reSee.it - Related Video Feed

Tijdens het debat uiten de sprekers boosheid over uitspraken van de minister: "we weten namelijk inmiddels vrij goed waar ze wonen. Vrij precies eigenlijk per postcode weten we waar ze wonen." Ze beschrijven "wijk voor wijk, straat voor straat, arm voor arm" en "Deur voor deur, arm voor arm." Ze noemen de minister een dehumaniserende aanduiding en "wappies", spreken van "Totaal ontwerper, totale wappie" en noemen dit "complot retoriek." Volgens hen zijn dit oorzaken van polarisatie. Een spreker vraagt de minister één feit te weerspreken, maar "Dat wil ik niet." De spreker stelt dat de minister "degene die hoofd verantwoordelijk is voor vrijwel al die spanningen en polarisatie waar we nu mee te maken hebben" en wil hem "een spiegel voorhouden." De ander zegt: "Stop ermee. Dat was mijn inhoudelijke reactie op al dit soort complottheorieën. Stop ermee." During the debate, the speakers express anger about the minister's statements: "we know now quite well where they live. Quite precisely, per postcode, we know where they live." They describe "neighborhood by neighborhood, street by street, arm for arm" and "Door to door, arm for arm." They call the minister a dehumanizing label and "wappies," talk of "Total designer, total wappie" and call this "conspiracy rhetoric." According to them, these are causes of polarization. A speaker asks the minister to refute one fact he named, but "I don't want to." The speaker argues that the minister is "the one primarily responsible for almost all the tensions and polarization we are dealing with" and wants him "hold up a mirror to him." The other person says: "Stop it. That was my substantive response to all these kinds of conspiracy theories. Stop it."

The speakers discuss the political situation surrounding Geert Wilders and the PVV. The first speaker suggests that if Wilders had participated in a debate, the other side might have won, and expresses frustration that “nothing happens in the Netherlands” right now. The dialogue turns to the nature of democracy within the parliament, with one speaker insisting that the parliament is “super democradig” while implying the PVV is not. The conversation questions the democratic legitimacy of the PVV, reinforcing that one speaker is not a member of the PVV in the traditional sense. A key point raised is the claim that there is “not a democratic club” for the PVV, contrasting their approach with the broader parliamentary system. The other speaker counters by noting that they are a member of the faction, not the party, highlighting a formal distinction: “Not of the party, because there is but one person and that is Geert Wilders himself.” This statement emphasizes a centralized leadership structure and suggests that the party’s organizational breadth is limited to a single figure at the top. The exchange also touches on the hypothetical impact of broader party membership, with a suggestion that if the PVV could assemble more members, it might be argued to be more democratic. Despite this, the speaker indicates that they will refrain from pursuing that argument in the current discussion. Throughout, the speakers grapple with how representation and democratic processes operate within the Netherlands’ political landscape, especially in relation to Wilders and the PVV. The dialogue conveys a sense of urgency and dissatisfaction about the state of politics, underscored by the assertion that a debate or more widespread participation could have changed outcomes, in contrast to the stagnation they perceive in the present moment.

I'm a skeptic about climate change, not a denier. It's important to clarify that I am a scientist, while the CEO of the Weather Channel is not. CNN promotes the idea of a scientific consensus on global warming, but science is based on facts, not votes. The evidence shows that significant man-made global warming is not occurring now, hasn't in the past, and isn't expected in the future. This issue has become politicized, especially within the Democratic Party, which I regret. I appreciate the opportunity to share my views with your audience, even if we may not reach a conclusion today.

Speaker 1, the potential prime minister, would immediately close the Dutch borders to people from Islamic countries who do not adhere to Dutch laws and values. However, forming a coalition with other parties who do not share this stance poses a challenge. Speaker 1 also expresses skepticism about climate change, believing that humans have minimal impact on global warming. This viewpoint may hinder coalition-building. The speaker mentions other parties that could potentially form a coalition, but emphasizes the difficulties in finding common ground. The speaker also highlights the behind-the-scenes maneuvering that can occur to prevent the largest party from leading the coalition. They predict a similar outcome in the Netherlands.

Speaker 0 ran into a boy associated with Live Laser, who spoke of a communist platform. Speaker 0 said the situation led them to take that boy into a time-out. Speaker 0 described that the interview was not their best, but that the content stands. Speaker 1 asked whether this results in a time-out from the coalition toward Speaker 0’s party. They noted that the coalition had previously called for cooperation regarding creating majorities, particularly in the Second Chamber where Speaker 0 has been represented since Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 asked whether there is still any enthusiasm for such cooperation after the commotion and statements. Speaker 0 replied that they cannot force anyone to talk with them. They said everyone should “just count to 76,” that they had explained what they meant, and that they would not cross any legal boundaries, “also not morally.” Speaker 1 responded that the judge would ultimately decide.

Meneer Baudet kondigde aan dat hij bij de Europese verkiezingen op 9 juni 2024 met een Forum voor Democratie-lijst in Vlaanderen meedoet. Hij pleit voor samenwerking tussen Noord- en Zuid-Nederlanders via een gezamenlijk EU-platform en noemt de FVD-stem een unieke stem voor Vlaanderen. De partij wil de EU ontmantelen, verwerpt corona-regels en staat tegenover NAVO/VS-imperialisme. CBDC en een persoonlijk CO2-budget zijn thema’s, naast een maatschappelijke tak. Namen volgen; rally op 22 november. Succes betekent een beweging, niet zetels; Gobbelisten winnen. Mr. Baudet announced he will participate in the European elections on 9 June 2024 with a Forum for Democracy list in Flanders. He calls for North-South Dutch cooperation via a joint EU platform and says the FVD vote is a unique voice for Flanders. The party aims to dismantle the EU, rejects corona rules, and opposes NATO/US imperialism. CBDC and a personal CO2 budget are among their themes, plus a societal arm. Names will follow; a rally after 22 November. Movement over seats; Gobbelists must be won.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 still wants to ban fracking. Speaker 1 says no, clarifying they stated in a 2020 debate they would not ban fracking as Vice President or President. Speaker 0 points out that in 2019, Speaker 1 said they were in favor of banning fracking. Speaker 1 responds that in 2020, they made their position clear, and they have not changed that position in 2024, nor will they going forward, and that they have kept their word.

Speaker 0 asks Speaker 1 if he is a PVV Member of Parliament, and Speaker 1 confirms. Speaker 0 says he recognizes them all, to which Speaker 1 agrees. The interviewer then asks about Speaker 1’s ambitions for the next four years, but Speaker 1 says he will answer later. Speaker 0 notes that Speaker 1 is high on the list and again says he will be told later. The interviewer mentions that Speaker 1 was described as “the new talent shaved,” and Speaker 1 responds that that will go well. Speaker 0 remarks that he hasn’t noticed it yet.

Speaker 0 asks if Speaker 1 would serve in a cabinet under Geert Wilders. Speaker 1 responds that they don't see it happening because they believe the Netherlands needs a leader who can unite the country and lead internationally. Speaker 1 also doubts Wilders' ability to form a majority. Speaker 0 confirms that Speaker 1 will not join a cabinet under Wilders, to which Speaker 1 agrees, stating that the country deserves a leader for everyone. Speaker 1 believes Wilders' leadership would not be beneficial and emphasizes the need for a leader who can handle crises and promote economic growth. Speaker 1 also mentions that if Wilders were to win the elections, they would go into opposition.

Speaker 0 argues that control is in the hands of unelected officials at supranational organizations, and that they want all of the world’s resources in their pocket. Speaker 1 says the bigger picture is an attempt to collapse liberal democracy and replace it with global technocracy. Speaker 2 calls this a coup, asserting that “we can control with rules” and “we don’t need currency anymore.” Speaker 3 describes it as an inverted prison, where you are supposedly free to roam about, but “everything you want to access is behind lock and key.” Speaker 1 warns that “the potential for social control is gigantic and potentially irreversible.” Speaker 4 outlines plans to commandeer land, reduce farming, radically change the food we eat, transform the supply of electricity, dictate how we use it, and replace currency with a system of credits, all built on the premise of a climate crisis caused by carbon dioxide. Speaker 5 counters with, “I do not think there’s a climate crisis,” basing that claim on climate data sets built to answer questions like that. Speaker 0 states, “The government is very clear that they want a catastrophic story,” and adds that there is no single science paper proving conclusively that humans control all or most of the global climate, while accusing Europe’s net-zero push of being “effectively economic suicide,” arguing politicians are “purposely impoverishing ordinary people” and deindustrializing Europe. Speaker 6 comments on the damage done “in the name of saving the planet” and asks, “what is it we’re actually saving if we’re paving it over.” Speaker 0 calls this a global war on agriculture. Speaker 4 notes that many farms are selling up, leading to fears of food shortages. Speaker 2 states, “If I can switch everybody from real food to pharma food, then 100% of the agriculture industry can go through my publicly traded stocks, and I have complete control.” Speaker 3 terms it “the biggest public relations scam in the history of the world,” but also says it is a blueprint and an action plan. Speaker 0 contends that “All life on Earth is going to be radically changed.” Speaker 4 predicts that “Everything will be monitored,” including the environmental consequences of every human action. Speaker 2 complains that “the general cannot fathom the psychopathy of the vision that they're facing.” Speaker 3 warns that once a digital ID is in place, “it's game over for humanity.”

I'm a skeptic about climate change, not a denier. It's important to clarify that I am a scientist, while the CEO of the Weather Channel is not. There is no scientific consensus on climate change; science is based on facts, not votes. The evidence shows that significant man-made global warming is not occurring now, has not occurred in the past, and is unlikely to happen in the future. This issue has become politicized, particularly by the Democratic Party, which I regret. However, I believe the scientific facts support my position. I'm glad to have the opportunity to share my views with your audience.

The PVV believes that the excessive reduction of CO2 emissions must stop, but according to government officials, a new cabinet cannot simply reduce climate policies. The European Union's goal of climate neutrality and a 55% reduction in emissions by 2030 binds the Netherlands to these commitments. Failure to comply may result in penalties. To achieve the current climate target, difficult decisions are needed in agriculture and transportation. The next government will also have to address issues such as reducing livestock and implementing road pricing. The transition from fossil fuels to sustainable energy by 2050 is also unavoidable. Neglecting these goals would harm the investment climate in the country. The winner of the elections may face challenges in forming a government due to differing views on climate policies.

The video narrates that the speakers attended the May 1 demonstration in Amsterdam, describing it as the most important day of the year for communists, used to commemorate the “offers” made by the working class for basic rights such as an eight-hour workday, minimum wage, and the weekend. They then recount a confrontation: an FNV member approached them with a photo claiming that Volkert van der Graaf might be nearby. The speaker says they had questions for Volkert and repeatedly asks, “Volker, Volker, what are you doing here?” During the exchange, the person identified as Volkert responds that the speaker should not ask for comment, and says, among other things, that this is a day for working people and that “we work.” The conversation includes discussion of the term “parasite,” with the speaker stating they do not know what Volkert means by “parasite,” and wondering whether Volkert describes himself or the speaker. The speakers frame a “real question” as why Pim Fortuyn had to be killed. They state that one often-cited scenario is that Volkert van der Graaf committed the murder from animal-rights extremism. They say Volkert was associated with the industry in question, and that because he never explained, the entire left-wing movement was held responsible, with the idea that “the bullet came from the left.” The speakers also state that there were left-wing movements that carried out liquidations, citing the German Red Army Faction (RAF). They claim the key difference is that the RAF always published extensive communiqués explaining why they carried out attacks, while Volkert never gave such an explanation, and the speaker asks why Volkert never explained why Pim had to be killed. The response in the transcript is that Volkert says it is simple and gives no comment. The transcript then shifts to claims about surveillance. The speakers mention that a former AIVD/IVD-related person, Barry Hanselman, made the claim that Volkert was never in the picture of the security services. The speakers say that this conflicts with a claim in a podcast “Vriend van Volkert,” which allegedly concerns the criminal Paul Moolhoek, who lived next to Volkert and had extensive contact. The transcript states that police allegedly suspected Moolhoek of being a possible informant for the security services, and that this impression was allegedly confirmed in conversations after Fortuyn’s murder between people from the police and the IVD. The speaker expresses that they find it “best wel gek” that someone living nearby later appeared in the Hofstadgroep. A discussion follows about the role of political journalism. The speaker states they find it difficult that someone who has served a sentence does not still form part of the societal debate, and they say they hope the video contributes by encouraging left-wing people to discuss the political impact of the murder and how the movement could have responded better to its aftershocks, and by encouraging people who know more about Volkert’s motives to come forward. Finally, the transcript describes Hans Spekman of FNV being confronted with the alleged presence of Volkert at the May 1 demonstration. Spekman says he does not know who Volkert van der Graaf is, but responds that Volkert is welcome and that no one is excluded. The speaker criticizes Spekman’s reaction as a “standard response” that involves lying when confronted with an uncomfortable truth, and argues Spekman could ask Volkert to leave. The transcript ends by emphasizing that the organization claims it is independent and not funded through subsidies.

Speaker 0 expresses reluctance to engage with Forum's speech due to perceived lack of trust. Speaker 1 emphasizes the need to control the government based on facts, prompting a request for the minister to address any disputed facts. Speaker 0 dismisses Forum's arguments as nonsense and declines to engage further. Speaker 1 criticizes the minister for not addressing the facts presented, accusing her of disrespecting the Chamber and voters. The debate ends with tensions high.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the possibility of forming a government. Speaker 1 mentions that Mrs. Jesus said they will not be ruling, but Speaker 0 clarifies that she meant they will not rule under a Wilders-led government. Speaker 1 adds that they may consider supporting but not participating in a cabinet. Speaker 0 questions if Mrs. Jesus was clear on this, but Speaker 1 believes she was. Speaker 0 suggests that they should have a serious conversation with Timmerman, potentially leading to a coalition with the VVD. Speaker 1 thinks Speaker 0 is jumping ahead and clarifies that they should at least have a conversation with Timmerman. Speaker 0 emphasizes the importance of not excluding any party, except for a coalition with the PvdA. They discuss the differences between parties and Speaker 0 rejects the notion that they are comparable to the PVV. Speaker 1 agrees and clarifies that they did not make that comparison.

Speaker 0 and Speaker 1 discuss the issue of people refusing to get vaccinated. Speaker 1 finds it difficult to understand why anyone would choose not to get vaccinated, as they believe that the vaccine is necessary to regain our freedom from the virus. Speaker 0 agrees, stating that they find this group dangerous. Speaker 1 mentions that this group makes up eleven percent of the population, which they consider to be a significant number. They believe that the debate surrounding this issue should be handled better in the Netherlands, with more attention given to the majority who support vaccination and value their freedoms.

We will not be working with that right-wing extremist party because they are outside of what Germany needs, in both economic and migration policy. There will be no collaboration with that party. What is missing from this discussion is that it is never about content, but only about outrageous framing towards the Alternative for Germany. They are a liberal conservative party, and the problems in this country would not exist without the three parties standing here.

The speaker, who identifies as a scientist and founder of The Weather Channel, disagrees with the idea of global warming being a consensus. They argue that science is not about voting but about facts, and claim that there is no significant man-made global warming happening now or in the future. They believe that climate change has become a political issue rather than a scientific one. The other speaker questions the speaker's views and mentions the 97% consensus among climate scientists. The speaker responds by suggesting that the government funds research that supports the global warming hypothesis, leading to biased results. The conversation ends with the acknowledgement that they won't reach a conclusion.

In the European Parliament, colleagues are feeling fearful as they realize they are not serving the people's best interests. They acknowledge that the current government is not for the people but for global misanthropists. People are no longer fooled by climate change rhetoric, and the truth is starting to come to light.

De spreker wijst erop dat Partue Wever voor een uitdaging staat: 'ik ga niet met Tom van Grieken in zee, maar wel met de andere partijvoorzitter die gezegd heeft dat Roma mensen bruin gespuisd zijn waar je met de matrak op moet slaan om ze buiten te jagen.' Deze uitspraak illustreert de polarisatie rondom samenwerkingskeuzes met leiders die dergelijke beschuldigingen doen. The speaker notes that Partue Wever faces a challenge to say: 'I will not go into partnership with Tom van Grieken, but with the other party leader who said that Roma people are brown scum that you should strike with a baton to drive them out.' This remark illustrates the polarization surrounding alliance choices with leaders who make such accusations.

The atmosphere in the European Parliament is tense. Many colleagues are realizing they are not serving the people's best interests. It's no longer about the people, but about a global elite. They are starting to see that the public is no longer fooled by climate change rhetoric and are standing up against it.

Het is niet vergezocht om de grootste partij van Nederland te vergelijken met Victor Orbán, gezien hun stemgedrag en afwezigheid bij debatten. De VVD zal de steun aan Oekraïne voortzetten en niet toegeven aan de druk van deze partij.

The PVV's win is a blow to democracy and value-driven politics. Wilders may try to portray himself as Mother Teresa, but his history of discrimination, exclusion, and demonizing opponents shows he has a long way to go to become more moderate. The country has spoken, but I speak for myself and find it concerning. Rob Jetten, our new party leader, has spoken clearly. Only 67% of people didn't vote for Wilders. The challenge is for him to prove he genuinely values tolerance, which we have yet to see. I'm not angry, I'm passionate. I'm concerned about the election result and whether he will change. No, he won't change. If he becomes prime minister, it will be through a coalition, not by my choice.

**Speaker 2 (Michael Shellenberger):** Many of us were shocked by Vance's speech, but I think it's long overdue. Americans deeply value freedom of speech, and we question our alliance when European judges try to censor our speech and social media platforms. America is tired of being the world's police officer, and our patience is tested when Europe seems to turn against enlightenment values like free speech. The only solution to misinformation is accurate information through free debate. **Speaker 3 (Natalie Tucci):** I don't believe there has been an erosion of free speech in Europe, and I don't think what we heard from the US Vice President has much to do with free speech. Vance's rhetoric sounds like the Russian playbook, turning arguments about democracy on their head. His meeting with Alice Weidel suggests election interference and support for far-right parties, which could end liberal democracy and European integration.

The atmosphere in the European Parliament is tense. Colleagues are realizing they are not serving the people's best interests. They feel the government is controlled by global elitists, not the people. People are no longer fooled by climate change narratives, and the truth is starting to come to light.