Bayer, Monsanto choose Chapter 11 as an escaperoute
Chapter 11 is a bankruptcy law provision in the United States that is intended to give companies the chance to restart while temporarily protecting them from creditors. The idea is that companies with viable core businesses can restructure and thus avoid the worst of the blows. However, the provision is not intended as an escape clause to avoid lawsuits or claims.
Monsanto – part of Bayer since 2018 – is the producer of Roundup. Since the takeover, Bayer has had to pay out more than $11 billion in damages to people who claim to have been made ill by the drug. Approximately 54,000-67,000 cases are still pending.
Roundup is a glyphosate-based weed killer that has been under fire for years over claims that it is carcinogenic.
By placing only Monsanto in Chapter 11, Bayer wants to place the damage claims in a separate entity. The legal and financial risks would then no longer weigh on the parent company. This creates a protective structure: victims of Roundup would then have to take legal action against an entity that may not be able to pay (in full).
From a corporate law perspective, there is (as yet) no violation of the law. Monsanto is formally a separate legal entity. As long as Bayer does not demonstrably abuse this structure – for example through undercapitalization or fraud – an American judge will not quickly lie down for it. (Piercing the corporate veil, in which a judge ignores the separation between parent and subsidiary companies, is rare in American law and requires proof of fraud or abuse.”
Bayer may regard the procedure as necessary for the continuity of the company and to satisfy investors and shareholders, but in fact it is simply a way to avoid responsibility.
And that is causing resistance. Because Bayer is demonstrably able to raise billions on the capital market, pays dividends, and actively invests in innovations such as genetically modified corn. But when it comes to legal liability, the company does not respond.
If this strategy succeeds, it will set a worrying precedent. Multinationals could use subsidiaries worldwide as legally permitted shock absorbers for risky activities – from chemicals to pharma and tech. The damage would then structurally fall on victims or society, not on shareholders.
For Bayer, this is a strategic option. Not for nothing have restructuring firms such as AlixPartners and lawyers from Latham & Watkins been engaged. An actual Chapter 11 filing is expected within 12 to 18 months, if a broad settlement with Roundup victims does not materialize.
For victims it is yet another blow. For lawyers a lesson in the elasticity of corporate law. And for policymakers a reason to reconsider how international corporate structures relate to justice in mass damages.
Because sometimes the legal path is not the moral path. And sometimes bankruptcy law offers no solution, but is simply a legal escaperoute.
To 200 times more toxic
Now that Bayer, forced by the many claims and lawsuits, is replacing Roundup, the situation has unfortunately not improved. Instead of a fundamental shift, we are seeing a worrying trend. Alternatives that can be even more harmful than glyphosate are being used. Bayer uses diquat in replacement new Roundup formulations, such as Roundup QuikPRO, to achieve visible effects faster. Diquat causes rapid dehydration of plant tissue, but is banned in the EU and China due to proven risks to the liver, kidneys and lungs.
Glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, has been under scrutiny for years. Recent research shows that even low concentrations can cause neurological damage in animals, potentially affecting movement, sleep and mood. Despite growing concerns about the effects of long-term exposure, glyphosate has been re-approved in the EU for a further 10 years, albeit with stricter restrictions. The real challenge, however, is not the approval of a single product, but the willingness to actually stop using extremely toxic pesticides.
Unfortunately, the plan is to replace Glyphosate with even more harmful pesticides, such as Mancozeb, which has long been linked to serious health risks. Research shows that farmers who work with Mancozeb have up to a 60% higher risk of developing Parkinson’s disease. This is particularly worrying as Mancozeb has been largely banned in the EU since 2021. Yet it is still used in other countries, such as the US. This increases the global risks, as products treated with Mancozeb are traded globally and could end up in our food.
And the other substance used, Diquat, is a whopping 200 times more toxic than glyphosate in long-term exposure. Diquat can damage the intestinal barrier, cause chronic inflammation and lead to serious organ damage. The irony is that in the 1970s, glyphosate was promoted as a “safer” alternative to Diquat, which was considered extremely harmful at the time. Although Diquat has been banned in the EU since 2018, it remains legal in the US and “treated” products are processed into our food chain without any problems.
The return or continued presence of even more harmful pesticides is therefore a clear step backwards. The lackadaisical and slow response of countries such as the US and, more broadly, the Netherlands, is also worrying. The lobby of the agricultural industry seems to be leading, with economic interests often taking precedence over public health and environmental protection.
This shift to, or retention of, even more harmful pesticides underscores the urgent need for a fundamental overhaul of pesticide policy. Instead of replacing one toxic agent with another – the so-called “pesticide carousel” – a clear course should be set for a drastic reduction in chemical pesticides. The focus should instead be on encouraging sustainable, biological alternatives. Technologies such as precision agriculture and biological crop protection offer concrete opportunities to reduce dependency on dangerous chemicals.
Solitary confinement
Simultaneously with a number of sovereigns, lawyer Arno van Kessel from Leeuwarden was also arrested on 11 June just before the NATO summit by 15 members of the Special Intervention Service (DSI) in the presence of the examining magistrate and the dean of the Bar Association of the Northern Netherlands. (as is customary with lawyers because of their right to refuse to testify). The dean started a suspension procedure shortly afterwards, without access to details of the case, which raises questions about the independence and care of this step.”
On 26 June 2025, Van Kessel’s pre-trial detention was extended by 90 days on suspicion of involvement in a “criminal network” with “anti-institutional ideology” that may have wanted to collect or use weapons or dangerous substances, possibly in connection with the NATO summit of 24-25 June 2025 in The Hague. His restrictions were lifted upon extension, meaning that he now has freedom of movement and is allowed to have contact with other detainees.
The arrested well-known Leeuwarden lawyer previously made himself heard as counsel for Doctors for Truth, a group that opposed corona vaccines and other corona measures, particularly because of their serious side effects. In 2021, Van Kessel, together with activist Elke de Klerk, entered a school in Drachten during a vaccination information session at ROC Friese Poort, where he approached students and called GGD employees ‘NSB’ers’ and ‘child murderers’. This led to his previous conditional suspension and a two-year probationary period for unprofessional conduct. This earned him a conditional suspension and a two-year probationary period.
Van Kessel was busy with legal cases against Bill Gates, Mark Rutte and the State of the Netherlands and was arrested with a great show of force just before the NATO summit and the ongoing legal case and taken away blindfolded by an arrest team of about fifteen police officers, while his wife and children were held at gunpoint. The officers then searched his house for hours.
The cases Van Kessel is working on revolve around the central questions of whether the corona policy is part of the globalist reform agenda ’the Great Reset’ and whether or not the corona jab is a bioweapon, partly because of the use of a “killer batch” of Pfizer vaccines. Half of the vaccine batch EM0477 was withdrawn halfway through, after many people died after administration of the vaccine. In October 2024, the Leeuwarden District Court ruled that it has jurisdiction over Bill Gates, despite his objection that a Dutch court would not have jurisdiction. This was a major victory for Van Kessel. The case is attracting international attention, with experts such as Catherine Austin Fitts and Mike Yeadon who may testify under oath.
Van Kessel was in full confinement for 15 days, but is said to be no sovereign at all, partly because this ideology is incompatible with the profession of lawyer and because he personally does not support this vision. This gives the impression of possible political motives, although there is no evidence for this as yet.
Attorney Van Kessel will now definitely not be able to attend the public hearing on July 9 in the Leeuwarden District Court, where the first substantive hearing of the internationally notorious lawsuit against, among others, the State of the Netherlands, Mark Rutte and Bill Gates is scheduled. His partner Peter Stassen is on his own, but says he will “appear at the hearing fully equipped”. The Public Prosecution Service says it needs more time for the investigation and “given the state of the investigation, it is not possible to respond to questions about the progress, suspicions and findings in detail.
A dean, who as a supervisor of attorneys, initiates a suspension or allows an attorney to be in full confinement without a public charge or evidence, raises questions about the independence and due care of the Dutch Bar Association (NOvA).
It is noteworthy that the dean has already initiated a suspension procedure without the Bar Association being formally aware of all the details of Van Kessel’s case, given his limitations. This means that Van Kessel has also not been given the opportunity to defend himself or provide context, which goes against the principle of audi alteram partem. And this again suggests a possible premature judgment or external pressure, which is not in line with the role of the dean as guardian of a fair procedure. The local dean of the Northern Netherlands is responsible for the supervision of lawyers and must investigate complaints or suspicions according to the Dutch Lawyers Act. However, a suspension without a transparent preliminary investigation or concrete facts seems premature and could give the impression of an attempt to marginalize Van Kessel, especially given the sensitive nature of his legal cases.
Also lawyer Inez Weski’s who was given solitary confinement in a bunker previously led to criticism of the Public Prosecution Service and the NOvA due to lack of proportionality. There have also been no public publications or statements from the NOvA or the local dean of Northern Netherlands. The NOvA does publish regularly on disciplinary law and the rule of law, but these are general in nature and do not mention the Van Kessel case.
It is worrying when the dean, who is supposed to be independent, does not seem to be critical enough of the actions of the Public Prosecution Service. This fuels speculation about political motives. Without openness from the NOvA or the Public Prosecution Service, this undermines confidence in the already fragile legal system. The lack of concrete charges or evidence from the Public Prosecution Service speaks volumes.
Clash of the Titans for World Order: Trump and Musk vs Gates and Buffett
Warren Buffett’s recent donation of a whopping $6 billion to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation marks more than philanthropy. It affirms his longstanding support for global health and poverty reduction. The gift continues his decades-long commitment to distribute his wealth through the Gates Foundation.
On one side are Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who oppose what they see as a globalist elite with too much influence on national sovereignty and individual freedom. On the other side are Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, advocates of global cooperation through NGOs, technocratic structures and supranational organisations. Both camps represent influential positions in a broader field of forces in which states, multilateral institutions and social movements also play a role.
It is increasingly taking on the character of a system struggle. The stakes: who determines the direction of technological development, public health, international aid and information control?
A visible battleground is USAID, the American development agency. Trump and Musk accuse the institution of waste, ideological interference and even indirect involvement in risky virological research. For example, Musk referred to funding for EcoHealth Alliance, a controversial research project on coronaviruses. Many of the subsidies are said to have ended up in the hands of intermediaries.
Meanwhile, Gates and Buffett emphasize the importance of USAID as a pillar of global health and emergency aid. Their support for initiatives such as GAVI (vaccine alliance), the Global Fund and PEPFAR has helped vaccinate hundreds of millions of people.
The human impact of USAID’s recent cuts is already visible. In Syria, an estimated 9,000 patients have lost access to care, including life-saving treatment for chronic diseases. In South Africa, more than 500,000 children are at risk of losing their HIV treatment, and nutrition programs in Ethiopia have been frozen, directly affecting hundreds of thousands of vulnerable families.
This confrontation is not a classic power conflict between states, but a clash between two networks with different visions of governance, legitimacy and sustainability.
It is striking that the European Union, in response to the American withdrawal, is increasingly trying to fill the gaps. For example, in 2025 the EU increased its contributions to GAVI and the World Food Programme by hundreds of millions of euros. At the same time, Brussels is seeking closer cooperation with African and Southeast Asian partners to reduce dependency on American aid structures.
The EU’s support for these multilateral programs, and its close alignment with the World Economic Forum (WEF) narrative, is a thorn in the side of Trump and his supporters. In his view, they represent the core of the “globalist elite” that undermines national sovereignty and places technocratic decision-making above democratic control. This irritation is compounded by the fact that many WEF goals, such as ESG reporting, climate regulation, digitalization of government services and global health programs, are gaining political traction.
For Trump, the WEF is not a think tank but a rival global model – one that is gaining ground, thanks in part to European support.
The question is not whether choices will be made, but who gets to make them – and in whose interests. Between global solidarity and national autonomy, technocratic order and digital disruption, the stakes remain high.
Instead of a mature debate about legitimacy, responsibility and effectiveness, we are now seeing a vulgar power struggle.
Bears on the road to the dollar as world currency
Credit rating agency Moody’s has downgraded the credit rating of the United States on May 16, 2025. The country has lost the highest rating due to the expected higher national debt and because it has to pay more interest. The US dollar has fallen to its lowest level in three years. On the currency market, the euro was quoted at 1.1530 dollars and is under pressure. Mainly due to an accumulation of global risks that are slowly undermining confidence in the currency.
A combination of high inflation and unemployment, slowing growth and trade restrictions. China’s decision to ban Boeing planes and American parts is symptomatic of a broader movement: the gradual decoupling from the West by emerging powers. Ukraine is considering pegging the local hryvnia to the euro instead of the dollar, and the BRICS could dump $2.5 trillion in US dollars after it has fallen 8% since February. The dollar’s value is also being affected by tensions in negotiations between Iran, the US and Israel over Iran’s nuclear programme.
Asian exporters and investors are finding that their local currencies are outperforming the dollar. In Taiwan, Malaysia and Vietnam, economies are running surpluses that are buffering against dollar fluctuations. At the same time, the United States is dragging itself toward a potential recession, partly as a result of impulsive trade wars and protectionist rhetoric.
Europe is also moving away from dependency. Accelerating its own arms production strengthens strategic autonomy, but also weakens the transatlantic economic interdependence that has supported the dollar since Bretton Woods.
Both Russia and the US also have their sights set on Ukraine’s raw materials. While Washington is focusing on economic sanctions and military support, Moscow is rapidly expanding its arsenal. The stakes are more than just territory: they involve energy, agriculture and rare metals – precisely the raw materials that are also crucial for monetary power.
A recent report by Bank of America shows that the movement to become less dependent on the US dollar is growing in ASEAN. This is mainly due to the fact that more and more people and companies are converting their savings from dollars to local currencies. In addition, large investors are increasingly taking measures to protect foreign investments from exchange rate risks.
Against this creeping loss of confidence stands the growing cohesion within BRICS. The accession of Indonesia, an economic heavyweight and G20 member, strengthens the legitimacy of the bloc. BRICS now represents 46% of the world’s population and is working hard on alternatives: trade in local currencies, gold-backed structures such as China’s Wangu project, and a currency of its own in the medium term.
De-dollarization is no longer a threat, but a process in full swing. Russia is pushing, China is building and countries like Indonesia and Iran are joining in. The dollar remains dominant for the time being (58% of global reserves), but that dominance is not unassailable.
Recent estimates suggest the dollar could depreciate by 15–20% between 2025 and 2026, and possibly 25–30% by 2030 – faster than previous forecasts, partly due to geopolitical frictions and the erosion of confidence in US fiscal policy.
On top of that, additional risks are emerging such as the digital yuan gaining ground in Asia and Africa, OPEC+ flirting with alternative payment structures for oil, and the repeated political tug-of-war over the US debt ceiling damaging the dollar’s reputation as a safe haven;
African commercial centers are increasingly abandoning the US dollar, with traders preferring to do business in the Chinese yuan. Increasingly, local traders are setting up informal yuan payment networks to do business with China. Digital currencies may be riding the wave of de-dollarization. In one of the world’s largest emerging markets, the dollar is losing ground to the Chinese yuan. In Kenya, East Africa, for example, it is common for logistics companies to offer shilling-yuan conversion services, allowing traders to pay in local currency while these companies handle yuan payments to Chinese sellers. These companies also facilitate the continuous flow of goods from major sourcing centers such as Guangzhou or Yiwu, where many African traders source products for sale.
Due to geopolitical tensions, monetary changes and exchange rate risks, more and more countries are opting to trade in local currencies. The Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) recently presented the ASEAN Economic Community Strategic Plan 2026 – 2030 to promote the use of local currencies in the region. The strategic plan aims to further strengthen the economic integration of the ten Southeast Asian countries. The plan was presented at a summit in Malaysia in May 2025 and aims to make ASEAN the world’s fourth largest economy by 2045.
Iran has already taken steps to trade in non-dollar currencies, for example with China and Russia, and has shown interest in BRICS membership. The attack on Iran by Israel and the US can also be seen as an attempt to limit Iran’s regional influence and economic autonomy. While maintaining dollar dominance does not seem to be an explicit goal, it could have an indirect effect by undermining Iran’s ability to develop alternative trading structures.
De-dollarisation is not a new phenomenon, “but countries are now realising that the dollar is being used as a weapon, for example in sanctions,” said Mitul Kotecha, head of FX and EM macro strategy at Barclays in Asia.
While the shift is more pronounced in Asia, global reliance on the dollar is also declining. The dollar’s share of global FX reserves has fallen from more than 70 percent in 2000 to 57.8 percent in 2024. This year, the dollar has seen a sell-off, particularly in April, a situation in which large volumes of assets are sold off quickly, causing prices to fall. This has been driven by uncertainty over US policy. Since the start of the year, the dollar index has weakened by more than 8 percent.
The dollar’s fall came after President Donald Trump again attacked Jerome Powell, chairman of the US central bank Federal Reserve. Financial markets fear that Trump will exert influence on interest rate policy, which could have major implications for confidence in the US currency.
The euro is now worth 1.17 dollars, while parity was almost in sight at the beginning of this year. But due to Trump’s trade war, the confidence of the financial markets in the American currency has slowly ebbed away. Investors fear that due to Trump’s import duties, fewer products will be imported from the US, which will also cause the dollar to become obsolete.
The exchange rates offered by these logistics players are much more favourable than the traditional bank-to-bank transfers of exporters, which are often made in US dollars. The US currency is therefore not facing one enemy, but a whole series of bears on the road. As long as Washington continues to gamble on economic confrontation over multilateral stability, the risk that the world will gradually lose its anchor is growing.
After decades of Western dominance, many countries in the Global South are increasingly dissatisfied with the existing world order. They feel underrepresented in global decision-making and see the dollar as an instrument of Western power (think sanctions). The search results show that many countries are turning away from Western economic structures, partly due to higher import tariffs from the US, which offers BRICS a unique opportunity.
The BRICS countries are actively experimenting with digital currencies, particularly Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), and a gold-backed digital currency as an alternative to the US dollar in international trade.
The goal is to reduce dependence on the US dollar. Digital currencies offer faster, cheaper and more transparent cross-border transactions, and can be used to bypass Western-controlled financial channels.
Russia and China are leading the development of systems like “BRICS Pay,” a decentralized payment platform for cross-border transactions in national digital currencies. This is not just an experiment; it is a strategic move to create financial independence and shift global trade dynamics.
Yet the rise of BRICS and the dedollarization movement is not a straight line upwards. Internal tensions within the bloc, such as the rivalry between India and China, or diverging views on monetary policy, complicate rapid integration and implementation. Moreover, many digital currency initiatives such as BRICS Pay or the digital yuan are still in pilot or bilateral testing phases. So the dependency on the dollar will not disappear overnight, but its foundation is slowly crumbling. And the fact that alternatives are not perfect does not mean that they are not gaining momentum — especially in a world that is hungry for more autonomy, stability and multipolarity.
Environmental zones for cars, a drop in the ocean
Starting next year, your carpenter, plumber, or supplier will no longer be allowed to enter the city with his van. Too polluting, too old, outdated. It sounds like a logical step towards cleaner air — until you look up. There are hundreds of jumbo jets flying over the same city, on their way to a distant destination, using 12,500 liters of kerosene per hour. But that is apparently not a problem. Day in, day out.
We live in a time when hard-working citizens are being addressed about their ecological footprint, but it starts to become bitter when the measures are mainly focused on the most visible and easy to regulate group: the motorist. And that while aviation not only emits massive CO₂, but also burns kerosene without having to pay any taxes. Literally and figuratively, this pollution is going over our heads. And I am now writing above our heads, but the Bijlmer disaster and June 12 in India were not above our heads but against them.
A car drives an average of 1 in 12 and a van even 1 in 16 or 20. The emission zones and the ban on “polluting” cars are presented as an act of environmental awareness, but in reality they are a drop in the ocean. Certainly as long as the aviation sector remains unscathed. Why be strict with the workers who have to go to their job, but lenient with the airlines that fly tourists who fly to Barcelona for €39?
If we really want to do something about the climate, it has to be fair and balanced. Until then, refusing older cars in cities remains a measure that mainly flatters the ego of Green Left administrators, but that does not fundamentally change the climate crisis. The real pollution simply flies over — without environmental zones, without borders, without shame.
NOS news report fails to report on escalating, extremely violent riots in Los Angeles
While Los Angeles is once again plagued by violent riots, looting and violent confrontations with the police, the Dutch media remains remarkably silent. Even the NOS – the public broadcaster that pretends to be objective and globally oriented – hardly seems to take these outbreaks of violence seriously. The reporting is minimal, superficial and often wrapped in euphemisms such as “unrest” or “demonstrations”. But the reality is different.
In recent days, several neighborhoods in Los Angeles have gone up in flames. Stores have been looted, many cars, including five Waymo taxis and a large number of police cars, have been pelted and set on fire . Many police officers have been injured in violent confrontations . There was a chaotic looting of a Jordan sneaker store and looters also held up a gas station. Rioters threw rocks and Molotov cocktails. Police responded with tear gas and rubber bullets during hours of confrontations. So far, 400 arrests have been made.
Yet, hardly anything can be heard or read about this in the Netherlands. The NOS devotes at most a short thirty-second item to “the tensions” in LA. Images of calm demonstrations, no factual representation, no explanation. As if it all means nothing. Why? Illegal immigrants were also called “immigrants” and only after comment “undocumented”.
Images of chaos, failed government action and increasing violence in progressive cities like Los Angeles could serve as an example for uprisings here. And that is why it is preferred to be hushed up or downplayed. The reaction of the anti-Trump administration of LA adds insult to injury. Mayor Karen Bass called the situation “worrying, but under control”, and would not understand why Trump has sent in National troops, while firefighters from the city itself report that they can no longer safely enter certain neighborhoods without heavy police escort. Business owners are left destitute, while the police lack capacity and cannot cope with the violence. Karen Bass seems more concerned about political image and her own powerlessness than about the safety of her residents. And the media – including our own NOS – goes along with it.
When media are structurally selective in what they report, it directly affects trust in journalism. When violence in American cities is deliberately downplayed, while every riot in Moscow or Tel Aviv is reported with live blogs, it raises questions about the underlying reasons.
It is not radical to simply want to know what is really happening. It is not ‘right-wing’ or ‘alarmist’ to also call violence violence, regardless of where it takes place or who is responsible for it. It is journalism. And it is time that the NOS also adheres to this. For some time now, there have been complaints on social platforms about the controlled and one-sided reporting of the NOS.
Given the gravity of the situation, Trump used a rarely invoked authority (Title 10, section 12406) to deploy more than 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Newsom, marking the first state-level national intervention in more than 60 years since 1965.
The LAPD and California Highway Patrol use tear gas, rubber bullets and flashbangs to control protesters and looters. On Platform X, footage shows rioting demonstrators pelting and setting fire to a large number of police cars. The protests spread to cities including Dallas, New York, Chicago and San Francisco. Feeling outmaneuvered, Governor Gavin Newsom is filing a lawsuit against the federal government in Washington over President Donald Trump’s order to deploy the National Guard. More protests against Trump’s immigration policies are expected in more than a dozen cities across the country. One of them is in the California capital of Sacramento, where the Service Employees International Union of California announced it would demonstrate after the arrest of a prominent union leader. Other cities including Oakland, Portland and Seattle have also reported serious incidents.
Private equity in the music and war industries
Investors BlackRock, JPMorgan, Vanguard and Statestreet own a majority in almost the entire music industry and thus manage almost all major music festivals. Through their investment company KKR , they bought the KMR Music Royalty Fund II from Kobalt Music for $ 1.1 billion in October 2021, a portfolio of more than 62,000 copyrights. These were later used to issue more than $ 732 million in bonds. Via KKR, Superstruct Entertainment NL was acquired in June 2024 for approximately $ 1.4 billion. Superstruct organizes more than 80 festivals in Europe and Australia, including Zwarte Cross, Mysteryland and Awakenings in the Netherlands. Lowlands and Down the Rabbit Hole, organized by Mojo Concerts, are also owned by these investors.
Mojo Concerts is owned by the gentlemen through Live Nation Entertainment. Mojo was acquired in 1999 by SFX, which later merged with Clear Channel Entertainment, which was spun off in 2006 to become “Live Nation. BlackRock also has indirect involvement through a partnership with Warner Music Group (Influence Media Partners) aimed at acquiring music rights. Vanguard Group, BlackRock and Morgan Stanley also own a significant portion of Warner’s freely tradable shares.
It’s not all fun and games for these investors, as these powerful men’s KKR also invests in companies like Axel Springer, which advertises real estate in the occupied West Bank. KKR also invests in defense technology companies, weapons for Israel, and 188 fossil fuel projects in 21 countries, including the Coastal GasLink pipeline in Canada.
Fourteen artists and over 300 musicians are now boycotting festivals, including Hang Youth, Brian Eno and Massive Attack, who are boycotting festivals such as Sónar and Field Day. The artists have cancelled a performance at Milkshake due to dissatisfaction with the controversial new owner KKR. Under the name Ravers for Palestine, the artists state that they no longer want to perform “in solidarity with the Palestinians” and do not want to contribute to any profits of KKR. Earlier, several artists also cancelled their appearance at Zwarte Cross due to the takeover by KKR. Goldband will also no longer perform at Zwarte Cross next month. The band from The Hague, one of the biggest crowd pullers at the festival, has decided ‘after careful consideration’ not to come because of the controversial new American owner. Nice actions, but unfortunately pointless, if you consider that they will no longer be able to perform anywhere given the fact that there are no more major festivals that are not owned by these investors.
Arguing on the (digital) playground
Donald Trump claimed to resolve the war between Russia and Ukraine within 24 hours. It is becoming increasingly clear why he did not succeed. Trump is a troublemaker himself and has publicly denounced his, until recently, best friend.
Trump intends to give away a lot of presents to his other friends and voters with his new tax plan, which will further increase the already enormous debt burden of the US . A measure that is a thorn in the side of Elon Musk , who was trying to reduce the debt ceiling of the US with DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency).
Instead of the two talking, the combatants are now fighting their battle on the (digital) schoolyard called social media. On June 5, the argument between the two escalated and for a moment it seemed as if they would call each other to talk it out, but Trump does not want to have any contact with Musk for the time being. “I don’t even think about Elon. He has a problem. The poor man has a problem,” Trump said in an interview with CNN.
Trump also wants to get rid of his red Tesla. He bought the car a few weeks ago most likely just as a publicity stunt. Musk openly criticized Trump’s tax plan. According to Musk, the law undoes the cuts he made at DOGE. Musk called the bill “disgusting” on his X platform.
Trump responded that he was “disappointed” in Musk and that he was ungrateful. The two then bombarded each other with all kinds of accusations via their own social media channels. Musk accused Trump that he would never have won the election without his money. Musk also linked the American president to files on the deceased sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Musk deleted the tweet that he posted in full rage.
Musk then also wrote that Trump should be impeached. Trump in turn threatened on his platform Truth Social to terminate government contracts with Musk’s companies and to sell his Tesla. Trump texted that terminating contracts with Musk’s companies, such as SpaceX, would be “the easy money saver for the US.” Trump also claimed that Musk did not leave as an advisor to DOGE of his own accord. “I asked him to leave,” he wrote on his platform Truth Social. At the same time, Trump warned that Musk should never even consider supporting the Democrats. “If he does, he will pay,” Trump said, without elaborating on possible consequences.
The feud between Donald Trump and Elon Musk seems far from over. Musk’s fortune dropped by 34 billion dollars overnight because of the feud. The two will not be visiting each other for the time being.
Betting sites like Polymarket are already speculating on the next steps, with users speculating whether the feud will escalate further or whether the two will make up soon. Polymarket predicts that Trump and Musk are likely to meet before the end of the year – with a 57 percent chance – but doubts that a meeting will happen in the coming weeks. Traders put the chance of a meeting before June 30 at 14 percent and before July 31 at 31 percent. Rival betting site Kalshi, on the other hand, puts the chance of Trump and Musk calling each other before July at 56 percent. A betting date for the end of the war in Ukraine ? No one is venturing into that yet. The next escalation is already a fact. Elon Musk threatened during a Senate debate on the American BBB on X: “If this insane budget bill passes, the next day the America Party will be created. Our country needs an alternative to the Democratic-Republican one-party system so that people actually have a VOTE.”
Trump immediately lashed out at Musk via Truth Social: “Elon may get more subsidies than anyone in history by far, and without subsidies Elon would probably have to close his business and go back home to South Africa. No more rocket launches, satellites, or electric car production, and our country would save a FORTUNE. Maybe we should have DOGE take a good look at this? THERE IS A LOT OF MONEY TO SAVE!!!”. Tesla shares fell 7.3 percent on the New York Stock Exchange on July 1 because of this row. Trump finally said, in response to a question, that he would look into deporting Elon. “I don’t know. We’ll have to look at that.”
Wilders pulls the plug
The coalition of PVV, VVD, NSC and BBB is a thing of the past. After he was first stripped of his ministry and had to put a large part of his election manifesto on hold, he now consciously chooses a sudden departure. The other coalition parties were not prepared to sign an amended outline agreement in order to stop the asylum crisis. Together with his asylum minister Faber, he wanted to stop the dispersal law in February, but that was not allowed. The fact that an AZC was added every 11 days under his “administration” became too much for him. After his coalition partners did not want to take stricter measures, following Germany, he gave up. Wilders wanted to stem the flow of asylum seekers with anti-immigrant actions, just like Germany and Poland . He could not accept that other countries would have a stricter asylum policy than his own and demanded in vain that his coalition partners follow him in this, even though some measures are illegal.
His message is clear: he wants to continue, the others don’t — and that will also determine his election campaign. Wilders will profile himself as the only politician who really wants to push through on migration and asylum policy. But a large part of his supporters seems to be losing confidence in the meantime, or has already dropped out. That support base is now looking in the fridge for remnants of promises that Wilders made immediately after the elections: lowering the AOW retirement age, more security of existence, abolishing the deductible in healthcare, VAT reduction, leaving the EU, no more sponsorship from Ukraine, and so on. Three months of pleading for an emergency law that ultimately, thanks to his coalition partners, never came about.
According to Wilders, the association agreement between the EU and Ukraine should be shredded — not put in the fridge. But of course he knew for a long time that a Nexit or stopping EU support for Ukraine would be legally and politically unfeasible within a coalition. His anti-EU slogans therefore fit better on an X-post than in a coalition agreement.
Almost all of his election promises have melted away like snow in the sun. Even his hobbyhorse, an emergency migration law, fell through after three months of wrangling. Calculations by the ministry showed that abolishing the deductible would lead to an increase in health insurance premiums of around 200 euros per year. Moreover, health care itself would become considerably more expensive, because demand would probably increase once the incentive to use less health care disappears. Wilders promised to lower the AOW retirement age, but forgot for a moment that this would cost 10 billion per year, about the same as the entire defense budget.
His voters, tired of all those empty promises, may now look to more radical alternatives such as FVD and JA21. But they will not find any solutions there either, only the same anti-EU rhetoric, wrapped in a different guise. These parties can also do nothing against the wall of EU treaties and the full deep state agenda. The remaining coalition parties are still trying to save what can be saved, but with a minority, an extra-parliamentary cabinet from which the PVV has drawn ministers and state secretaries, has little chance. The support base among voters for BBB and NSC had already dropped below a negative point. The government of President Donald Trump supports Wilders, a White House official told the international press agency AFP. They support leaders who ‘protect their sovereignty and national identity and are certainly setting a good example themselves. Foreigners from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen will no longer be allowed into the US from 9 June. At the end of October we will vote again, this time hopefully with enough votes for Wilders, then the refrigerator can go away.
The government chooses its own escape plan
In the Netherlands, citizens increasingly feel that their voice does not count. Whether it concerns flight routes, military flights, outdated low-flying exercises with helicopters, or an ammunition depot in your backyard — the government chooses its course, and the people are not allowed to interfere and must simply accept it. ILT conveniently looked the other way and did not impose fines on Schiphol, which in 2023 already caused 20% more noise pollution in certain areas, such as Uithoorn.
The judge recently made short work of Schiphol’s nature permit. It turned out to be legally unsound and mainly based on wishful thinking. The government had already made do with a goat path to keep the number of flights going, or even increase them, but that has now been cut off. For the residents, this is a long-awaited recognition: they have been the victims of nuisance for years, while their concerns were brushed aside with silent models and PR talk.
Still, the lesson has not yet been learned. A similar pattern is playing out in Lelystad. What was once supposed to be a holiday hub airport is now in danger of becoming a military airport — possibly with F-35 fighter jets. Here too, the involvement of residents seems more of a side issue than a starting point. The motivation? “National interest.” And so there will surely be another legal backdoor, disguised as policy logic.
In Staphorst too, the expansion of an ammunition depot has been pushed through without being asked, despite objections from residents about safety, noise and environmental damage. The concerns were legitimate, but the procedures proved stronger than the protest. And so this community is also being inconvenienced — neatly ticked off, because formally arranged.
A government that prefers to follow its own path than really listen, but the people are used to that by now. That organizes participation but does not grant influence. And that only takes action when the judge forces it to a standstill.
Perhaps that is the most ironic thing of all: without a legal system, citizens are simply no longer heard or taken seriously these days.
From panic-mongering to war-mongering: how fear-mongering became policy
We live in a time when fear has become a policy tool. Every day we are confronted with reports of war threats, food parcels, bunkers and emergency scenarios. The latest headline on MSN is “Russia warns Donald Trump of World War III”. Based on a comment on X by Russian Medvedev who wrote: “As for Trump’s words about Putin ‘playing with fire’ and ‘bad things’ happening to Russia. I know of only one REALLY BAD thing: World War III. I hope Trump understands this!”
Politicians and media actively contribute to war rhetoric. War language is socially acceptable again. The call for higher defense budgets sounds self-evident. Everything must give way to security – but security for what? Against whom? And for what purpose? The real questions remain unanswered. Because as long as we are afraid, we ask fewer difficult questions.
The threat of nuclear war, for example, has been around since the 1950s. Yet that threat has led to restraint and diplomacy. It is not bunkers or food supplies that have protected us since the Cold War, but the realization that total destruction benefits no one. That is still true. And conventional wars, such as we are now seeing in Ukraine, show above all how slow and bloody such conflicts are – despite all the modern technology.
Yet this reality is ignored in the public debate. Instead, we are sucked into a climate of constant readiness. But real safety is not in weapons or shelters. Real safety is knowing that you have a home, work, care, and a society that will not fall apart at the first shock wave. It is the confidence that your neighbors will be there if things go wrong – not that you have a bunker in your garden.
It is worrying how quickly and easily the term “World War III” is used, sometimes even as a rhetorical weapon, without the full implications of what it means. History teaches us that major conflicts often do not start with a direct, open declaration of war, but with a gradual escalation of tensions, misunderstandings, provocations and overestimation of one’s own capabilities or underestimation of the other.
The rhetoric we are seeing now – the harsh statements, the demonization of the other side, the constant threat of escalation (whether or not disguised as warnings) – contributes to a climate in which the threshold for actual confrontation can be lowered. It creates an “us versus them” mentality that ignores the complexity of international relations and paves the way for more extreme positions.
The war in Ukraine will not end until NATO withdraws its troops from the Baltic states, a senior Russian official has warned. Sergei Ryabkov, the Russian deputy foreign minister responsible for relations with the US, non-proliferation and arms control, made the remarks in an interview with the state news agency Tass. However, the political commitment to Ukraine’s future NATO membership remains unchanged, even if it is not explicitly mentioned in the final communiqué of the upcoming summit in The Hague, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte told a journalist on June 9 after his lecture at the British think tank Chatham House.
The question is whether those who use this rhetoric, or those who benefit financially from it, sleep well at night and the frustration is an indictment of those who may underestimate the dangers, or worse, who deliberately contribute to the tensions for their own gain.
Most people long for stability and peace, and the constant threat and “war rhetoric” is exhausting and frightening. If we continue to invest in fear, we will reap distrust. And then one day there may be something to defend – but no one will want it anymore.
War mongering more important than future for young people
The desire for war clashes quite a bit with the nitrogen regulations, which for many Dutch people are the insurmountable stumbling block to being able to buy or rent a house. While young people have been running into a wall for years due to the acute housing shortage, the same nitrogen problem suddenly no longer applies when it comes to military expansions. The cabinet wants to, in extreme cases, even force people to move to make room for Defense. The cabinet unanimously decided that this could be the ultimate consequence.
For young people who dream of their own place, the nitrogen policy is a bitter reality. Construction projects are halted, new construction is barely getting off the ground, and the waiting lists for affordable housing are growing by the day. This group in particular is saddled with restrictions that the government strictly enforces, because “we have to make things more sustainable” and “protect nature”
But as soon as the army wants to build new barracks, munitions complexes or wants to practice more with helicopters, the rules suddenly appear to be flexible. There is a glaring double standard here: ordinary citizens, young families, starters are being held back by strict nitrogen regulations, while Defence does not have to pay any attention to those same regulations. They are given free rein — as if building for our ‘safety’ is more important than building a future for our young people.
Minister Wiersma says that the cabinet is “carefully considering.” In practice, this mainly means that the nitrogen policy is pushed aside as soon as Secretary General Rutte has wishes. A political deep state choice that shamelessly pits the interests of most Dutch people against the wishes of a powerful defense lobby. How can a young adult maintain confidence in a government that stops construction for them, but bends or breaks the rules for military expansions? This is not a dilemma, this is pure inequality and political arbitrariness. What is freedom worth if you don’t have a roof over your head and can’t start a family?
While young people and entrepreneurs are restricted in their mobility and work by zero-emission zones, Defence is quietly expanding with tanks, helicopters and heavy vehicles that actually increase nitrogen and CO₂ emissions. The government forces citizens to comply with strict environmental regulations, but effortlessly sets them aside as soon as military interests are at stake. This double standard not only undermines confidence in climate and nitrogen policy, but also makes it clear that ‘sustainability’ mainly applies to the people and not to those in power.
Rules must apply to everyone — farmers, starters and Defense. National security must never be a free pass to make young people wait any longer. The ease with which nitrogen rules are ignored for military purposes is not only unjust, it is a slap in the face of all young people who have been waiting for years for a home. If we continue like this, we are not building a future, but a ‘free’ society that is letting young people down.
AI, smarter, faster, but certainly not more human
Artificial intelligence is developing at a rapid pace. What seemed like science fiction yesterday is reality today: AI writes texts, generates images, makes medical diagnoses and even controls traffic. But what will this growth mean for our society in five years? A critical look is necessary. One of the biggest concerns is the impact of AI on the labour market. Automation no longer only threatens factory jobs, but especially white-collar professions such as lawyers, teachers and even programmers. In five years, many tasks that are currently done by people will be performed more efficiently by algorithms. This leads to higher productivity, but also to social inequality if good safety nets are not set up.
AI models can create lifelike videos, fake news, and convincing deepfakes. What is worrying today will become an information war in five years. Democratic processes are at risk when citizens can no longer trust what is real or fake. Without strong regulation and transparency in AI systems, our public sphere will be under pressure. The development of advanced AI is now largely in the hands of a few large companies. If this continues, they will determine who gets access to knowledge, innovation, and power. In five years, this could lead to a digital oligarchy, with no democratic control.
AI is efficient, but it has no ethics, empathy or accountability. The more we depend on systems to guide our choices – from who gets a mortgage to who gets a job interview – the greater the risk that we will lose sight of our human values and AI will go too far.
AI offers immense opportunities, but also real threats. The next five years will be crucial. We need transparency, ethical frameworks and democratic control to prevent AI from becoming not only smarter, but also more dangerous. The future is not yet technologically determined, but human-driven – if we act now, disaster can be averted.
Rent freeze fails
The rent freeze for 2025 and 2026, a glimmer of hope for the 2.4 million Dutch tenants, has been definitively taken off the table. Minister Mona Keijzer’s bill failed in a swamp of political disagreement, time pressure and the almighty lobby of housing corporations . What remains is a bitter aftertaste: tenants are once again saddled with increases of up to 5% in social housing and 7.7% in mid-range rent, while the promised affordability evaporates. This is not only a broken promise, but a slap in the face for everyone who struggles to make ends meet.
Let’s be honest: the arguments against the rent freeze are not nonsense. Housing corporations, such as Aedes, are screaming bloody murder that a freeze will destroy their investments in new construction and sustainability. With an estimated shortage of 453,000 homes in 2027 and sky-high costs for insulation and heat pumps, they have a point. But why does the solution always have to be at the expense of the tenant? The 350,000 social tenants with private landlords, who are already often in poorly maintained homes, are now not getting any relief. Legal inequality? Check.
Politicians point fingers at each other. VVD and NSC torpedoed the plan, PvdA-GroenLinks only wanted to participate if corporations received full compensation, and the deadline of June 30, 2025 proved to be an insurmountable hurdle. In the meantime, rent allowance remains a band-aid on an open wound: inadequate and far too bureaucratic. Alternatives, such as targeted subsidies for low incomes or abolishing corporate tax for corporations, are mentioned, but remain stuck in non-committal talk. The result? Tenants see their expenses rise, while the housing shortage continues unabated.
Another promise broken. And that is the core: while inflation gnaws and energy prices falter, tenants are once again the ones who suffer. The government seems blind to the reality of tight wallets.
It is time for a wake-up call. Affordable housing is not a luxury, but a right. Time for a rent ceiling for the lowest incomes, a higher rent allowance, or a stop to the excessive profits of private landlords – it is possible, if the will is there. But as long as politics keeps ping-ponging and corporations declare their profit model sacred, the tenant will be left empty-handed.
The empty shell of 100,000 homes
The promise of 100,000 homes per year, triumphantly proclaimed in the main outline agreement, turns out to be an empty wish balloon. The number of building permits issued for homes fell again in the first quarter of 2025. Mona Keijzer has set aside an additional €7.5 billion, made deals during the Housing Summit and submitted bills to strengthen control. But these are band-aids on a festering wound. The rent freeze, a choice of her own coalition with a proud Wilders in the lead role, not only undermines her credibility, but also that of the current cabinet. How can you promise affordability for tenants and at the same time frustrate the construction of affordable homes?
It is a classic case of political balloons and empty promises and the citizen pays the price. In May 2025, with the construction holidays approaching, we will be hobbling towards 18,000-22,000 homes – barely 18-22% of the promised number. The forecasts for the whole of 2025 are at most 65,000-70,000 homes. Minister Mona Keijzer (BBB) is working up a sweat, from Woontop to billions in investments and a bill to freeze social rents only for housing corporations and not for private landlords. The rent freeze for 2025-2026 is stifling corporations, who will build tens of thousands fewer affordable homes as a result. Nitrogen, high costs and slow procedures do the rest. This election promise is yet another fairy tale that the voters were told. Starters and families pay the price, while Wilders proudly presents his “gift”. Time for a cabinet with less attention to full shells for warfare and fewer empty shells for the citizen.
-
The government is aiming for 100,000 new homes per year, but the figures tell a different story. In 2022 and 2023, an average of 90,000 homes were built per year, but in 2024 this dropped to 82,000, according to Statistics Netherlands. A further drop to 65,000-70,000 homes is expected for 2025, partly due to the rent freeze and other obstacles. Halfway through 2025, with the construction holidays approaching, the counter is at only 18,000-22,000 homes – less than a quarter of the annual target
-
The rent freeze for social housing, laid down in the Spring Memorandum, should help tenants. But housing corporations, such as Holland Rijnland Wonen, are seeing their investment capacity shrink. Aedes warns that this will mean that 180,000 planned homes will not be built. Some corporations are even considering legal action to challenge the measure.
-
Mona Keijzer has released an additional €7.5 billion – €5 billion for housing construction and €2.5 billion for infrastructure – on top of the previous €12.5 billion. However, the question remains whether this is enough to catch up, especially now that the rent freeze is limiting the impact of corporations.
- Mona Keijzer is working on a bill to freeze social rents only for housing associations and not for private landlords
- Mona Keijzer wants to abolish the corporate tax for housing associations to compensate them.
The Power Struggle at Harley-Davidson
Harley-Davidson’s annual shareholders meeting this year was the arena for a heated battle between the iconic motorcycle company and investment firm H Partners. The survival of CEO Jochen Zeitz and board members Norman Thomas Linebarger and Sara Levinson at the top of the company was at stake. H Partners, which holds a 9% stake, waged a fierce campaign to oust the executives, arguing that Harley-Davidson is in a downward spiral under their leadership. But was this a legitimate call for change, or a vulgar power grab?
Things have not improved at Harley-Davidson since it joined forces with H Partners in 2022, when Jared Dourdeville joined the board on behalf of the investor. Revenue is shrinking, sales are falling, and Project LiveWire, its electric motorcycle division, is an unmitigated flop. In the first quarter of 2025, only 33 electric motorcycles were sold globally, down from 117 a year earlier, with a loss of $20.7 million. On freetheeagle.com there is even talk of a $1.8 billion loss of value under Zeitz’s reign. H Partners blames the board and tried to change course with its own CEO candidate. When that did not get any support, Dourdeville resigned from the board and H Partners started a mudslinging campaign, accusing Harley-Davidson of mismanagement.
Harley-Davidson hit back in SEC filings, dismissing H Partners’ claims as misleading and calling on shareholders to support the entire board. According to the company, H Partners is undermining the process of finding a new CEO – especially poignant since Zeitz has already announced his retirement in 2025. Harley-Davidson paints H Partners as an opportunistic investor focused solely on self-interest at the expense of shareholders.
The climax came at the shareholder meeting, where voters could vote to keep the directors on or abstain. A majority of more than 50% was needed to keep Zeitz, Linebarger and Levinson in the saddle. It was a close race, with Zeitz narrowly getting 52%, while Linebarger and Levinson each scored around 60%. A victory for the board, but one that left a bitter taste in the mouth. The thin margins forced Harley-Davidson to accelerate its search for new executives for 2026.
H Partners’ coup attempt may have failed, but its criticism hits a sore spot. Harley-Davidson is grappling with a shrinking market and an electric dream that looks more like a nightmare . At the same time, its aggressive approach raises questions about its motives: Are they trying to save the company or just protect their own investment? Shares of Harley, worth $3 billion, have fallen 31% in the past year as the company struggles to appeal to new generations of riders. Harley shares fell to $24.92.
The Unseen Burdens for the Self-Employed in the Taxi Industry
The transition from the BCT to the new CDT system threatens to become a financial disaster for independent taxi drivers . While larger companies are likely to profit from the changes, the self-employed in the street taxi seem to be unfairly left out in the cold. The obligation to invest in new equipment of between €3000 and €3500 could mean the end for small entrepreneurs. Without a transitional arrangement or compensation, many self-employed people cannot afford the necessary investment.
Monthly subscription costs of €30–€50 and the loss of capital due to the obsolescence of the old BCT systems make the picture even bleaker. The question then arises: why is there so little lobbying for this group by the KNV, which represents the interests of the transport sector? The interests of self-employed people are often overshadowed by those of larger companies, which can more easily bear the costs and also have more influence within the organization.
Without a strong lobby for independent entrepreneurs , the current course seems to make small-scale taxis disappear. If the policy and lobby climate does not change quickly, this financial pressure could well be the end of the independents in the taxi sector. The government, the KNV and other stakeholders should pay more attention to the unrealistic financial burdens that now threaten to hit the independents.
Time is running out: it is high time that the interests of the self-employed are taken seriously, before this group disappears from the streets for good.
Step by step a war is being messed up
In many Western countries, including the Netherlands, discontent is growing that governments are dragging countries into a war with Russia without a clear mandate, while Moscow has repeatedly warned that Western troops and long-range weapons in Ukraine are a red line, increasing the risk of escalation. Since 2014, and especially after 2022, Western support for Ukraine has expanded from financial and humanitarian aid to advanced weapons (tanks, F-16s, long-range missiles) and now discussions about troop deployment, such as the Franco-British plans for a “guarantor force.”
According to Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova, the West is directly and indirectly involved in Ukrainian “terrorist attacks” on civilian targets in Russia by blowing up two railway bridges in Russia. At least seven people were killed and dozens injured, including two children, when a highway bridge over a passenger train in Bryansk was blown up. Zakharova said the West supplied weapons and gave target coordinates.
Officials from Ukraine and allies from the US, UK, France and Germany met in London on April 24, a week in which a peace proposal was being drawn up with an Article 5-like agreement that Washington would support. Zelenskyy’s announcement and call for “protection that reflects the NATO pact and Article 5” and the proposed coalition of countries for rapid intervention could be seen as a sliding scale toward direct confrontation with Russia, especially if troops are deployed.
There is a major lack of transparency or democratic control, with decisions on aid to Ukraine being made behind the scenes by Deep State elites. Mark Rutte, NATO Secretary General since October 2024, is a central figure in the Western response to the Ukraine conflict. As former Prime Minister of the Netherlands (2010-2024), Rutte was known for his pragmatic, consensus-driven approach, but also for his staunchly pro-Western and anti-Russian stance, especially after the MH17 disaster in 2014, in which Russia was held responsible. He played a key role in strengthening NATO’s eastern flank (e.g. more troops in Lithuania) and coordinating arms shipments to Ukraine, such as Dutch F-16s and Patriot systems. His nickname “Teflon Mark” reflects his ability to survive political controversies, making him an effective, but sometimes elusive, player.
Since taking office, Rutte has further pushed NATO’s support for Ukraine as he seeks to shore up unity among the 32 member states. He has advocated a “war economy” to scale up arms production and continue supporting Ukraine, including at a NATO summit in December 2024, where he urged an additional €40 billion in aid. Rutte supports Franco-British plans for a guarantor force, but stresses that this is not a NATO operation, so as not to directly provoke Russia. He said in March 2025: “We must give Ukraine all the means to defend itself, but NATO is not a party to this conflict.” Apparently, this does not apply to the EU. Rutte’s role as a mediator makes him a central figure in persuading reluctant countries (such as Germany or Italy) to provide more support, potentially contributing to escalation. His continued public and behind-the-scenes efforts to integrate Ukraine into NATO and his advocacy of tough sanctions against Russia can be seen as fueling a confrontational course.
The Netherlands remains a major arms supplier to Ukraine, and Rutte’s influence as a former prime minister could reinforce this line behind the scenes, which some critics see as dragging the Netherlands into a broader conflict. And Rutte is not the only “pacemaker.” Leaders like Macron, Starmer, and Biden/Trump have direct influence on troop and weapons decisions. The move from sanctions to weapons to possible troops (such as the proposed 20,000-man guarantee force) shows a pattern of increasing involvement. While some argue that Western support is necessary to protect Ukraine’s sovereignty and deter Russia, this is more hot air. Without troops or guarantees, a weak response could embolden Russia to move further, possibly towards NATO countries such as Poland or the Baltic states. If it were up to outgoing Defense Minister Ruben Brekelmans, a munitions factory would soon be built in the Netherlands.
In this way, we are being “step by step pushed into a war that is not ours” and as the icing on the cake we are allowed to contribute 5% to NATO. The foreign ministers of the NATO countries met for the last time on May 15 in Antalya, Turkey, to discuss the 5 percent norm enforced by Trump. Countries have little choice, the Americans are not willing to discuss less than five percent. Countries such as Spain, Italy and Belgium are already struggling to meet the current norm of 2 percent. Five percent is unachievable for them, but Rutte wants to increase air defense fivefold and purchase thousands of extra tanks and armored vehicles. According to him, millions more artillery shells are also needed. NATO is also said to be in need of twice as many military transport resources and other supporting matters.
A Russian memorandum now calls for recognition of the territories of Crimea, Donetsk, Zaporizhia, Luhansk and Kherson as Russian territory. It also calls for new elections to be held in Ukraine. As a third demand, Russia asks Kiev to reduce its army to such an extent that it is no longer seen as a threat to the Kremlin. Neither the US nor the EU were part of the Russian demands and there appears to be no serious threat of war.
Elon Musk bows to terror
Elon Musk , the entrepreneur who made waves with groundbreaking electric cars and rockets to Mars, is back on the ground. His Tesla empire, once a symbol of progress and sustainability, is reeling under a storm of boycotts, arson and stock market crashes. With his political ambitions and desire for austerity, Musk has turned half the world against him. After Musk emerged as Donald Trump’s right-hand man, as an advisor and leader of the DOGE ministry, he was suddenly no longer the heroic, eccentric tech guru, but a political crowbar. His fortune melted like snow in the sun: on March 6, 2025, he lost 8.8 billion dollars in one day, causing his net worth to shrink to a “meager” 342 billion. Tesla’s share price plummeted, and Musk’s crown jewel became a pariah on the international market. The Vancouver International Auto Show, which opened on March 19, saw Tesla thrown out for “safety risks.”
Tesla has become the target of global disgust, anger and aggression. In cities like Las Vegas, Massachusetts, France and Rome, Teslas have gone up in flames, sometimes under fire. The FBI has labeled these incidents as “domestic terrorism.” In New Orleans, the Cybertruck needed a police escort, and in Colorado, an arsonist is now facing 20 years in prison. Musk presents himself as a political chameleon, describing himself as “half-Democrat, half-Republican” and “in the middle of the spectrum.” But at X, he praised the far-right AfD as “Germany’s savior,” a statement that hit like a bombshell in Europe.
In Poland, Minister Sławomir Nitras called for a Tesla boycott after Musk’s World War II comments, in which he downplayed the focus on Nazi guilt with a casual “children are not responsible for their great-grandparents.” A speech salute, interpreted by critics as a “Sieg Heil,” haunts him to this day.
The consequences have been disastrous. In Europe, Tesla’s market share has plummeted, with Germany seeing a 71% drop in sales, Norway, France and Spain each around 44%. Globally, Tesla sold 13% fewer cars in the first quarter of 2025, with revenues down 9% to $19.3 billion and net profit plummeting 71% to $409 million. In the U.S., there are 14,000 used Teslas for sale, and a Dutch study found that 30% of owners want to sell their cars, largely because of Musk’s toxic reputation.
Driving a Tesla these days isn’t a statement of sustainability, it’s a political flag you’re waving—and that flag is on fire. Under immense pressure, Musk has announced he will “significantly” reduce his DOGE duties starting in May to refocus on Tesla. One thing is for sure: Musk’s political sidestep has done Tesla significant financial damage. As he tries to pick up the pieces, shareholders are waiting in suspense to see if things will ever get better. Terror seems to have finally won out over reality.
A ticking time bomb among NATO leaders
C2000 is struggling with malfunctions, overload and coverage gaps. During New Year’s Eve 2024, agents had to remove their hearing protection to communicate via mobile phones – an absurd emergency measure. A malfunction in August 2024, caused by the ancient defence network NAFIN, even shut down DigiD and the Coast Guard. Ambulances, trauma helicopters and control rooms are often in the dark, resulting in life-threatening situations. A whistleblower even called the current C2000, renewed in 2020, worse than its predecessor. The General Audit Office has been warning about cost overruns and poor coverage since 2003, such as during tests in Amsterdam. Fire brigades already resorted to other walkie-talkies in 2007 due to the unreliable TDMA technology.
The Labour Inspectorate raised the alarm in September 2023 due to a violation of the Working Conditions Act. After a half-hearted response from the police, a penalty of €325,000 followed in November 2024, possibly increasing to €975,000.
The failure of C2000 is no surprise. As early as 2012, a parliamentary inquiry into ICT failures, including C2000, pointed to structural mismanagement. Protocols to prevent overload fail in the event of calamities, when the police and fire brigade overload the same mast. The old analogue backup system was scrapped due to costs, leaving emergency services vulnerable. A EenVandaag survey among 1,148 police officers confirms the fear: C2000 invariably fails at major events. A watertight communication system is essential for the NATO summit . Decades of cost overruns, mismanagement and postponements have turned C2000 into a ticking time bomb. Let us hope that C2000 will hold up, otherwise geopolitical and reputational damage threatens and the Netherlands will be made a fool of. Now let us hope that the Russians leave the summit alone and concentrate on Ukraine. Trump has indicated that he will attend the summit.
Omtzigt’s limit has been reached
The departure of Pieter Omtzigt exposes the political unwillingness to make desired and much-needed structural financial policy changes. With the departure of Pieter Omtzigt, The Hague loses a politician with in-depth knowledge of the dossier and a strong moral compass. His departure marks a deeper crisis of governance. Omtzigt ran into a political reality in which structural problems are not solved, but are systematically ignored and postponed. During the formation of the cabinet, Omtzigt was presented with a financial overview that went beyond regular budget deficits. The document was full of ‘ pm-posts ‘ – placeholders for expenditure that had not yet been calculated – and billions in outstanding state guarantees.
At the same time, obligations are piling up, such as compensation for the allowance parents, damages in Groningen, the nitrogen problem, climate obligations, the Box 3 levies and a greatly increased NATO contribution. In addition, there is the structural maintenance of infrastructure – bridges, viaducts, waterways – for which TNO foresees an investment of 260 billion euros until 2100. Add to that the rising costs for refugee reception, absorbing import duties and the looming trade war. Pieters’ proposal to set up an independent budgetary institute, based on the American model, did not receive political support for this. The analysis of the Council of State endorses this concern. It warned that the government is “structurally driving on the hard shoulder” and does not provide insight into long-term obligations.
However, no structural coverage of existing problems is chosen. Instead, funds such as the Climate Fund and pension funds are used for military expenditure. The defense budget is growing rapidly, partly due to the influence of Mark Rutte’s new role in NATO leadership. At the same time, nitrogen regulations are being relaxed for military projects, while for years these same regulations served as an immovable obstacle to much-needed housing construction. Where citizens were told that “legally nothing was possible”, there suddenly appears to be room when geopolitical interests demand it. Omtzigt was confronted with a spring memorandum in which his promises for greater security of existence were replaced by tax increases. In such a context, even a persistent parliamentarian like Omtzigt ultimately concludes that structural and much-needed adjustments do not fit within the government picture and that for him it is fighting a losing battle.
Deepstate at work for the World Economic Forum
In snowy Davos, where globalist gurus gather, the World Economic Forum ( WEF ) dreams out loud of a world with tight food chains and high-tech agriculture, preferably with farmed insects as the main course. The WEF wants to say and write: ‘animal-alternative proteins’ and “A transition to healthy and sustainable diets is needed… repurposing agricultural subsidies to support the global supply of animal-alternative proteins.”
Coincidence or not, here in the Netherlands our hobby chickens suddenly get a red card from the RIVM, because they contain PFAS , perhaps, but not certainly, thanks to the eaten worms. Commercial eggs are apparently PFAS-free, just like those from Ukraine, which immediately increased exports. Now, let’s be honest: PFAS is a real problem and the RIVM has measurements that show that hobby eggs sometimes contain too much of it, but we don’t know anything for sure yet and certainly not whether there might be other causes. Advice via all possible media to just stop with that hobby. The fact that Pfa is now in almost everything you touch doesn’t seem to count.
This fits suspiciously well with the WEF’s wishes for a controlled food package and centralized systems, where every bite is traceable and the farmer obediently follows the rules. But you don’t have to wear a tin foil hat to see a pattern here. While the WEF preaches about ‘multi-stakeholder collaboration’, the deep state continues to work on the implementation’. In addition to hobby chickens, hobby farming is also discouraged almost simultaneously because it is said to be bad for the environment. However, hobby farmers do not spray their harvest with glyphosate poison like the real bears do with permission from the WEF.
Perhaps instead of giving up our hobbies, we should stop listening to prolates with an agenda that states:
“A transition to healthy and sustainable diets is needed… repurposing agricultural subsidies to support the global supply of animal-alternative proteins.”
“The time to reinstate food systems in economic policies is now” (2021).
The WEF emphasizes in reports such as the Food Action Alliance (2023): “ Global agriculture data tell us how to transform food (2024)” in order to emphasize the need for technology, scale and public-private partnerships to ensure food security and meet climate goals.
Government drops stitches on CO2
The Maxima power plant near Lelystad is the nineteenth largest CO₂ emitter in the Netherlands. The gas-fired power plant emits approximately 1 million tonnes of CO₂ annually. Nevertheless, the plant is essential: at times when there is insufficient sustainable power, two gas turbines with a total capacity of 900 megawatts ensure that the power grid remains stable. They are directly connected to TenneT’s high-voltage grid. Energy company Engie wants to operate completely climate-neutral by 2045. To achieve this, a large-scale modernisation of the Maxima power plant was started a few years ago. One of the two turbines has been running partly on hydrogen since August – a first in the Netherlands. The installation has been adapted to operate on hydrogen for up to 50%.
But the reality is less green than hoped. There is no green hydrogen available in the Flevopolder yet. The plant can technically run on hydrogen, but the fuel is completely missing. There is also no pipeline to connect the plant to the future national hydrogen network. Gasunie’s subsidiary Hynetwork is responsible for the construction of this hydrogen network, but the Flevopolder has been left out of the current plans. Concrete initiatives for connection are lacking, despite years of discussions between Gasunie and Engie. Until that infrastructure is in place, Engie is considering using so-called ‘blue hydrogen’ – extracted from natural gas, in combination with CO₂ capture. This also requires a pipeline, which does not yet exist.
Only when a connection is made, Engie hopes to be able to supply the Maxima power station entirely with self-produced green hydrogen in the long term. To this end, the company wants to build a large hydrogen factory in Eemshaven from 2030, which will have to become operational in phases. In the meantime, other sustainable initiatives are being worked on on the site around the power station. Next to the Maxima power station is a 32-megawatt solar park. In order to store that energy for moments of scarcity, Engie is building a so-called ‘battery park’.
Large battery modules are currently being built on the strip of land between the solar field and the power station, which should be operational by the end of 2025. They can supply power at full capacity for three hours. Concrete firewalls are being placed between the batteries to limit the risk of fire. The project costs around 50 million euros. Engie’s plans for sustainability are ambitious, but in practice, for the time being, it remains dependent on fossil fuels. Without infrastructure for hydrogen transport, a climate-neutral future is not yet any closer. Despite all the investments, the Maxima power station remains one of the largest CO₂ sources in the country for the time being.
Peter Gillis back to square one
No more eating sausage rolls in the Rolls and making fun of people for Peter Gillis. He is to spend 6 months in prison for his malpractices and frustrating investigations into them for five years. Peter Gillis of Massa is Kassa with his famous campsites , iconic statements may now spend a lot of days behind bars. The court in Den Bosch not only put an end to his sunny empire, but also to his decadent lifestyle. Peter was given a prison sentence of one year, of which six months were suspended, for large-scale tax fraud and on top of that his company was given a suspended fine of €250,000, and €250,000 in cash was confiscated – exit new Rolls. Other fines, such as penalty payments from municipalities (for example €1.2 million for violations at holiday park De Berckt) were already hard on Peter’s stomach. The sale of his empire failed after months and several lawsuits following a bid from a bankrupt charlatan.
For years, he and his Oostappen Group deliberately kept cash flows off the books, including by renting out chalets ‘under the table’ and making administration disappear like magic out of the blue. According to the judge, Peter was the “all-determining force” behind this creative bookkeeping, with an estimated tax evasion of at least half a million euros. His daughter Inge and ex-wife not only shared in the profits but were also given community service orders of 240 and 180 hours and suspended prison sentences of six months. Peter himself called the trial “unfair” and is considering an appeal, because he is not giving up. “I’m not a criminal, I just don’t keep strict records,” he said with a wink at the press.
Whether biting girlfriend Nicole’s back and nose was indeed criminal, will have to be proven in another trial. For now, Peter is trading his castle for a cell, but who knows: maybe he’ll write a Hatseflats! book about prison food or maybe John de Mol is interested in a new real life soap about his rehabilitation. After the verdict, SBS did announce that the new season of Massa is Kassa will be broadcast as usual from 16 May.
Failed energy transition
In The Hague, there was another huge grid failure due to grid congestion , leaving tens of thousands of households and businesses without power. Power outages can have major consequences for nursing homes or hospitals. If such a failure lasts for a really long time and there is no communication, all sorts of things can go wrong.
As many as 200,000 homes could be left without power in the future due to grid overload. Grid operators fear that peak power consumption will increase so quickly that the grid in the so-called FGU region (Flevopolder, Gelderland and Utrecht) will simply not be able to cope at times.
One of the largest windmill factories ETW went bankrupt. Fastned borrows more and more capital to keep from going under and Alfen saw its share price drop by 55% in a few months. The municipality was forced to postpone the zero emission plans by a year. For the approximately 200 data centers in the Netherlands, about 1500 of the 3,210 windmills are needed, which is about half of the total number of windmills .
The wind turbines now produce 40,000 gigawatts and must be regularly tempered to prevent grid congestion. A battery factory Nortvolt, set up with billions in subsidies, went bankrupt during its start-up. In the best case, batteries will add another day of power consumption in 2035. This already illustrates that all batteries are a drop in the ocean anyway, and as very expensive environmentally polluting products do not belong in an energy transition at all. A home battery can be useful for a private household with solar panels now that the net metering scheme is going to disappear, but it does not add anything to the national power supply.
Batteries are, by the way, completely unsuitable and too expensive for national electricity storage, they are environmentally polluting and in any case a drop in the ocean. Everything shows that the ambitions are too high and that too much was desired too quickly. Donald Trump is so far the only one who sees the catastrophe coming and withdraws his hands from everything that has to do with wind turbines, switches back to fossil fuels and withdrew from the climate agreement. However, the EU stubbornly, just like with waging war, does not want to budge and Dutch initiatives also continue to be heavily subsidized. Although the Green Deal is no longer mentioned, the government is still going full steam ahead. The grid operators have also already indicated that it will not all work and that tens of billions and at least fifteen years will be needed if the objectives are to be achieved.
New homes cannot be delivered and the billions in costs will have to be recovered from the already heavily burdened consumer. TNO calculated the effects. These are scenarios in which energy prices increase by 5, 12 or 20 percent compared to the price in mid-2024. Depending on which scenario becomes reality, TNO expects that between 550,000 and 640,000 households in the Netherlands will be faced with energy poverty in 2025. That amounts to one in fourteen households. Now that prices are rising, they expect the number of energy-poor households to increase again in 2025. Most solar panel installers and sellers have gone bankrupt one by one in the past six months and car dealers are also having a hard time. Partly due to the abolition of the netting scheme, the feed-in tariffs and the switching off of charging stations, the termination of subsidies on the purchase of cars and the increase in road tax, etc., the majority of people no longer have any confidence in the government when it comes to making their own homes more sustainable. People will no longer be fooled.
The EU thoughtlessly accelerated the energy transition to reduce import dependency on oil, gas and coal, but the question of where the mineral raw materials, mineral semi-finished products and end products for wind turbines, solar panels, batteries, electrolysers and the like should come from was not considered. Furthermore, processing of minerals and other industrial production of new energy capital goods in the EU is difficult to fit into the low-carbon regime of the Fit-for-55 policy.
The energy transition, hailed as the holy grail, has become stuck in a web of overloaded cables, delayed high-voltage stations and bureaucratic chaos in the Netherlands. The electricity grid, the backbone of our green ambitions, is collapsing under its own weight. More than 20,000 applicants are waiting for a power connection, while new-build homes in Wognum are without electricity and companies in North Brabant and South Holland have been queuing for years. This is not an incident, but a structural failure that is sabotaging housing construction, industry and the energy transition itself.
Grid operator TenneT, responsible for the high-voltage grid, is postponing expansion plans in Gelderland, Utrecht and Flevoland from 2029 to 2033 – possibly even 2035. A new high-voltage substation in Utrecht-Noord? Unfeasible due to local objections and a densely populated region. In South Holland, the grid capacity is completely used up, with waiting times of up to ten years. Stedin, another grid operator, is deploying emergency generators during peak periods such as Christmas 2024 – a plaster on an open wound. Even in The Hague, the political heart of the Netherlands, civil servants have to charge their electric cars outside rush hour and city transport company HTM is investigating how tram electricity can be stored in batteries. These are not futuristic solutions, but desperate measures.
Decades of underinvestment in the grid, combined with an explosive growth in power demand due to electrification – think heat pumps, charging stations and data centres – have left us with cables that are too thin and too few distribution stations. TenneT and Stedin are talking about a doubling, sometimes even tripling of grid capacity, but that will take until 2033, if not longer. Until then, we will have to make do with ‘flex capacity’: a euphemism for forcing large consumers to limit their power consumption. Companies, governments and even ministries now have to coordinate among themselves who turns on the coffee machines and when.
The economic damage is immense: 10 to 40 billion euros annually due to grid congestion. Solar and wind farms, the showpieces of the energy transition, are increasingly being shut down because the grid cannot handle their power. In 2024, there were 532 hours with negative electricity prices, with producers paying money to get rid of their energy. This not only undermines their business model, but also the support for sustainable energy. In the meantime, grid rates are rising due to 2.5 billion euros in expansion costs, which further erodes the competitive position of Dutch industry.
The government is trying to limit the damage with guarantees for TenneT and accelerated procedures, but these are stopgap measures. The promised 90 billion euros in investments up to 2030, increasing to 200 billion in 2040, sounds impressive, but comes too late. A ‘flexible backstop’ to temporarily switch off smart devices in the event of overload? That is treating the symptoms, not the solution. And while military projects are given priority through a special law, citizens and companies are left behind in line.
The energy transition is not a success story, but a warning. Green ideals are great, but without a robust and future-proof grid they remain castles in the air. For years, the Netherlands has turned a blind eye to the practical reality of electrification. Now we are paying the price: windmills that are not working, waiting lists for electricity and a society that is being rationed. It is time to stop dreaming and start building – before the lights really go out.
Investing for beginners
The Netherlands Authority for the Financial Markets (AFM) imposed a fine of 1.6 million euros on Bux because the company paid finfluencers, among other things, to bring in customers. This fine was imposed on 18 November 2024, before the takeover by ABN AMRO. The company used a ‘friends program’ and an ‘affiliate program’ to recruit new customers. Through the friends program, existing customers received a ‘free share’ – in practice, Bux deposited money into the customer’s account to buy a share – for bringing in a new customer. Bux determined which share was purchased and opted for shares with high margins. According to Bux, the average value of these shares was between 3 and 15 euros, with peaks of up to 200 euros. This attracted almost 21,000 new customers in 2022. In the affiliate program, Bux worked with finfluencers and comparison websites via affiliate marketing agencies, who used banners and tracking links to refer visitors to Bux. Visitors who registered were counted as leads, for which the marketing agency was paid – in an example case, a finfluencer made 30 euros from this.
If the entire process was completed and an investment account was opened, the visitor became a new customer. A total of 5,635 new customers were recruited through this program in 2022, of which 3,251 via finfluencers and 2,384 via comparison websites. In December 2021, the AFM pointed out that the ban on commission also applies to fees paid to finfluencers. The violations came to light earlier that year during an AFM investigation, in which companies had to complete a questionnaire. Bux announced that it had ended the referral fees in April 2023 and that ABN AMRO was aware of the discussion with the AFM when it took over in December 2023. Bux director Yorick Naeff claimed that the fees came from his own pocket and that customers had not been disadvantaged. Naeff told news agency ANP that the case had been brought before the court, but that the court saw no reason to withdraw the fine. According to Naeff, the scope of the commission ban is unclear, with the Netherlands appearing to be stricter than other countries. Bux is considering a substantive procedure.
Strictly confidential
The CIA-Mossad relationship dates back to the Cold War, with shared interests in the Middle East, counterintelligence, and counterterrorism . This is no secret: the US and Israel have been exchanging intelligence for decades, often through formal channels such as the “Five Eyes” extension or bilateral agreements. Operations such as the sharing of information on Soviet espionage or Iran’s nuclear program are well-known. The CIA-Mossad connection is real and old. The theory that Epstein’s escapes were intended to blackmail high-level figures like Clinton and Trump in addition to his own gratification would explain that the CIA and Mossad worked together to protect Epstein. Epstein, Wexner, Dershowitz all played key roles. Epstein, who may have been a Mossad agent running an intelligence operation to gather compromising material, and his Jewish background, connections to figures like Leslie Wexner (also Jewish), and the alleged Mossad link via Robert Maxwell (Ghislaine’s father) raise concerns.
Epstein’s homes (Palm Beach, Manhattan, Little Saint James) were equipped with cameras and provided photos, videos, and testimonies—ideal for blackmail. The Mossad could use this to influence Western elites, a tactic they have historically used (e.g., honeypot operations). Ari Ben-Menashe’s claim that Epstein and Maxwell were working for Israel is striking. Epstein’s unexplained wealth and access to power suggests an ulterior sponsor, possibly a state like Israel. The “clients”—high-profile figures like Bill Clinton, Donald Trump, Prince Andrew, and others—were lured to Epstein’s parties, filmed, and then blackmailed. Epstein and Maxwell provided an environment of temptation (sex, luxury, exclusivity), knowing that participation would make them vulnerable.
The blackmail could have been political (voting), financial (donations), or personal (silence). Bill Clinton flew on Epstein’s jet 26 times between 2001 and 2003, and his name appears 50+ times in the Giuffre documents. Trump’s friendship and flight log entries are well known, as is Prince Andrew’s settlement with Giuffre. Michael Wolff’s claim about photos of Trump with topless women at Epstein’s pool hints at taped evidence. The Wall Street Journal reported in May 2023 that Epstein was blackmailing Gates over an affair, leading to his divorce.
Clinton’s ties to Epstein are well-documented: frequent flights, visits to Epstein’s homes, and mentions in court documents. Virginia Giuffre tried to subpoena him as a witness against Maxwell in 2015, suggesting he knew more. He denies abuse but has admitted to using Epstein’s jet “for foundation work.” If Epstein had footage of Clinton in compromising situations, it may have influenced his post-presidential (1993-2001) policy choices, such as keeping quiet about Epstein or supporting certain policies. There is no direct evidence that Clinton was blackmailed, but his closeness and later aloofness are consistent with someone who was reluctant to take risks. Israel benefited from influence over an ex-president; Clinton’s Middle East policy (the Oslo Accords) was crucial to their security.
Blackmail would be a way to control his later actions. If the Mossad ran Epstein to blackmail elites, the secret files not only contain criminal names but also intelligence operations that Israel and the US want to hide. If Epstein’s operation was indeed for Israeli intelligence, a full “client list” (with evidence of blackmail) would expose their network and methods. This would force the US to respond, damaging the alliance. Clinton, Trump, and others have a vested interest in silence. Their names in filtered form (flight logs, not photos) are embarrassing enough, but hard evidence would destroy careers or legacies. Patel and Bongino may be playing a double game: Trump’s agenda (protection) and geopolitical stability (Mossad/CIA deals). This would explain why Bondi is demanding more but only getting old stuff. State Attorney Acosta’s hint of Secret Service involvement supports that Epstein had an intelligence role, possibly Mossad, and Clinton’s case shows how blackmail worked.
Patel and Bongino’s filtered release protects both sides: Trump and other “victims” are spared, while Mossad operations remain hidden. The Jewish aspect (Epstein, Wexner) is present, but not exclusively – it’s about power, not race. Donald Trump was forced by court order to release the lists, and he did so not voluntarily or out of transparency. In January 2024, New York City Judge Loretta Preska ordered the release of 943 pages from the 2015 Virginia Giuffre-Maxwell case, which listed more than 170 names of Epstein connections. This was a civil case, not an order to the Trump administration, but it raised public expectations that he would release more as president in 2025. During his campaign, Trump did indeed promise to declassify the Epstein files, along with the JFK and MLK documents. Trump may have seen this as a false flag opportunity; shout loudly about openness, but then come up with old, blacked-out lists (contacts, flight logs). It fits a political strategy: control the narrative, set expectations, and deliver just enough to appease critics without doing real damage. Patel and Bongino, as loyalists, could play a role in this by filtering the FBI output. So far, it seems to be working. The “Phase 1” release was an anticlimax – no “client list” of perpetrators, just familiar names with no new evidence. Trump’s base complains, but largely accepts it as “deep state” sabotage, not his failure.
Opponents are seizing on it, but without hard ammunition, it remains rhetoric. For now, it holds. Bondi’s demand for more documents failed to produce a major breakthrough, suggesting that Patel and Bongino remain in control or that the FBI is creating internal roadblocks. Public attention is shifting rapidly, and without a leak or new trial, Trump remains untouched. If “Phase 2” fails to materialize or is equally thin, confidence in Patel and Bongino—and indirectly Trump—could wane. Like Clinton, Trump has a pattern of denial, half-truths, and posturing. His Epstein connections—26 flights, 50+ Giuffre citations—make him a suspect, but he remains silent. No testimony, no confession, only denials through spokespeople. Clinton’s frequent trips with Epstein (2001-2003) and Giuffre’s attempt to subpoena him (2015) suggest he knows more. If Epstein was blackmailing him—e.g., with footage—that would explain his silence. His silence may be self-protective, knowing that Trump’s filtered release spares him for now.
Hillary Clinton has campaigned and spoken on behalf of the family since then, including during the 2024 election. Her loyalty is striking, especially after Lewinsky and now Epstein. Is it forgiveness, political calculation, or a shared interest in protecting Bill’s secrets? She steers clear of Epstein commentary. If Epstein was indeed running a Mossad operation, Clinton and Trump were both targets for blackmail. Trump’s “false flag” would then protect not only himself, but Clinton and others—and, indirectly, Israel’s interests. Acosta’s hint (“intelligence”) fits here: the 2008 deal spared a network, not just Epstein. Epstein, Wexner, and Dershowitz as Jewish figures at the core may feed this narrative, but Clinton (not Jewish) as the victim shows that it was about power, not race. The Mossad would blackmail anyone, regardless of race. Trump’s strategy—promise and deliver—seems smart: the judge forced openness, he played along, but kept it superficial. Clinton, with his “cigar lie” past, stays in the background, perhaps knowing that Trump’s filter protects him, too. Hillary’s role as a front woman is notable.
It holds now, but a leak, a lawsuit, or public pressure could shatter it. The term “deep state” is often given a modern connotation, but the idea of hidden forces—intelligence agencies, elites, bureaucracies—operating behind the scenes goes back to at least the Cold War. Think CIA operations like MKUltra or the Mossad’s tacit influence on Western politics. Epstein’s case feels like a contemporary chapter: Acosta’s hint in 2008, the filtered release in 2025—it feels like the same game, different players. Trump and Clinton both seem caught in this web. Trump’s “false flag”—promising to dismantle the deep state but delivering only a superficial show—keeps the system intact. Clinton’s silence and Hillary’s front-row role suggest they’re in on the act, whether consciously or by force. The deep state remains deep because it’s not about individuals, but a self-protective mechanism. Even with figures like Patel and Bongino shouting anti-establishment, the core is not touched.
Epstein’s files —whether they’re Mossad, CIA, or pure elite corruption—remain buried because the system always repairs itself. If the Mossad was indeed behind Epstein, it’s a perfect example of how deep and international this goes. A foreign service blackmailing American elites, with the CIA as a silent partner, transcends presidencies—it’s a permanent layer. Trump’s strategy now works because the deep state is flexible: it absorbs shocks (court rulings, public pressure) and spits out just enough (blacked-out lists) to survive. Clinton’s silence can last as long as no one forces him to talk—and with Hillary as a buffer, that seems unlikely. From JFK’s death (with Mossad theories) to Epstein’s “suicide” with broken cameras, the pattern is that the truth half seeps through, but never fully breaks. The deep state doesn’t have to win, to stand alone. The system is too big, too old, too deep to change, even with a Trump or a Clinton in the spotlight. Perhaps that’s why Patel and Bongino’s filtered dossiers are such an anticlimax — not their failure, but evidence that the machine is always turning.
State aid to deliver your letter
PostNL has not been able to survive financially for some time now. Stamps were made more expensive and delivery days were reduced, and PostNL also empties most mailboxes in the Netherlands earlier in the day instead of collecting all mail after 5 p.m., but nothing helped. 14% of all mail is no longer delivered within a day. PostNL therefore wants government support for at least two years to be able to maintain postal delivery. According to PostNL, the extra support is needed until the government adjusts the Postal Act and, for example, extends the legal delivery period to several days. PostNL is requesting 30 million euros for 2025 and 38 million euros for 2026. They also want an extension of the delivery period for regular mail by two or three days.
In 2024, PostNL had a profit before interest and taxes of 53 million euros. In 2023, this was still 92 million euros. In November, PostNL had still expressed an expectation for a result in 2024 of approximately 80 million euros. The turnover in 2024 amounted to more than 3.2 billion euros. Fortunately, the minister has doubts about providing state aid. Especially when you consider that Herna Verhagen, CEO of PostNL, went home with more than 1 million every year. Fortunately, she has already been replaced by Pim Berendsen. Hopefully he will use his experience at Van Gansewinkel for a reorganization that is apparently badly needed after 13 years of Herna and perhaps he can find a new CDO for a few hundred thousand less than he himself cost. The entire board of directors (two people) also costs almost 2 million and the value of these two has still not been cashed in. And then we have not even mentioned the capital millions in sponsorship of cycling. Mismanagement (inefficiency, weak strategy) and formidable, better performing competition (DHL, DPD, etc.) explain why PostNL complains despite a strong parcel base and even wants state aid. There is also said to be a bad working atmosphere and low wages with intimidation by angry customers. Postal workers complain in particular about the grueling rounds they have to walk and absenteeism due to illness has risen to 20 percent at some depots. Letter mail is very 1970 and perhaps the stamp for relevant mail should be reduced to 2 or 3 euros and processed as a small package, so that it is no longer loss-making. Shareholders are already angry and they can do with a year with a lot less dividend in the run-up to more later. Such a dividend saving quickly yields 30 million euros and that is exactly the amount of state aid required.
Anyone else can start their own company that delivers mail if they want. The old city mail wasn’t that bad. Mail should become a niche without losses, without UPD (Universal Postal Service) and 2nd Chamber nagging and certainly without government support. DHL is not looking to take over all business and consumer mail from PostNL. Only from a weight of 50 grams, for which three stamps would be needed, is DHL currently more advantageous. They are not yet interesting for a lot of letters from, for example, the Tax Authorities that weigh little. Unless of course it has to be delivered within 24 hours. According to a DHL spokesperson, the moment another party extends the delivery time, that could become a competitive advantage.
Leaflet delivery company Spotta, known for the national distribution of advertising leaflets and direct mail, is entering the mail delivery business. Early May, the company officially registered with the Netherlands Authority for Consumers & Markets (ACM) as a postal company, as required under the current Postal Act. With this step, Spotta wants to compete with PostNL, which is currently the only party delivering national mail in the Netherlands.
The Danish state postal company PostNord will stop delivering letters from next year. This will mark the end of the letter service after four hundred years. In Denmark, 30 percent fewer letters were sent last year. “The last letter will be delivered at the end of the year,” the postal company wrote in a statement . The legal obligation to deliver mail throughout Denmark was already abolished in 2024.
Dangerous fruits and vegetables from war zones
The Netherlands imports a wide range of fruits and vegetables from Ukraine. In 2020, the import of fresh vegetables from Ukraine was about 200,000 tons, and the import of fresh fruits was about 60,000 tons. The main products that the Netherlands imports from Ukraine include onions and watermelons, as well as grain.
In conflict zones, chemicals such as bomb residue and pollutants (e.g. from explosives) can contaminate soil. This can leave hazardous substances such as heavy metals or other harmful compounds in the soil, which can be absorbed by crops. Explosions and burning of military supplies can release harmful particles into the air, which can settle on agricultural crops and affect food security. Warfare can damage infrastructure such as water treatment plants, potentially contaminating water sources. If crops are irrigated with contaminated water, this can contaminate produce. In war zones, crops may not be managed or harvested properly, and production systems may be disrupted, leading to increased risk of contamination or less careful harvesting and storage practices. Ukraine is a major agricultural exporter, but the situation varies greatly by region.
1. Heavy metals:
Lead (Pb): Lead is a common component of munitions and can be released into the soil after explosions or the use of munitions. Crops can absorb this heavy metal from contaminated soil, which is harmful to the health of people who consume the contaminated products.
Copper (Cu), zinc (Zn), and cadmium (Cd): These metals can also come from munitions or industrial waste. They can be released into the soil and water and be absorbed by crops.
2. Petroleum derivatives and petrochemicals:
Benzene, toluene, xylenes, and other volatile organic compounds: In war situations, oil wells are often damaged, tanks, or vehicles are burned, which can lead to the release of petroleum derivatives. These substances can contaminate the soil and water and be absorbed by crops.
Polyaromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs): These are carcinogenic substances that are released during the combustion of petroleum products, rubber, or other industrial materials. They can accumulate in the soil and be taken up by crops through the roots.
3. Explosives and their residues:
Nitroglycerin (and other substances in explosives such as TNT and ammonium nitrate): Explosives often contain chemical compounds that can be harmful to soil and water. Contamination from explosives can occur especially in areas where heavy bombardment and ground combat have taken place.
Metals from spent munitions such as uranium munitions: In some cases, munitions waste products, such as uranium or other metals, can enter the soil, which is harmful to both the environment and crops.
4. Harmful chemicals from isolated industrial processes:
Chlorine compounds and phosphorus compounds can be released by chemical weapons or because of damage to industrial installations containing hazardous substances. They can reach agricultural fields through the air or water streams.
5. Pesticides and herbicides:
Harmful pesticides or herbicides can also be released into the environment during wartime. If certain stockpiles of agricultural chemicals or chemical weapons are dispersed in devastated areas, crops can absorb these substances.
6. Radioactive Materials:
Cesium-137, Strontium-90, and Other Radioisotopes: In rarer cases, radiological materials, such as those released by a nuclear explosion or uncontrolled storage of nuclear material, can contaminate the environment. Although this would be an extreme case, such materials can have serious long-term effects on the food chain.
7. Pathogens and Microbial Contamination:
By damaging infrastructures (such as water treatment plants), microbial substances such as E. coli, Salmonella or Listeria can be released into the environment. Although these are not directly related to the means of war, they can affect food security in conflict areas.
Crops can absorb pollutants from the soil through their roots, and airborne substances (such as explosions or fires) can settle on crops. Contamination of water sources can also contribute to the contamination of crops when they are irrigated with polluted water. Carcinogens (PAHs, benzene, etc.): Many of these substances are cancer-causing and can cause long-term health problems. Consuming food that has come into contact with explosives or explosive residues can lead to poisoning or other health problems. Exposure to radioactivity can lead to radiation sickness, cancer, and genetic damage.
The exact substances that could potentially contaminate agricultural products from Ukraine are therefore wide ranging, from heavy metals to chemicals and radioactive particles. While there are controls and monitoring in place to mitigate these risks, it is important to have careful monitoring for products from conflict areas to ensure food safety.
You can email comments or criticism on our columns to: Rvschaik@bvs.nl