Today I will discuss the psychopolitical pitfall of vision concession, which is the term I am coining for what I have been watching mainstream politicians do immediately after the results of the May 15th Dutch general election were announced.
Basically, before the election, Geert Wilders was talking about how the PVV with its platform of shutting down all mosques (even Trump hasn’t gone that far (yet…..)) would easily win the whole thing. For newcomers, here is a brief refresher on Wilders and the PVV:
The country’s fast-rising far-right leader, Geert Wilders [Jew], is getting help from American conservatives attracted to his anti-European Union and anti-Islam views. David Horowitz [Jew], an American right-wing activist, has contributed roughly $150,000 to Mr. Wilders’s Party for Freedom over two years — of which nearly $120,000 came in 2015, making it the largest individual contribution in the Dutch political system that year, according to recently released records.
Daniel Pipes [Jew], another conservative American activist and a Harvard-educated historian known for his controversial statements on Islam, said in an email exchange that he hoped “the rise of the insurgent parties leads not to their forming governments but their sending a strong message to the legacy parties to wake up and deal with the imperative issues they have so long ignored.”
Mr. Pipes said his foundation, the Middle East Forum, provided money in the “six figures” to help pay legal bills in Mr. Wilders’s trial over the film, but specifically to a legal fund, and has not provided political support. Mr. Pipes has called Mr. Wilders “the most important European alive today,” but has differed with him on his view of Islam, though he himself has expressed inflammatory views on the subject.
Dutch records also show that two American foundations paid for Mr. Wilders’s flights and hotels on trips to the United States last year. One, the Gatestone Institute, lists John R. Bolton, a combative former United Nations ambassador under George W. Bush, as its chairman. Another, the International Freedom Alliance Foundation, is backed by Robert J. Shillman [Jew], a wealthy Trump supporter who paid for a digital ad in Times Square last year depicting Mr. Trump as Superman.
As it turned out, the PVV came second behind the VVD, though it gained a larger share of the vote (13.1%) than it had been holding before (10.1%), and thus increased its number of seats to 20 from its former 15.
What disturbs me is how mainstream politicians are interpreting this as a “defeat” for the PVV, despite the fact that the PVV has actually become more powerful, merely because it did not become quite as powerful as Wilders claimed that it would. In other words, mainstream politicians have in their own minds already conceded to Wilders’ vision that the PVV is the party that is supposed to win in present times, and hence view merely stavng off this win as “success”, when – by any absolute measure – seeing the PVV move nearer to its goal compared to its previous position should obviously be interpreted as failure.
Here are the mainstream politicians in their own words:
Dutch people rejected “the wrong kind of populism”, Prime Minister Mark Rutte has said
How is it a “rejection” when the PVV has outright gained seats? Not to mention that Rutte himself(!) has been effectively pressured by Wilders to move his own rhetoric rightwards during this campaign, so he should be the last person able to talk with a straight face about “rejecting” PVV rhetoric…..
(Also, the PVV is no kind of populism at all. There is nothing “populist” about any far-right party. The correct definition of populism is standing up for ordinary people against the power elite. Virtually all “Third World”-origin immigrants – especially refugees – are ordinary people; virtually none are power elite. The far-right does not stand up for “Third World”-origin immigrants. Therefore the far-right is NOT populist.)
French President Francois Hollande said he had won a “clear victory against extremism”
How is it a “victory” when the mainstream parties have lost aggregate territory to the PVV?
(Also, the PVV is bad not because of its extremism. The PVV is bad because of its Islamophobia and pro-Zionism. Extreme anti-Islamophobia and extreme anti-Zionism are good, the more extreme the better!)
German Chancellor Angela Merkel hailed a “very pro-European result, a clear signal… and a good day for democracy” and her chief of staff, Peter Altmaier, tweeted: “The Netherlands, oh the Netherlands you are a champion!”
How is it a “clear signal” when the PVV is not on a consistent downward trajectory? (It won 9 seats in 2006, 24 in 2010, 15 in 2012 and 20 in 2017. OK, 20 is admittedly lower than its own record high of 24, so at least it is not breaking records, but there is nothing “clear” about its trajectory in the eyes of any non-delusional statistician.) And how is the Netherlands a “champion” for allowing the PVV, which had been declining between 2010 and 2012, to start rising again?
When the PVV has been reduced to fewer than 9 seats – that is to say, fewer than its own record low - then perhaps we can begin to speak cautiously of its decline. When the PVV has been reduced to the condition that Britain’s BNP is in, then perhaps we can relax slightly. Not until then. Few things are so dangerous as a false sense of security.
(And even in scenarios where the PVV has no seats at all, it should still be treated as an active enemy organization. An enemy organization is only fully defeated when every last idea behind it has been discredited and every last bloodline behind it has been wiped out.)
Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy praised Dutch voters for their “responsibility”
How is it “responsible” to allow the PVV to get 13.1% of the vote? The turnout was 80.2% and the Dutch population is roughly 17.1 million, so that means roughly 1.8 million people voted for the PVV. Did you know that Israel had a population of <1.5 million in 1948? Even so it was able to win the Arab-Israeli War against Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Eypt, Jordan, and more opponents! And a few years later Israel had nukes! Please pause and think about that for a moment.
Only a few are not so dangerously deluded:
Defeated Labour leader Lodewijk Asscher agreed that “populism is not over”. The anger and insecurity of voters was reflected in the increased vote for Mr Wilders and the wider fragmentation of Dutch politics, he said.
Did Wilders fail?
In reality his party gained five seats and, as he pointed out, it is now the second biggest in parliament not the third.
This is a more realistic assessment. (Except, again, ”populism” is the wrong term for describing the PVV.)
Even one vote for the PVV is one vote too many. 1.8 million votes is atrocious and terrifying, and to describe such a result as a “defeat” for the PVV is insane. In even a minimally vigilant world, Wilders would have been assassinated long before such a result were possible. In even a marginally sane world (such as we had before the 9/11 Zionist false flag), the ideas espoused by the PVV would be considered too ludicrous for anything other than a stand-up-comedy routine. In even a vaguely reasonable world, democracy itself would not exist. In even a remotely heroic world, we would be willing to invade Israel despite the Samson Option, and similarly any other tribalist states (Myanmar, Hungary, etc.). In a truly fair world, all tribalists would be burning in eternal hellfire, as Jesus promised they would. We must never concede our vision for the sake of claiming false victories.
If you are in the Netherlands and hate Wilders, we would love to hear from you. Please comment below or better yet send in a contact form to volunteer for activism:
And if you see anyone saying that Muslims, or this or that ethnic group, are “not Dutch”, remember that the quickest way to shut them up is to show them this picture:
In order not to end on too negative a note, it is my pleasure to introduce several new blogs.
Firstly we have Aryan Medicine, which at long last sets out on our long proposed but hitherto untouched quest to develop a new theory of medicine (which, as many of you know, was something National Socialist Germany wanted to do due to its dissatisfaction with Western medicine, but never got round to doing):
However, the author of this blog has told me that he considers himself extremely underqualified for this undertaking, and requests guidance from others more knowledgeable in the field. So please do not hesitate to offer him advice and constructive criticism.
Next we have the Jamia Project:
which is what you have seen me bringing up in comments for a long time: the idea of removing Tanakh influence from the Koran. Saifullah started this blog, and he too needs whatever support you can offer, for there is much substantial work to do.
There is one more blog that I had been planning to announce but which is not quite ready yet, so maybe next time. Finally, I hope to see all other Aryanists who have privately promised to start their own projects doing so ASAP. As this post has shown, mainstream politicians do not have the mindset required – and we have always said that they aren’t and have never been seriously trying - to defeat those like Wilders who undeniably offer a strong vision for the future, unethical though its content may be. It is up to us to do so. A vision can only be defeated by a better vision. We surely have a better ideology, but an ideology only becomes a vision when it inspires people to work on its behalf. We need your help to make our ideology into a vision.