“Politics,” Bismarck famously said, “is the art of the possible.” But when we’ve lost everything and are only allowed to speak within the little bit of space allotted by the mainstream, then it is time for the Right to re-group and re-think its tactics. Whatever it is we have been doing for the past decades, it simply has not worked. Could it be because conservatives are, in fact, more concerned about being accepted by the mainstream establishment—that is, by our enemies—than building a broad coalition to resist it?
The Left never disavows its own radicals or their ideas; instead, it tries to ‘mainstream’ those radical ideas—precisely because it is aware that radicals are its most effective, most powerful shock troops. In contrast, conservatives routinely push away all those to their right. But why is the fear of being denounced by their opponents—including the mainstream media—so prevalent among conservatives?
Such questions led me recently to sit down with various controversial intellectuals, including the founder and leader of the Forum for Democracy (FVD) party in the Netherlands, Thierry Baudet. After writing his Ph.D. under the supervision of Roger Scruton, he acquired international fame in 2019 when his party topped the polls in senate elections. Since then, his reputation has suffered after making controversial and impolitic statements, while his political fortunes have become uncertain. Despite many warnings, I chose to catch up with him at last year’s FVD Party Congress, as well as afterward, for the following wide-ranging conversation.
Some conservatives think you hold dangerous views and thus do not consider you ‘one of us’ anymore. What’s your response?
It always surprises me when conservatives—having suffered so much from censorship themselves— revile the questioning of their own ideological dogmas. I’m a strong believer in the French proverb “du choc des idées jaillit lumière” (“from the clash of ideas springs light”). Truth can only be found if ideas can be freely expressed and debated—in a spirit of openness and seriousness. Simply saying ‘you can’t say that!’ has never convinced anyone of anything.
In addition, I have personally never felt that opinions—of whatever kind!—can be ‘dangerous.’ I’ve never been scared of exploring different trains of thought. Quite the contrary: I am immediately interested whenever I discover a new ‘taboo.’
You certainly seem drawn to taboos and what some might call ‘the dark side.’ Do you think it is your fascination for such things that explains the apparent ‘toxicity’ around you?
For someone to refer to a ‘dark side’ presupposes that the speaker is ‘enlightened.’ It also implies that conservatism is on the thin end of a sinister wedge—that conservatism is indeed almost there and can only be acceptable if it is emasculated. Terrified of thoughts and ideas that the establishment has ‘outlawed,’ conservatives have completely internalized the ‘rules of the game’ that their enemy has imposed. And, in doing so, they have implicitly conceded the very points they wanted to make in the first place. This is why they can never win.
I’ll explain what I mean. Today’s conservatives completely avoid talking about ‘the deep state’ for fear of being denounced as ‘conspiracy theorists.’ They avoid talking about ethnicity for fear of being denounced as ‘racists.’ And I dare you to find anyone who is willing to talk about the Left’s ‘weaponization’ of the Holocaust—which has been instrumentalized through the teachings of the Frankfurt School—in order to undermine European self-confidence. They’re too afraid of being labelled ‘antisemitic.’ In short, today’s conservatives shy away from all the fundamental fights and instead spend their time being ‘goody-goodies,’ submissively avoiding being associated with—or being called out as—‘fascists.’
But isn’t it ‘a good thing’ for conservatives to avoid being unnecessarily controversial and, instead, formulate their arguments in a cautious way—one that may actually convince their opponents or reach undecided mainstream voters?
If the price of not being controversial is not actually making the argument you want to make, then that price is too high. Take immigration: rather than making the point that we do not want the ethnic and cultural composition of our societies dramatically changed—which I believe is the fundamental point—conservatives emphasize the distinction between ‘legal immigration’ and ‘illegal immigration’—as if that were the issue, as if the problem of immigration is how immigrants enter! Or take climate change: instead of attacking the fundamental premise of man-made global warming—that is, the absurd idea that CO2 is somehow ‘bad’ for the environment and that man-made emissions need to be reduced—conservatives have defended ‘green policies.’ Their surrender is complete. They even avoid talking about the importance of a national economy, apparently feeling compelled to support that globalist idol and sacred cow of liberalism: free trade!
I know you are against globalists—but are you against the free market?
I love markets—and I’m in favour of limited government that allows maximum liberty for individuals to build businesses. All markets are regulated—the only question is how. As a conservative, I am convinced that markets are never truly ‘free,’ because they depend on social, cultural, and legal pre-conditions which markets themselves cannot generate.
The simple truth is that properly functioning markets require nation-states. And strong and independent nation-states, in turn, require healthy societies. So I am sceptical about international free trade for the very reasons that liberals and other Marxists favour these things: because they destroy the fabric of society.
“Liberals AND other Marxists”?
Yes—liberalism and Marxism are ideologically convertible. Both spring from the French Revolution and both seek to emancipate the ‘universal individual’ from their communities, their social restraints, etc. Both are, to be sure, the natural enemies of conservatives.
But free trade generates wealth, too.
Free trade and the free market are entirely different things. Cosmopolitan international capitalism creates wealth for those who possess assets: business owners, investors, etc. They can minimize their costs while benefiting from artificially high profits that can be made from cheap products imported from places like Malaysia or Gabon, where environmental standards are practically non-existent, and wages are incomparably lower than here. As a result, our countries are flooded with cheap commodities—while taxpayers must bear the costs of unemployment and de-industrialisation. Mind you, I am not against international trade per se, but I believe it is imperative to maintain tariffs to balance the inequalities otherwise arising from the different standards that exist across the world—and even within Europe. Are these not sensible conservative considerations? I would argue that free traders are not true conservatives but rather liberals—Marxists masquerading as conservatives!
Is that why you like Putin—because of his apparent economic nationalism?
Trump and [Steve] Bannon have made the exact same argument: If you want the socio-economic structure of your society to remain intact, you need to set national import restrictions. Regarding Putin—just to clarify my position on this—the West’s bombardment of Russia with all sorts of coercive economic measures since 2014 demonstrates the extent to which the West uses the global economic system as a weapon. It is entirely rational for a country aiming at a multipolar order to not want to be dependent on that very system. Moreover, if I ‘like’ Putin, it is because I admire his qualities as a statesman— his professionalism, patriotism, realism, and, above all, his very clear understanding of the moral and economic decadence of the West.
He preaches ‘morality’—and then invades another sovereign country!
“Another country” is an odd way of referring to what is essentially a stronghold of the American ‘deep state.’ Ukraine has been governed for years by the U.S. State Department, not only to launder money—as the ‘Biden documents’ have shown—but also to besiege and ultimately crush Russia, the last vestige of ‘old Europe.’ This American ‘deep state’ is the primary vehicle of the Left-liberal globalist establishment—in other words, it is the enemy of conservatives. Our movement, I feel, should be conscious of this reality.
If it is not Ukraine’s sovereignty, then what do you think is at stake in this war?
A victory for NATO—which is an extension of the American ‘deep state,’ the primary vehicle for Leftism—would mean a continuation of ‘wokeism,’ LGBT propaganda, climate goals, crony capitalism, currency debasement, and mass immigration. A victory for Russia, on the other hand, would likely halt this decadent global regime—and possibly trigger its downfall.
[Sighs and shifts uncomfortably in his chair.] You realize quite a lot of people disagree vehemently with you.
That may be so. But I find it hard to see how any conservative could side with NATO—the epitome of Left-liberal globalism and a standard-bearer of the revolutionary doctrine of ‘human rights,’ which is used against whatever it perceives as an ancien régime.
In stark opposition to the West, Russia does not reject its national history. It does not seek to destroy the fabric of its society, its religious heritage, its family traditions. Putin’s Russia, in short, stands for ‘old Europe.’ And—it’s further worth noting— that because of its vast fossil fuel resources, it is also the natural leader of the resistance against the whole climate hoax.
We may have to simply agree to disagree on many of these points. Now, what about COVID? In your book, The Covid Conspiracy, which I understand was a number one bestseller in the Netherlands, you say that the pandemic changed your understanding of the world.
Yes. It made me realize, firstly, that our governments are ready to impose dictatorial measures—such as lock downs, face masks, social distancing—that will be meekly followed by the vast majority of—apparently unthinking—journalists, politicians, academics, and so on. Our freedoms have been shown to be conditional—and this is an extremely scary realization.
Secondly, it made me aware of a deeply sinister agenda that exists at the global level, which aims at what can only be called totalitarian control. To achieve this goal, there is a push towards censorship, restrictions on free movement and private property, food production controls, and Chinese style ‘social credits.’ Meanwhile, the globalist agenda shrouds itself in euphemisms such as Build Back Better, Sustainable Development Goals, and Agenda2030.
The Great Reset?
Exactly. It’s a corporatist fusion of multinational corporations and supranational institutions. It’s the vision of the World Economic Forum and other progressive globalist institutions. So, in 2020/2021, I realized that Western states had ceased to be democracies governed by the people and had essentially become the executors of a global agenda being pushed by a network of administrative and ‘deep state’ actors—as well as Big Pharma, Big Tech, global capital, and charitable foundations like those of Bill Gates and George Soros.
Now, if they are capable of having national governments impose such unscrupulous, irrational, pernicious policies. And if they’re prepared to censor voices critical of these policies, ban medicines like HCQ (hydroxychloroquine) and Ivermectin and irresponsibly push extremely risky ‘vaccines,’ then they are capable of doing, essentially, anything.
Have you become a conspiracy theorist?
It would be absurd to deny the existence of conspiracies. What do people think intelligence agencies spend their time doing? There are 17 such agencies in the U.S. alone, with a combined budget of nearly 100 billion dollars a year. Conspiracies are completely habitual, everyday phenomena. The real question is not whether or not to believe them but: which are real and which are not?
But come on, the American presence has been a force for some good in the world. You’ve got to recognize this!
For at least a generation, the U.S. has been a force for ill—perhaps even evil. The hubris of the Clinton and Bush years has led to terrible wars—Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and now Ukraine. But they never suffer the ‘blowback’ of their wars; we [Europeans] do. Their wars are driven by the greed of the military-industrial complex that holds the U.S. hostage; but their real cause, I fear, is a deeper pathology in the American psychology. Theirs is a country that was created as a model for all of humanity—the ‘indispensable nation,’ the universal state. This is messianic—or, rather, psychotic—and I think it is crucial for conservatives of all kinds to let this inconvenient truth sink in.
But from my perspective, I find it hard to conceive of an alternative to an America-led world order.
I believe the ‘old Europe’ is the thing we should try to ‘bring back.’ Ever since the First World War, our continent has rapidly lost its global impact and self-confidence. It has gone down the wrong path and is now in a state of collapse. Everyone can feel this. Europe has experienced terrible decline—in the arts and architecture, in music and education, in birth rates and economic power. I think conservatives should be fighting to reverse this decline—and bring about some kind of European Renaissance.
You’ve emphasized many times that you are in favour of democracy. (It’s even in the name of your party!) But your opponents say that you—and others like you—are a threat to democracy.
The claim that movements like FVD are somehow ‘undemocratic’ or ‘anti-democratic’ is like the claim that we are ‘fascist’: it doesn’t really mean anything other than that we oppose the current Left-liberal orthodoxy. It is a way to demonise us. To be perfectly clear, I am an unwavering supporter of the democratic system, of the rule of law, of fundamental freedoms, and of representative, limited government. But our system today requires serious updates and repairs because the relationship between rulers and ruled has been upended by the formation of a supranational political class that is completely out of touch with ordinary voters.
The only remedy I am aware of to fix this broken system is referendums—giving the people a direct say in fundamental questions. For example, ask the people directly whether they want more restrictive climate policies, mass immigration, and lockdowns, or speed limits, modern architecture, and foreign wars, for that matter? I have no doubt that any ensuing discussions would be surprisingly conservative.
In 2019, you topped the polls. But you couldn’t change things …
As I discovered when placed in a position of relative power: we cannot change things through piecemeal victories. At the national level, we are dealing with a cartel—a permanent class of politicians, bureaucrats, and journalists with the same Left-liberal opinions. Regardless of which party gets voted into office, they will pursue their desired policies.
Above—or perhaps behind—that national cartel looms the international cartel which I described above: the large multinational corporations and investors, the intelligence services, organisations like the World Economic Forum, and so on.This means that real political change can only occur when people stop believing the dogmas—that is, the taboos—on which the system rests, so that the system will crumble from the inside (rather like how the Soviet Union collapsed when no one believed in the communist economic model anymore). This, in turn, means that only those who dare to radically break through the basic assumptions underpinning the globalist system—only those who are prepared to accept being demonized for doing so—have any chance at achieving what needs to be achieved: a proper European revival.
So is radicalism key?
Yes. We need to break the Left’s taboos. The fear of breaking these taboos among conservatives is the cause of their failure.
Your harshest critics might have been disappointed by the massive turn-out for the FVD Party Congress a little more than six months ago. There were a lot of people there.
Yes, despite widespread demonization, our movement is still alive and kicking. The most important reason for this tenacity, I think, is the joyful spirit with which we conduct our fight. Remember, we are oikophiles: we love home—but, having become alienated from our crumbling societal home, we are today committed to building a new home. At our rallies, people not only feel that they are embraced but also that we have something positive to strive for.
Additionally, what drives people to support our party is the awareness that we are facing an existential threat. Our societies are on the brink of collapse. Social and economic divisions have become largely irrelevant now that all of us are on the brink of serfdom.
To fight alongside one another in a spirit of brotherliness is not merely to prefer one policy over another. It is to choose life over death. After decades of decline under liberalism, Western societies are now in the midst of a new ‘Terror’ and are being guillotined by a neo-Marxist revolution. We will die if things don’t change. So, before we start talking about the direction in which to sail next—still less: what tune to play on deck—we must come together to save the ship.
