiële onafhankelijkheid stimuleren

Kies voor je portemonnee. Steun FVD: https://t.co/VNKfQS06HZ

[Tom Russcher @tomrusscher]

'Scholierenprotesten' en 'Franse jongeren', zo lezen we in de media. Oordeel zelf:

[Tom Russcher @tomrusscher]

De pechgeneratie is opgezadeld met tienduizenden euro’s extra studieschuld. Toch beschouwen VVD, CDA, D66 en PRO de huidige tegemoetkoming als definitief, terwijl deze generatie slechts een fractie terugkrijgt van wat haar is afgenomen.

Forum voor Democratie legt zich daar niet bij neer. Wij blijven strijden voor volledige compensatie voor de pechgeneratie.

[Tom Russcher @tomrusscher]

Slechts een kwart van de misgelopen basisbeurs. Dat is de tegemoetkoming die zogenaamde studentenpartijen als @D66, Volt en @progressiefned nu als ‘definitief’ beschouwen.

Daarmee wordt de pechgeneratie opnieuw tekortgedaan. Een generatie die met torenhoge studieschulden is opgezadeld waardoor het kopen van een huis en het opbouwen van een toekomst moeilijker is gemaakt.

Forum voor Democratie legt zich hier niet bij neer en zal altijd blijven strijden voor volledige compensatie van de pechgeneratie.

[Tom Russcher @tomrusscher]

Hoe zou dat nou komen? @ADnl

[Thierry Baudet @thierrybaudet]

Inspiratie voor als we straks onze middelbare school gaan oprichten @poRenaissance !

[Classic Learning Test @CLT_Exam]

Ok, this is incredible.

A new classical Catholic high school just opened in Fairfax County (St. Jerome Institute) — this is what a serious education looks like:

– Phones collected at the door
– Every class is a seminar discussion
– 15-20 students seated facing one another
– Art and music are required, NOT elective
– Math class teaches "the intrinsic beauty of math"
– Entire curriculum is integrated: philosophical and theological questioning in every class

And here's the literature section of the reading list:

9th grade (Exodus & Odyssey):
– Homer, Odyssey
– Genesis
– Plato, Euthyphro and Apology
– Virgil, Aeneid
– Exodus
– Beowulf
– Song of Roland
– Gospel of Luke
– Plato, Phaedo and Crito
– Acts of the Apostles
– Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea
– Wilder, Our Town

10th grade (God & Nature):
– Creation myths
– Plato, Timaeus and Symposium
– Aristotle, De Anima
– Plotinus
– Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa, Bonaventure, Aquinas
– Sir Gawain and the Green Knight
– Shakespeare, A Midsummer Night’s Dream
– Descartes, Meditations
– Bacon, Newton, Darwin
– Berry, Wilder, Tolkien
– Tocqueville
– Benedict XVI
– Cather, Death Comes for the Archbishop
– Faulkner, The Bear

11th grade (God & the Human Person):
– Sophocles, Oedipus Rex
– Plato, Symposium
– Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics
– Augustine, Confessions
– Shakespeare, Twelfth Night and King Lear
– Hobbes, Leviathan
– Swift, A Modest Proposal
– Austen, Pride and Prejudice
– Shelley, Frankenstein
– Hopkins
– O’Connor
– Martin Luther King Jr.
– Dostoevsky, Crime and Punishment
– John Paul II

12th grade (God & Society):
– Plato, Republic
– Dante, The Divine Comedy
– Aristotle, Politics
– Augustine, City of God
– Aquinas, De Regno
– Natural and human law
– Machiavelli, Hobbes
– Locke, Rousseau
– Marx and Engels
– Dignitatis Humanae, Evangelium Vitae, Centesimus Annus
– John Courtney Murray
– Leviticus
– Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov
– The Declaration of Independence
– The Constitution
– The Federalist Papers

"They gain an in-depth knowledge of Western civilization from Athens, Rome, and Jerusalem through England and the founding of our own country."

[Arnaud Bertrand @RnaudBertrand]

Rees-Mogg actually lied through his teeth in that part of the interview: he claims that, in a treaty, America "guaranteed" Ukraine's territorial integrity, making it "inviolable", as a "quid pro quo" for giving up its nuclear weapons.

This is completely false.

The treaty he refers to is the so-called "1994 Budapest Memorandum", whose full text you can read here: https://t.co/pzxrXmtjw6

What the U.S. (alongside Russia and the UK, the other signatories) did commit to is "to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine," to refrain from the threat or use of force against it, and to refrain from economic coercion.

These are promises about each signatory's own behavior: the US promised not to violate Ukraine's borders ITSELF, it did NOT guarantee their inviolability against anyone else - contrary to what Rees-Mogg is saying.

Steven Pifer, one of the US negotiators, wrote about this in an article he titled "Budapest Memorandum Myths" for Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation (https://t.co/xmzUppnGTT). He writes that the claim that "the United States and Britain violated their Budapest commitments by not going to war against Russia on Ukraine’s behalf" - what Rees-Mogg is essentially saying - is "a myth."

In another article he wrote for CNN in 2014 (https://t.co/Jqfut0lbsq) the same Pifer explains that "U.S. negotiators — myself among them — discussed this point [i.e. the absence of security guarantees] in detail with Ukrainian counterparts so that there would be no misunderstanding."

The only thing the U.S. (and the other signatories) committed to do if Ukraine was attacked was "to seek immediate United Nations Security Council action to provide assistance to Ukraine" - and even that only in case of an aggression "in which nuclear weapons are used."

And the U.S. did go to the Security Council, but given that Russia is a permanent member of the same UN Security Council, it's of course completely useless.

Rees-Mogg is also lying on the other half of the supposed "quid pro quo": the fact that Ukraine supposedly agreed to get rid of "its nuclear weapons," emphasis on the "its."

The nuclear weapons on Ukrainian soil were never theirs to keep, and they never had operational control of the weapons: the launch authority was always in Moscow and, even if Ukraine had wanted to launch the weapons, they couldn't have because they didn't have the launch codes.

As Ramesh Thakur, former Assistant Secretary-General of the UN, explained in a 2014 article titled "the myth of Ukraine’s nuclear deterrent" (https://t.co/14sroLdyzs), the bombs on Ukraine's soil "were always Russian bombs that happened to be based in Ukraine" and "were not in fact Ukrainian, any more than NATO nuclear weapons stored on West European soil or U.S. bombs that used to be kept in South Korea belonged to the countries on whose territory they were located."

So there you have it, Rees-Mogg is your classic Eton-educated British politician: extremely posh and very well-spoken, supremely confident in everything he asserts, and... a shameless liar, peddling thoroughly debunked myths.

[Collingwood 🇬🇧 @admcollingwood]

It's worse than that. The real history of the Budapest Memorandum is not known (or is conveniently ignored). If it was, Sir Jacob's argument would be instantly exposed as a canard. Even @RnaudBertrand doesn't quite grasp it in his (excellent and worth reading) post below. The Budapest Memorandum *also* covered Belarus and Kazakhstan (who also gave up 'their' nuclear weapons, and who signed essentially identical, parallel documents at the same time as Ukraine signed its). All the documents contained a clause in which the USA, the UK and Russia promised "...to refrain from economic coercion designed to subordinate to their own interest the exercise by [Ukraine/Belarus/Kazakhstan] of the rights inherent in its sovereignty and thus to secure advantages of any kind."

When the United States imposed sanctions on Belarus in early 2013, Minsk complained bitterly to the US State Department that the sanctions directly contravened the Budapest Memorandum (rightly so, given any reasonable reading of the text possible). Washington's official response was that these sanctions didn't count. What the US State Department argued was that its policy to economically coerce Belarus to do what the US wanted was not in fact against the spirit of an agreement in which the US agreed "to refrain from economic coercion to...secure advantages of any kind" because, in this case, the US had unilaterally decided that this was to the benefit of Belarussians. (The Memorandum of course included no such caveats.) In case this argument was not sufficiently decisive, however, the US State Department also said that, as far as it was concerned, "the Memorandum is not legally binding."

I am not arguing that the US was the only guilty party here. But ask yourself this: If way back in 2013 the US believed it could break the Memorandum whenever it thought it was justified in doing so, and that the Memorandum was anyway not legally binding and so offered no legal constraints on US action, why do many British politicians (Sir Jacob is in the majority) contend that the Memorandum is a hard, legally binding, inviolable commitment to defend Ukraine? The answer, of course, is that it offers a patina of legality and moral force (one must fulfill one's promises!) to justify something that our elites wanted to do anyway -- hoping, of course, that nobody would bother reading the text or learning the history of the Budapest Memorandum.

And, of course, nobody who actually counts does read the Memorandum or learn its history in action! None many of the politicians in whose hands we place decisions of war and peace. They just think it sounds about right and that it suits their prejudices, so they repeat it rote. Not our Press, whose job it is in a free, democratic society to explore and parse such matters so they may present them in clear terms to the engaged citizen while holding the powerful to account. The Press, on the contrary -- increasingly credulous as they are, increasingly seeing themselves as activists rather than journalists as they do -- also swallow it whole and repeat the narrative rote. Sadly, despite @TuckerCarlson's scepticism, he was not sufficiently prepared, so he was unable to make the above argument. Had he done so, he would have exposed Sir Jacob as ignorant or dishonest (one hopes the former, at which stage a man as honorable as I believe Sir Jacob is would have done the intellectually honest thing and reassessed his position on the matter).

So, I guess it's up to people here to look into these matters and try to present the truth to our tiny followings. Not ideal: I don't have a sub-editor. But what's left?

[Forum voor Democratie @fvdemocratie]

Als je Nederland Nederlands wilt houden, werkt het niet om jaarlijks honderdduizenden mensen uit andere landen hier naartoe te halen.

FVD wil deze demografische transitie van ons land stoppen. Steun onze missie via https://t.co/VNKfQS0Exx!

[Tom Russcher @tomrusscher]

Als we op deze manier doorgaan, zullen Nederlanders in 2058 een minderheid worden in eigen land.

@remigrationinst

[Symphony @Symphony_res]

Ze willen je laten geloven dat de huidige koers van Nederland onvermijdelijk is. Maar dat is een leugen.

[Thierry Baudet @thierrybaudet]

Wow ik wist niet dat dit bestond: oudste opname van de Hammerklavier (op.106) is van Felix Weingartner maar georkestreerd! ❤️ https://t.co/geJvmrrxoI

[Milan Schenk @MilanSchenk]

Het criminaliseren van een doodnormale term als ‘remigratie’ door de AIVD en NCTV, diensten die onder rechtstreekse verantwoordelijkheid van de ministers van BZK en J&V staan, begint zijn vruchten af te werpen.

Zie dit recente voorbeeld. Een lokale FVD-vertegenwoordiger bekritiseert het migratiebeleid en noemt daarbij remigratie - waarbij hij expliciet het vrijwillige karakter benadrukt! - als een van de oplossingen. De D66-voorzitter van dienst schiet uit zijn slof.

Tot vorig jaar had de Nederlandse overheid een remigratieregeling en keerde onze Sociale Verzekeringsbank nog remigratieuitkeringen uit. Nu het draagvlak in heel Nederland voor grootschaliger remigratiebeleid toeneemt, wordt het woord ineens in de ban gedaan. Alsof het nooit bestaan heeft.

Deze video is slechts een klein voorbeeld, maar tekent de ontwikkeling die gaande is. Het vrije, open debat dat een democratie nodig heeft, wordt begrensd en afgeknepen, waarbij legitieme politieke opvattingen die tot voor kort zelfs staand beleid waren, verboden verklaard worden. Zorgelijk en ontoelaatbaar.

[Tom Russcher @tomrusscher]

Frankrijk, 2026.

Dit is de realiteit van massale immigratie:

[Forum for Democracy International @FVD_Intl]

Banks create money through lending. Governments borrow it and pay interest.

Why?

FVD invited renowned economist @ProfessorWerner (@scientificecon) to the Dutch Parliament to explain who creates money and why governments remain in debt.

Watch it here:
https://t.co/bqRXrxCac0

[Renaissanceschool @poRenaissance]

Goed nieuws: de Renaissanceschool is goed door de startbeoordeling van de Inspectie gekomen.

De afgelopen periode is er veel over onze school gezegd en geschreven. Wij laten vooral graag in de praktijk zien waar wij voor staan: goed onderwijs en kinderen die met plezier leren!