ER Editor: By way of introduction to this article, direct violence has become something of a ‘thing’ lately for EU politicians in the Netherlands, Germany and Spain who dare to stand up to the fascist, globalist far left. See this tweet summary —
Dutch right-wing leader Thierry Baudet was just hospitalized after a violent attack. The election is in 2 days.
This follows a wave of violence against the right in Europe, including:
Vox party founder was shot in the face two weeks ago in Spain.
Last month, there was an… pic.twitter.com/fOdhnfhOc6
— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) November 20, 2023
Colleague Michel van der Kemp drills down into the Dutch angle, notably on violence against Thierry Baudet and the likely trumped-up sedition charges against young but bold politician, Gideon van Meijeren. Van Meijeren’s public statements are being seized on to make an interpretation that leads to charges of sedition against him. Except that it doesn’t quite hang together. Further, the government seems to think their case is stronger BECAUSE HE IS A LAWYER and knows what he is talking about. Eh? But van Meijeren has also been an outspoken critic of not only government connections to the World Economic Forum, but has shown himself to be well aware of who might be wrapped up in Satanic ritual abuse cases. His case will get some sort of hearing on December 20.
The government is also thinking of banning political parties who have these ‘seditious’ views. All of which proves van Meijeren’s analysis correct.
The Dutch go to the polls tomorrow, November 22. Globalist PM Mark Rutte’s sudden retirement from politics made this snap election possible, which otherwise wouldn’t have taken place before 2025.
Dutch Opposition Under Heavy Fire in Run-Up to Elections
MICHEL VAN DER KEMP
Real opposition is easy to spot.
They are not propped up on national television and in corporate newspapers. Real opposition gets de-platformed, ridiculed, demonized, and if that is not enough. you send in the full power of the judicial system to prosecute a chosen member of parliament. And in some cases you rely on extremist forces within society to rough up some feathers.
On Wednesday November 22nd the Dutch elect a new parliament. As we were preparing the interview with Gideon van Meijeren, a member of the opposition party Forum for Democracy, about the announcement that the Public Prosecution Service is going to prosecute him on two accounts of sedition, we learned that his party leader was physically attacked for the second time in a month.
Thierry Baudet was violently assaulted Monday by a 15-year old Antifa terrorist with a bottle. The first hit landed right next to his eye, a second in the area of his carotid artery. Perhaps expecting the bottle to break, the second stab could have been lethal. And free media therefore cry ‘attempted homicide’.
Translation: ATTEMPTED MURDER. The intent was to break the glass and EARNSTLY injure Thierry, see the video in slow-motion:
POGING TOT MOORD.
De intentie was het glas te breken en Thierry ERNSTIG te VERWONDEN, zie de video in slow-motion: pic.twitter.com/9VO2sdN2QW
— Camille 🍂 (@CamilleScholtz) November 20, 2023
The previous attack on the leader of Forum for Democracy came just after an attack in Ghent, Belgium last month, where he was attacked by a disgruntled Ukrainian. This time it was an umbrella. In text this sounds like a minor joke, until one sees the footage and hears the loud thunk from across the street. The Ukrainian thought Baudet to be pro-Russian. He must have had missed the memo that Baudet is first and foremost pro-Dutch.
Translation: Dutch politician @thierrybaudet attacked following speech @ugent [ER: University of Ghent] … Police stand there and watch. How many times have we experienced this? After #IS attack, once again disgrace for our security services. Right-wing politicians are hunted game…
Nederlands politicus @thierrybaudet aangevallen nav toespraak aan @ugent… Politie staat erbij en kijkt ernaar. Hoe dikwijls hebben we dit al meegemaakt? Na #IS-aanslag weeral blamage voor onze veiligheidsdiensten. Rechtse politici zijn opgejaagd wild… pic.twitter.com/6MbJaTWKj5
— Filip Dewinter (@FDW_VB) October 26, 2023
Hunted game as the Belgian MP Filip Dewinter says. The Ukrainian was freed the same evening. It shows one can attack certain politicians with little consequence.
But this article was supposed to be about the announcement of the Dutch Public Prosecution Service that they are going to prosecute Gideon van Meijeren on two accounts of sedition. In the following interview for video platform Cafe Weltschmerz, Van Meijeren goes into detail on his indictment. His conclusion is that the case is based on flimsy and doctored social media messages. But the most shocking conclusion may be that the indictment of the parliamentarian is a precursor to banning a political party.
Erik van der Horst (EH): Welcome to Cafe Weltschmerz. In all its wisdom, the Public Prosecution Service decided to prosecute a Member of Parliament, one of our politicians. And that politician is sitting at my table. It is Gideon van Meijeren, from Forum for Democracy.
Gideon, welcome. That was a very short introduction, and I’m going to leave it at that for now. I would like to give you the floor. What happened?
Gideon van Meijeren (GM): Yes, two months ago the Public Prosecution Service announced that I was being prosecuted because I allegedly incited violence against the government. I was dumbfounded. I did know that a report had been filed against me after a certain clipped fragment of me appeared on Social Media. And I knew there was an investigation into it. But the fact that prosecution would actually take place did not leave me completely cold, especially because it is such a bizarre accusation, calling for violence against the government. I disapprove of any form of violence. I only call for peaceful and non-violent resistance. But the Public Prosecution Service apparently thinks differently about this. And well, then I looked at the press release from the Public Prosecution Service to see what exactly I am being accused of. It is said that on two occasions I was guilty of calling for violence against the government. Namely once at a meeting of farmers, where I pointed out the right to revolt. And later on a podcast called Compleetdenkers [literally complete thinkers, but also a play on conspiracy thinkers] where I expressed the wish for a peaceful revolution.
EH: Well, where there’s smoke there’s fire, they say, so is what you did allowed?
GM: In my absolute belief, yes. Precisely because in both cases I have explicitly stated, as I always do, that such resistance or revolution must of course be peaceful and non-violent. I also sketched a picture that there could be casualties. According to the Public Prosecution Service, this could give people the idea and that it would then be okay. What was also very striking about the press release from the Public Prosecution Service is that it said: You could say he gives people ideas. So this actually acknowledges that I did not directly call for violence, but that I gave people ideas.
EH: “You could say…” is that the literal text of the Public Prosecution Service?
GM: Literally. The press officer recorded a press release in a studio that was distributed through official channels, in which she literally says: You could say he gives people ideas.
EH: Shall we look at that first, that recording?
EH: Then we’ll do that.
[ 2:45 – 3:30 ]
According to the Public Prosecution Service, the suspect was guilty of criminal incitement on two occasions. Because you could say he gives people ideas. Namely the idea that using violence is permitted, perhaps even necessary. And then there is a criminal incitement to violence. During a demonstration, the suspect called on farmers to show their combativeness, saying: “we all have the right to revolt.” And in an interview he said he hoped for a “revolutionary movement” that would move to parliament. He also sketched a picture that there could be casualties. According to the Public Prosecution Service, this could give people the idea and that would then be okay. But it is not.
EH: When I listen to this lady, she is quite firm, but then there is also that vague phrase in it “You could say…”
EH: What do you want to say about that?
GM: Well. It is true that a call to violence, which has also been ruled in case law, does not always have to be direct. You can incite violence without directly calling for violence. This is then called a so-called indirect call to violence.
EH: Let’s take a hypothetical example. If I see Zwarte Piet [Black Pete, a traditional holiday for children], I will kick him in the face. That kind of statement? Oh no. That’s Akwasi’s statement I think, huh? [See this article: https://nos.nl/artikel/2385449-akwasi-vrijuit-voor-jaren-oude-zwarte-piet-tweets]
GM: That’s Akwasi’s statement.
EH: Was he also prosecuted for that?
GM: No, that is an interesting question because, if I remember correctly, he did call for violence. But he was considered to be a wordsmith, and therefore is not prosecuted. By the way, it is interesting that it turned out that that Officer of Justice who made the decision not to prosecute him was on the board of an anti-discrimination agency of which the leader of Kick Out Zwarte Piet was also a member.
EH: A little bit of a conflict of interest. Back to your case. Because you claim, categorically, that you are aware of no evil. What exactly did you say?
GM: That’s actually what I wanted to come up with. Because it is always said that if you indirectly call for violence, which is possible, then the overall context in which you said something must always be taken into account. So I went back to watch the fragments again, because I thought hey, maybe I was unclear after all. Did I really leave it open whether such an uprising or such a revolutionary movement should perhaps be great? I thought I may have expressed myself carelessly. So I started watching it again, but it turned out that in both cases immediately before and immediately after, I explicitly emphasized that it was about peaceful and non-violent resistance. Both at that meeting for farmers, in that fragment I once talked about the right to revolt, and immediately before that I explicitly advocated peaceful and non-violent resistance.
EH: We’re going to look at that too.
[ 6:10 – 6:45 ]
I think it is very important to always continue to talk with each other, and I do that everywhere, for peaceful and non-violent resistance. We are only playing into the hands of our opponents if we were to use violence, we should not do so [said with emphasis]. You will lose a lot of sympathy from the citizens as well. But at the bottom of the line, we all also have the right to revolt.
GM: Yes, so there might be some doubt in people’s minds when they only see that part of the right to revolt, and they think oh, maybe he means a violent uprising here. Then that doubt is immediately removed, because in the same fragment – which we just showed, nothing has been cut or pasted – I simply have a fragment in which I directly and explicitly indicate, peacefully non-violent, but we do have the right to revolt.
EH: The NOS [Dutch equivalent of the BBC, state media] also showed fragments of you. But they did choose to cut and paste. Because they just removed that intro in which you say it must be peaceful and non-violent.
GM: Yes, you can see that. This is not mentioned in the indictment, neither in the summons. It is not mentioned in the press release from the Public Prosecutor. It is not mentioned in all those fragments that circulated in the media, not only NOS, but also RTL News, it was shown on almost all news platforms. Also that fragment of Compleetdenkers podcast. There you see that I say that I express the wish that at some point a revolutionary movement will emerge. And what may seem a bit unfortunate is that I mention that there could also be casualties there. That’s where that fragment ends. And that is of course possible for people who don’t follow it all and watch the NOS news in the evening, thinking: Oh, victims of a revolutionary movement.
EH: That almost sounds like those who are going to start the revolutionary movement are going to make victims.
GM: Exactly, that suggestion is made. While in revolutions, violence can of course be used against the population or violence can be used by the people against the government. So if there are any doubts about what exactly he means here, it is also important to look further. And that’s exactly the part they left out. Because immediately afterwards I indicate that I express hope that everything remains peaceful and that I am talking about a velvet revolution.
EH: Well I would say get started.
[ 8:55 – 10:00 ]
We do have the numbers, eventually. And I do think that when that mass becomes so large, and, so to speak, it really turns into a revolutionary movement, it is very clearly distinguished from a protest movement. At which you go to a protest site at 1 o’clock, and then you go home at 4 o’clock. But a revolutionary movement in which it becomes so urgent for people, who have nothing left to lose, that they go to parliament, so to speak, and they say we are not leaving here until the government is gone. Unfortunately, the past shows that other examples worldwide often result in casualties, sometimes fatalities. That’s terrible, and let’s hope we can prevent that, and that everything remains peaceful. But I hope ultimately it becomes what is sometimes called a velvet revolution.
EH: You brought me the file that was sent to you by the Public Prosecution Service, in which they contained extensive information, 300 pages I think.
GM: Excluding appendices.
EH: (laughs) Much worse. Three hundred pages excluding appendices. In it they refer very precisely to which specific statements at which time and which channel, on which lecture, demonstration, interview… So there can be no misunderstanding about which specific statement she is referring to, and then there can be no misunderstanding about the context in which you have placed certain statements. Or could it?
GM: That’s a good question. Because that file is indeed quite extensive. And when I received it, Then I first started browsing through what is basically in here. And then I noticed that numerous interviews, speeches, tweets, dozens of tweets from me, are all included in that file.
EH: And they had nothing to do with those two statements?
GM: Not at first glance. Because then you see a tweet in which I talk about, for example, the nitrogen policy, which is based on lies. And then I think, huh, what does this have to do with a call to violence? A tweet on the influence that the World Economic Forum has on our state system. Then I think, what are they getting out of it? But when I started studying it carefully, I discovered that there is an official report included in the file, in which they talk about…-I’ll bring up the file- a so-called narrative that I would spread.
EH: A narrative?
GM: Indeed. Well this is the official report, maybe that can be shown on the screen.
It says there that I have seen and listened to public speeches and/or interviews by Van Meijeren since January 2022. It is striking that Van Meijeren tells a broadly similar story, with a broadly similar message.
EH: You are consistent, that’s nice.
GM: Yeah that’s a disguised compliment, but the research states that this is called the narrative. Well, what is that narrative? Van Meijeren states that there is one evil tyrannical government that turns against the population. The government deliberately tells lies, censorship is applied when criticism is expressed of the government and the Dutch people are unlawfully deprived of fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights. According to Van Meijeren, this means that there is no longer a well-functioning democratic constitutional state. The citizens, the Dutch people, have either the right, even the moral obligation, to revolt and resist the tyrannical government. Then they have 6 points there taken out…
EH: Just before you go any further. This narrative. I dare say that it is a correct description of your thinking and opinions?
GM: Sure. I can endorse them point by point. And indeed to my great shock and regretm the insight has come that the government is currently not acting in good faith, but rather dealing maliciously. I have heard numerous examples of the government deliberately spreading lies. I have argued a lot that laws are made unlawfully. That indeed the Dutch people are being deprived of fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights. That the democratic constitutional state indeed no longer exists or at least does not function. I have drawn the logical conclusion that citizens also have the right, or even the moral obligation, to rebel against it. So yes, this is indeed a story that I have been telling consistently for two years.
EH: Yes, let me just take out the one that democratic constitutional state no longer exists or functions, you literally concluded that at my table two years ago at Cafe Weltschmerz.
GM: And extensively substantiated it, and also in numerous speeches that I have given in the House of Representatives. But what is actually being said is that those two statements for which I am being prosecuted, in that farmer’s meeting, and in the Compleetdenkers podcast. That, in itself, is not a call for violence, but within this context, within this narrative, that I have been saying for two years in accordance with the words of the Public Prosecution Service. That a certain force is possessed by that narrative, those comments about the right to revolt, and that desire for a revolutionary movement, which could give people ideas for which violence is the solution.
EH: Sounds a bit like seek and you will find, when you put it that way.
GM: It’s flimsy reasoning. And it also contains an official report entitled “expert authority”. And it is about the fact that I have a background as a lawyer, that I specialize in constitutional law, that I worked at the Ministry of the Interior in the Constitutional Affairs Directorate, that I completed the legislative academy. What they then say is, because I also have that expertise in this area, again, when it comes out of my mouth, those words about rebellion or revolutionary movement are given even more force.
EH: That’s the good thing about it. Doesn’t that make the whole list of points coming from you all the more credible? They can’t blame your expertise, right?
GM: Well, yes. That is something that the Public Prosecution Service is concerned about. They think that if a random person on the Internet makes such statements in his attic room, it is less important than if someone who specializes in this makes such statements. So that’s a concern for them.
EH: I think it’s strange Gideon. Because I would think, if you make these kinds of statements with your knowledge, your background, then you could also say, Mr. Van Meijeren, come and tell me where exactly do your concerns come from, perhaps you have a point? Because you have a lot of knowledge and skills.
GM: That would be the most desirable response. And anyone who cares about the democratic constitutional state should also listen to someone who has substantiated and well-founded criticism of it. But what you see in practice is that any substantive debate about this is avoided. People do not want people to say that the democratic constitutional state no longer functions, they want confidence in the democratic constitutional state to remain as high as possible. And they think it’s fine if you comment on all policies. But when you start to doubt the good intentions behind it, then yes, you form one nowadays so-called threat to the democratic constitutional state. And then you are opposed on all sides. Not only me, but many people have of course had to deal with social media. Legislation is also now being prepared to tackle the so-called subversive organisations. And if you then look at what are subversive organizations, it is explicitly stated that these are organizations that organize activities, such as lectures or speeches…
EH: That is Cafe Weltschmerz (laughs)
GM: Cafe Weltschmerz. Where the message is given that can lead to a decrease in confidence in the government or institutions. That is what people are warning about nowadays, those sounds should no longer be heard. You now see this entire file is completely full of tweets, interviews, etc. that I have given, in which either that narrative is reinforced, or in which it is about what they call expert authority. The file is completely full of that. And as for that narrative, when I read it, even more of my suspicions were confirmed about what lies behind this, that there is much more behind this than many people would think at first glance. Because I cannot separate this from a number of other developments, namely when it comes to that narrative, of that evil elite. Then exactly the same words are used as the AIVD [Dutch Security Service] currently uses when they warn against ‘anti-institutional extremism’. Then they also talk about that evil elite narrative. They then say that this poses a threat to the democratic constitutional state.
Well, first of all, I’m not anti-institutional at all. I am not an extremist because I disapprove of any form of violence. I only oppose the corruption within those institutions, and I want to restore the democratic rule of law, using peaceful democratic means. But I find the fact that words such as the AIVD are used here [in this report] worrying, because the AIVD then states that this poses a threat to the democratic constitutional state. And in the meantime, legislation is currently being prepared, the Political Parties Act, which has already gone through internet consultation, contains an article to ban political parties if they pose a threat to the democratic constitutional state.
EH: Is this a tell?
GM: Yes, I can’t help but get the impression that this is all connected. And I call it a three-tiered rocket. So 1. The AIVD warns against that malicious elite narrative, because it poses a threat to the democratic constitutional state. Step 2. an MP for Forum for Democracy is guilty of this, so he is the threat to the democratic constitutional state. And step 3. Parties that propagate that message or members of those parties that propagate that message, pose a threat to the democratic constitutional state, and that is why those parties can be banned.
EH: Apart from banning a party, that would of course be terrible, but what could be the consequence of this persecution for you personally, in the worst case scenario?
GM: Yes, what the consequences are for me as an individual member of parliament, is an interesting question, because they cannot take away my membership of the house, because the law contains a number of requirements that you must meet in order to be a member of parliament…
EH: But even worse, can they take away your freedom?
GM: Well in theory, as Article 131 first paragraph of the Criminal Code, sedition can be punished with a prison sentence of up to five years. Now I must say that such a maximum sentence will only be imposed in extreme cases, and you must think that someone is guilty here repeatedly, and that that violence actually occurs in practice. Of course, that is not the case at all in this case. Community service is usually imposed. But yes, so many crazy things happen that you cannot completely rule out the possibility that a prison sentence will actually be imposed at some point.
EH: Are you worried?
GM: Certainly I’m very concerned. But I have to say more about the state of the country and the direction we are moving in than about me personally. Because this doesn’t just affect me, it affects everyone’s freedom of expression. I find it extremely worrying that the incumbent power has targeted the opposition and in fact anyone who has criticism, fundamental criticism of the policy, and who also wants to put a magnifying glass on the shadowy interests that lie behind it, on corruption that is discovered within systems, unmasks lies, that this is made suspicious, and that is seen as a threat to the democratic constitutional state.
This is something that is characteristic of totalitarian states, in which there should be no room for opposition. And anyone who criticizes the regime is portrayed as a major threat or a terrorist. The Netherlands is now moving in that direction, especially in combination with many other worrying trends.
The fight against so-called disinformation on the Internet. From all sides you see that a certain government ideology is being propagated and anyone who criticizes it is initially ignored. If they notice that that no longer works, you will be ridiculed. If that no longer works, you will simply be attacked very hard, and you will receive the most terrible accusations. Criticize immigration policy, and you’re a racist. Criticize LGBT-policies and you’re a transphobe. Those terms racist, fascist, you are immediately pushed into a certain corner, and as soon as they notice that you no longer give in to that, and still continue to tell your story, and remain steadfast in it, then they draw as a last resort. criminal law out of the closet. This is called lawfare, when legal instruments are used to combat certain opponents. It is a new low.
EH: And the timing is of course also remarkable. Just before the elections. Do you think that plays a role?
GM: Yes, it was the first thing I thought of when I heard in September that I was being prosecuted and a major press release immediately went out. Just over two months before the elections, while those statements are already from July and November 2022, and those declarations are already submitted back then. So you may wonder why nothing has been done about this for a year, and yet two months before the elections this is suddenly brought up with major press releases and media attention.
EH: Yes, we can wonder, but it remains speculation. We won’t know for sure.
GM: But the fact is that this once again creates a negative image of us during the campaign period, in the run-up to the elections. We’ve already talked about how the mainstream media frames this. That they talk about me in all the talk shows and news broadcasts, but that I am never invited to tell my side of the story. So luckily there are new media that give me that space. But in the end you can’t compete with those big mainstream tanks that have subsidized two million viewers per broadcast. They continue to dominate public opinion.
EH: We’re not quite there yet. Two million. We won’t achieve that. You just mentioned the evil government as a narrative. A few years ago you were in this studio, and we also had a conversation together, about Satanic Ritual Abuse. Maybe it is a very far-fetched subject, but could it be that because you have been poring over that file, that that plays a role?
GM: That file is indeed an example par excellence of the greatest possible evil imaginable. Satanic Ritual Abuse, that is the most terrible form of sexual abuse that is accompanied by horrible torture, murder. It is so terrible that you can’t actually believe that it occurs. Until a few years ago, a major study by Argos [Dutch mainstream radio program] showed that it did occur and the House of Representatives could no longer avoid investigating this. Yes, I did indeed speak out very strongly in those debates and also pointed out that high-ranking officials from the Ministry of Justice and the judiciary are also accused of involvement in those networks that are guilty of this. So that certainly won’t have endeared me to anyone. Whether this is directly related to this remains a matter of speculation. But yes, there are certainly a number of people in the justice system and the judiciary who were not happy with my involvement in this file. And indeed that it fits completely into that narrative, in which I warn about evil within the government. [The subject of Satanic Ritual Abuse remains a difficult subject with a lot of lids that won’t budge. Since the Belgian case of Marc Dutroux, we know of links leading to the Netherlands. The case Argos researched is independent from the Dutroux case. The Argos case is about a fifteen year-old girl known only as Lisa. Doctors determined she gave birth to a baby and the story she tells is that of Satanic Ritual Abuse. See https://mensenhandelinnederland.nl/verhalen/lisa/ ]
EH: Just to summarize. Because you have now indicated to me, if I have listened carefully, that parts of your statements have been taken based on a certain arbitrariness, on which this entire matter is based. You also explained that context is very important in the shelf life of such a file. And I think you can demonstrate quite easily that there is nothing to blame in that context. How do you expect this to develop further?
GM: The first day of the hearing is scheduled for December 20. That is still a so-called direction hearing, not a substantive treatment. But certain wishes can be expressed at that preliminary hearing. A plan will be made and the substantive treatment will start some time later. I wish we lived in such a functioning constitutional state that I could say with determination that in the end we can celebrate justice. Because a judge who applies the law in good faith cannot arrive at any other outcome than that I have not in any way been guilty of inciting violence against the government. The opposite is the case. I disapprove of any form of violence. I don’t want violence, I don’t call for it, so if I am convicted for this it would be extremely unfair. I was busy for a few days, studying it properly. At the same time, I have said many times that there is unfortunately no longer an independent judiciary in this country. All judges are appointed by the government. All come from the same ideological background. It must also be said that in this case there has already been pressure on judges from the cabinet.
EH: In this specific case?
GM: In this particular case. At the moment I made those statements, Minister [Sigrid] Kaag said on Twitter that I was guilty of sedition. So before a judge has even considered this, I was already found guilty by Minister Kaag. Ultimately, Minister Yesilgoz of Justice is responsible for the police, justice and the judiciary. And I confronted her in a debate with Ms. Kaag’s tweet and asked her how she views the fact that I was already found guilty before a judge had considered it. And she then spoke up for Minister Kaag. So actually a judge who has to consider this, who knows that his or her highest boss, the Minister of Justice, actually already agrees that I am guilty. So a judge must anyway, even if no phone call had been made about this in advance, so it cannot be ruled out that it has already been concocted behind the scenes. But even a judge who independently considers this case already knows the pressure from court politics to convict is very high. I say that this has already seriously damaged my right to a fair trial. It is completely reprehensible that the cabinet is already judging my guilt before a judge has had a chance to consider it. But let’s hope that a judge is courageous and brave enough not to give in to that pressure, and to apply the law correctly.
EH: Gideon, I am going to wish you luck with this bizarre situation you have found yourself in. Are you still sleeping well?
GM: Yes, definitely (With a smile). It is very annoying that this happened in the past week, because I am fully in campaign mode. We have great events planned, we are going throughout the country. And all of a sudden I get the police at my door to hand me a file, where I… I was busy for a few days studying it properly. At the same time, I think so too that it is good that people know that this is happening before the elections. Also in the context of transparency, I think it is good that everyone can take this into account when determining their vote. So there may be people who think, well, I think those statements go too far that they know this before the elections, because then they are free to vote for another party. But what I hope, of course, is that many people realize how dangerous this is, how nasty this attack is on a member of the opposition. And on November 22, in the voting booth, to send out the signal that there is a lot of support for Forum for Democracy from society. That would also make the case a lot stronger for me if I stand before the judge and can prove that exactly in the week that all this became known, a vote was also taken and the Dutch people chose en masse to support Forum for Democracy.
EH: Well, yes. Then let’s take it a little further. Then I would say if you support the cause, let us color the box next to your name red when we go vote. So we see how big your support base is.
GM: Yes, I always say that it is important that people vote on Forum for Democracy.
EH: I know you’re a humble guy.
GM: But it would be nice to be able to show in that lawsuit that there is a lot of support. That a substantial number of people think exactly the same as I do about this. And that I don’t just speak for myself, but for many people and that I have a lot of support. And I experience that very much outside on the street, they are all thumbs up, a lot of support on social media. But yes, it is very important that people actually vote. Even the people who think it all makes no sense anyway, because there is no change from politics or the system is corrupt. If we want to hurt that system, it is of the utmost importance to make the vote for the party that is opposed by that system.
EH: Good luck with the elections. And many thanks for coming.
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.