Dutch anti-globa­list Thierry Baudet on farmers‘ protests: They could win!

Wikimedia: Thierry Baudet

By JÖRG WOLLSCHLÄGER | In the follo­wing inter­view (9.7.2022) by Roman Balmakov (The Epoch Times) with the leader of the Dutch party „Forum voor Demo­cratie“, Thierry Baudet, the astute thinker sheds light on the real back­ground to the planned expro­pria­tions of the country’s hard-working and econo­mic­ally very successful farmers. The hidden agenda, he says, must be distin­gu­ished from the advanced one. He exposes the agro-ecolo­gical nonsense of a plant commu­nity arbi­tra­rily deter­mined by EU bureau­crats as a measure of success. In order for this to flou­rish, stricter limits are set for nitrite and nitrate content in water and soil, which would mean the end of inten­sive live­stock produc­tion in the affected regions.…


Thierry Baudet is a charis­matic poli­ti­cian with Huguenot roots, hence his Fran­co­phone surname. He is an educated citizen who appeals mainly to the academic middle class and students. He has clashed with the „climate mafia“ in parti­cular on several occa­sions, spea­king of a „maso­chi­stic heresy, secu­la­rised flood belief (…) a mania similar to the death cult that once afflicted the Easter Islands“ when it comes to climate protec­tion measures. He was one of the first oppon­ents of the Covid measures in the Nether­lands and is strictly against further waves of mass immi­gra­tion. Among other things, he repea­tedly called for the preser­va­tion of a „boreal world“ and a Europe that is „predo­mi­nantly white (and) cultu­rally (as) it is.“ He does not back down from these state­ments. From the poli­tical left he ther­e­fore reaped accu­sa­tions of racism [link, link, link].

This video from Bloom­berg [link] offers a good intro­duc­tion to the inter­view. It shows the basis on which Europe’s most advanced agri­cul­tural produc­tion func­tions and how a small country managed to become the second largest agri­cul­tural exporter in the world.

Inter­view with Thierry Baudet

RB: Good evening and welcome to a very special episode of Facts Matter, here from the Nether­lands! We are in Amsterdam reporting on the farmers‘ protests that have sprung up all over the country. Farmers are fighting against the regu­la­tions passed by parlia­ment, which are basi­cally shoo­ting many of them in the knee. They told me that between 30 and 50 % of the local farmers would have to stop their busi­ness. So it is very important for them. We have been travel­ling around the country for the last three-four days talking to farmers, truck drivers and the people who support them, the scien­tists who explained to us what the whole nitrogen debate is about. We were even able to talk to a member of parlia­ment who is part of the oppo­si­tion party that is fighting against these requi­re­ments. We will publish these inter­views one by one over the next few days and today we start with MP Thierry Baudet.

TB: How is it possible in an age when ever­yone is talking about the danger of food shortages, of endan­gered supply chains, that the Dutch govern­ment is pursuing this policy that will lead to even greater depen­dence on inter­na­tional supply chains and thus greater inse­cu­rity for Dutch consumers?

The answer is that they, the people who govern this country, are follo­wing the guidance of the EU to imple­ment what they call the Great Reset! They want to make us more depen­dent on inter­na­tional supply chains, they want to weaken Dutch sove­reignty and auto­nomy and they also want to continue mass migra­tion to the Nether­lands. If you bring more people into the Nether­lands, which is a very small and densely popu­lated country, then you have to take the land away from the farmers and you can put houses there. That is the agenda, to turn the Nether­lands into a huge city, without its own means of produc­tion, without auto­nomy in terms of sove­reignty and also in terms of food produc­tion. They want to make people depen­dent on the inter­na­tional rulers, the globa­lists, who are trying to take over power.

RB: That was a ques­tion I have: the appa­rent reason is nitrogen to close all these farms and then the solu­tion would be to close so many farms that exported billions of dollars worth of food, right? You are the 6th largest exporter in the world. For me it was a shock: how can closing half the farms be the solu­tion? Many of the people I spoke to said they are not even involved in the talks, they are not invited to the nego­tia­ting table to work out a solu­tion. They say it’s because the poli­ti­cians don’t want to fix the situa­tion, they don’t want a solu­tion, that’s just the excuse they use to push some­thing else through.

TB: Exactly. I’ll give you a quick, brief update on the situa­tion regar­ding the whole nitrogen agenda and how it came about. In the 1990s, the Euro­pean Union intro­duced the Natura, which means Nature, Nature 2000 direc­tives. This means that certain areas in Europe were singled out for the preser­va­tion of certain forms of vege­ta­tion and as it happened the Nether­lands was singled out to protect moss, clover, certain types of grass and other forms of vege­ta­tion that thrive in quite nutrient-poor condi­tions where there are not many things for plant nutri­tion. Nitrogen by itself, more nitrogen dioxide would not be a problem in the Nether­lands for nature.

It would be a problem the specific vege­ta­tion targets set in the Natura 2000 guide­lines. The poli­ti­cians here are not willing to do the simp­lest thing anyone would do to protect Dutch national inte­rests: write a letter to the EU.

„Hello EU, we no longer care about these stupid direc­tives, there is enough clover and moss else­where in Europe, we will protect our farmer and we will have more trees and other vege­ta­tion that would be a conse­quence of slightly higher nitrogen dioxide levels.“

That would be the logical thing to do. They don’t do it, they stick with these bureau­cratic rules that some­body set 20 years ago. The Nether­lands would have a certain percen­tage of moss and clover and grasses. In fact, the real agenda behind this is that they want to have a stick to beat the farmers with. It’s not just about allo­wing constant immi­gra­tion, it’s also about some­thing deeper, a perhaps spiri­tual thing behind it. Farmers and people in general who live on the land and live from and with the land, they have a strong connec­tion to history, they are proud of their family farms that have been in the family for several gene­ra­tions. So they are not post-modern, a‑historical, a‑national people, they are proud family people who have their own farm, who live off their own land, who have a connec­tion to the history, to the nature of this land. Ther­e­fore, they are a real threat to the globa­lists with their a‑territorial, post – iden­ti­ta­rian agenda. It’s really about the Great Reset, mass immi­gra­tion, supra­na­tional govern­ment, that’s why people have to be atomised. They have to lose their connec­tion to the land, that’s why they are attacking the peasants.

Tele­gram, Klokkenluiders

RB: You said earlier that one of the reasons why they are imple­men­ting this plan is to build more housing projects across the country for more mass immigration.

TB: Exactly.

RB: Is that an openly admitted goal? Or is that merely the impli­ca­tion and do you think that is their under­lying intention?

TB: It is not an openly admitted objec­tive that is part of the same govern­ment agenda. They are doing this as if it is an isolated pheno­menon, but it is an openly stated objec­tive of this govern­ment to continue mass migra­tion and even our current Minister of Housing was caught on camera all over the country poin­ting at farm­land and saying, we will probably house people there in the future. Putting one and one toge­ther, it is abso­lutely obvious that this is part of the agenda. But they do not formally say: we are now expro­pria­ting farmers to build houses. At least they have the wisdom not to say so. Anyone who is bright and can see the connec­tions will see that this is the plan.

RB: You are a parlia­men­ta­rian, you deal with these people, you under­stand their thin­king. Are they even thin­king about the economy or the income of the people who will be affected? It’s not just about the farmers. If one farmer suddenly sells half his cattle and ever­y­body has to do that, the price of cattle will collapse. Who will you sell a cow to if ever­yone sells a cow? What about the cheese makers, the truck drivers? All the people who will be affected by this, is this actually being discussed in the halls of parliament?

TB: Well, the ques­tion is very good because I’ve been confused since I became a parlia­men­ta­rian, which was in 2017. These people and I think that’s true of most poli­ti­cians in the West. They are micro­ma­na­gers, which means they can only think about a tiny little aspect of a bigger agenda. What happens in parlia­ment is that we have all these discus­sions and debates about one aspect, for example, the nitrogen issue, or what price farmers will get when they give up their land. Nobody talks about what that means in the long run, do we still have the possi­bi­lity to have our own cheese, our own meat in the super­market. If we really want to continue this mass migra­tion and if our popu­la­tion grows. I’m against it, but that’s what they want. How will that affect nitrogen emis­sions in general. That is another totally illo­gical aspect of their agenda. They say they want to reduce nitrogen dioxide emis­sions . But if you bring in 100,000 people a year net, then nitrogen dioxide emis­sions are going to go up anyway. Nobody is doing these bigger analyses, what happens to the economy in the long run? How do our poli­cies fit toge­ther without contra­dic­tion? That’s one of the great trage­dies of demo­cratic poli­tics, that these very small-minded and narrow-minded people … and of course the larger agenda of the globa­lists, there are people who think about it and who see how all these things make sense and all mesh toge­ther. But I’m afraid there are a lot of very stupid people here who can’t under­stand how disas­trous their poli­cies are.

RB: Your last comment was really pessi­mi­stic. With all the protests going on, the farmers being joined by the truck drivers, being joined by the fishermen, you don’t think they will have an ‑effect on parliament?

TB: There is a possi­bi­lity and I have also said this on the internet and on social media: if they go on strike, do a general strike, if they don’t supply us with fish, they don’t supply us with meat, milk, they don’t sell their cheeses to the super­mar­kets anymore. If they seriously say: that’s enough, stop! This is our struggle for survival, then after about 3 or 4 days, you will see it in the super­mar­kets. And people will say: I am hungry, where is my food coming from? But that can only happen if the farmers and the fishermen and all the people and maybe even inter­na­tio­nally, form a coali­tion and don’t deviate from that. We would support that.

I fear what will happen is that there will be aggres­sive demons­tra­tions and public opinion will turn against them. The govern­ment will just increase their offers a bit, they will pay a bit more money and some people will agree and that will break the unity of the protes­ters. Some people will say, yes I’ll take my share and try some­thing else or send my kids to univer­sity or whatever. I’m quite pessi­mi­stic, I’m worried that on the one hand they will lose public support by demons­t­ra­ting too crudely instead of just not deli­ve­ring any more food and that many will choose their short-term self-inte­rest instead of the long-term inte­rests of the country as a whole.

RB: The last thing I want to ask you is that a lot of people in the world, certainly in the United States, are suddenly looking at the Nether­lands. Ever­y­body is focu­sing their atten­tion on it. Every time I check my news­feed, it’s about the food crisis in the Nether­lands. And I think one of the reasons, even though it’s a local conflict here, it’s about this local parlia­ment, there are similar goals being enforced in all over the world. In the US there is the Green New Deal, which is also about a whole set of emis­sion stan­dards. How cow farts are counted, for example, at least in the first draft. What would you say to people who are looking at this all over the world, in the diffe­rent count­ries, and they see what is happe­ning in the Nether­lands what would you say to them and what should they look out for in the future?

TB: We are in this fight toge­ther! We have seen it through the Covid scam over two years, mons­trous poli­tical decis­ions have been imposed on all our nations. We have seen it with mass migra­tion. All our nations are being thinned out by the influx of people from comple­tely diffe­rent ethni­ci­ties and cultures and reli­gions and so on from parts of the world. We are just being disin­he­rited from our own created, from making our own food and from our connec­tion to our land. At all levels, a radical agenda is being pushed, called sustainable deve­lo­p­ment goals, as the climate hysteria, which is scien­ti­fi­cally nonsense. There is no CO2 problem, but they are crea­ting this delu­sion because of it. Even­tually you will see a very small group of people who own almost ever­y­thing get richer and richer and exert more and more control over our lives, we become weaker and more isolated and more atomised, poorer, without demo­cracy, without purpo­seful ways in which we can express ourselves. All the censor­ship we see on the internet and if you look from a bird’s eye view you see this trend towards bureau­cratic dicta­tor­ship being imposed on all of us. Only if we unite, if we over­come all the diffe­rences that have divided us for so long, if we fight against it toge­ther, will we win. We have to do it, it is the most vital struggle in the whole history of civi­li­sa­tion. We are doing it now and they want to be done with it in 2030, which is the year when they want to have achieved their goals, a globa­list take­over. So we have eight years to fight this, let’s do it together!

RB: Thierry, thank you very much!

TB: Thank you very much!

The YouTube video of the inter­view is linked here.

2 Kommentare

  1. Der Text ist den meisten Lesern zu lang, und mir auch anstren­gend. Um die Debatte der Stick­stoffe in Dünge etwas zu erklären, nur folgendes.
    Stick­stoff ist ein Grund­nah­rungs­mittel für Pflanzen, nicht für den Menschen.
    Menschen Essen nie was Pflanzen nehmen, damit das jeder versteht.
    Wir würden immer sterben.

  2. Winning against the EU-NATO with its MIC, its neo-Stali­nist super­vi­sion system and its African and Arabian sponsors?

Kommentieren Sie den Artikel

Bitte geben Sie Ihren Kommentar ein!
Bitte geben Sie hier Ihren Namen ein