Alba Rosa

by Alexander Wolfheze

  Perspective & Self-Analysis

  In times of cultural drought the only remaining well is historical imagination.

  — Nicolás Gómez Dávila

  If the tie between the House of Orange and the Dutch nation ever breaks it will not be because the House of Orange disappears, but because the Dutch nation disappears. By the time that a republican Rutte ‘Regency’ or a Pechtold ‘Presidency’ is announced,30 the Netherlands will no longer exist. Such figures will be mere caricature landvoogden, or ‘district governors’,31 mercenary appointees of the international banking cartel and its Brussels politburo.32 By that time, the ‘Netherlands’, overrun by a swarming mass of métèques, will be no more than a geographical expression. The ‘Eurocratic scenario’ — pseudo-autonomy as a lucrative colony under a Brussels superstate — may, in fact, turn out to be mere wishful thinking. In the long run, the ‘Islamic scenario’ is much more realistic: basic demographic calculation makes it likely that the future ‘Netherlands’ will simply turn into a Sperrgebiet of the ‘Eurabian Caliphate’. The latter scenario holds little attraction — at least for the last non-convert natives. One of the last walls that separate the Netherlands from both of these scenarios is its Monarchy.

  At this historic juncture, the choices that the old Ernstfall institutions of Monarchy, Nobility, Church and Academy will make for themselves and for the Netherlands are all-decisive. This means that refraining from choosing necessarily involves a choice: the choice to comfortably and carelessly enjoy a full bank account and a full stomach, but at the expense of the last remnants of common decency and self-respect. This also means that a choice for the road of least resistance has only one destination: degenerate and dishonourable oblivion. But when future historians will judge the imminent choices of these old institutions, they will also judge the choices of the nation that they were supposed to serve. The common people, effectively divided into what may be termed the Third, Fourth and Fifth Estates, are duty-bound to bear and maintain the Ernstfall institutions of this nation: the people should carry hierarchy and support its institutions. If the people fail in their duty, their institutions are left powerless. A people stands or falls as an organic whole: the head does not work without the heart and the arm does not work without the lungs. Recognition of the need for unity, solidarity and cooperation — for a totalizing mobilization of the whole community in Ernstfall and emergency — is a fundamental principle of every authentic Traditionalist theory of statecraft. The holistic vision of Traditionalism teaches that such a mobilization is a fundamental prerequisite for the rebirth of a nation and a people. Only such a mobilization will allow the Dutch nation to rise from the ashes of Modernity. Above all else, the realization of this essentially timeless vision requires an inner re-generation: it requires a conscious and active rejection of the Modernist pretences of ‘progress’ and the Modernist illusions of ‘freedom’ — in other words, a total rejection of Modernist cultural-nihilism. This requires every member of the community — irrespective of formal rank, social status, educational qualification, gender and age — to look into the mirror and ask whether he or she can still see an authentic private destiny and whether he or she can still accept an authentic public role. The mirror of Traditionalism is merciless and it has some disagreeable lessons to teach to the Dutch people:

  (1) The Third Estate — the ‘Blue Book’, the ‘patricians’, the regenten33  — cannot separate itself from the nation by money and privilege: it cannot exist without the people. International investment portfolios and overseas real estate holdings are no substitutes for home and identity: even the richest bankers and the most cunning businessmen are still part of their people.

  (2) The Fourth Estate — small and medium entrepreneurs, skilled workers, peasants, fishermen — should not imitate the riches and privileges of the patricians and the nobles. Hyper-materialist and immoral wishes are inappropriate for an Estate that is called to productive labour and honourable family life. Ostentation and luxury are not appropriate for people who are called to hard work and simple responsibilities.

  (3) The Fifth Estate — resident aliens — must accept a modest place and subservient role in the life of the host nation. Resident aliens should remember the generous hospitality of the host nation. Shared history gives certain groups — Israelites, Roma, West and East Indies ex-colonials, Afrikaners — the right to a permanent place in the Dutch nation, but not to full legal equality. ‘Guest workers’, ‘migrant labour’, ‘refugees’ and their descendants only have the right to temporary residence: those who no longer engage in productive labour and who no longer qualify for refugee status must return to their countries of origin. Those who are honest and honourable and who recognize the boundaries of common decency can count on a correct parting and a correct final settlement. Those who hold on to fictitious rights through bureaucratic fraud, legal tricks and criminal blackmail can ultimately expect an appropriate response. Those who are allowed to stay as members of the Fifth Estate will have to learn to live as guests. That means to maintain a respectful silence when the host nation discusses its own affairs and heritage — and to keep a respectful distance from the rights, property and people of the host nation.

  (4) All groups must focus their effort and attention on the duties and responsibilities that they have been given by Providence. The First Estate, i.e. the Nobility, has been called to provide the soldiers, diplomats, courtiers, landlords and benefactors that serve the monarchy, the people and the country — without degenerating into rootless cosmopolitans. The Second Estate, i.e. the Church, has been called to provide priests, deacons, teachers, nurses and social workers — not for illegal aliens, but for its own nation. The Third Estate, i.e. the patricians, has been called to sensibly and prudently maintain a financial and industrial framework that creates wealth for all — without becoming an ‘expat’ community in its own country. The Fourth Estate, i.e. the working people, has been called to be productive in professional vocation and to be faithful in family life — not only for the present generation and the present time but also for the next generation and for the future of the nation. The Fifth Estate, i.e. the resident aliens, has been called to remain faithful to its alien roots with maximum autonomy according to the principle of ‘sphere sovereignty’34  — without being a burden on the host nation.

  (5) All individuals must limit their effort and attention to the duties and responsibilities that they have been given by Providence. Bankers and businessmen have a right to enjoy the fruits of their ingenuity and their entrepreneurial ventures — but not to exploit the common people or to interfere in affairs of state. Scientists, artists, entertainers and sportsmen have a right to use their God-given talents and to appropriate public recognition — but not to financial excess and not to interference with public policy. Women have the right to marriage and motherhood — but not to simultaneous experiments in terms of private relations and paid employment. Men have a right to respect as breadwinners and heads of the family — and they must be allowed to be both — but not to abandon work and family commitments at will. Older people have a right to economic security, proper healthcare and the gratitude of the community — but not to a disproportionate share of national wealth and not to excess luxuries at the expense of young people who still have to start their own lives.

  (6) Hyper-democracy, in which everybody is allowed and forced to participate in decision-making, is incompatible with the great variety of collective identities and individual destinies that co-exist within every great people. To remedy the disaster of hyper-democracy it will be necessary to limit the democratic process to appropriate spheres of self-regulating sovereign groups and to limit the democratic franchise according to direct interest, proven competency and effective financial contribution. It is unjust to give religious majorities the ‘democratic right’ to decide about the behaviour and conscious of minorities that have a di
fferent worldview. It is unjust to give a mass of lazy spongers the ‘democratic right’ to decide how many taxes hard-working people should pay to keep them in idleness. It is unjust to ‘democratically’ force hard-working men who have to feed and clothe their families to pay for the irresponsible partner and parenthood choices of confused and dissolute women. It is unjust to give a mass of envious foreigners the ‘democratic right’ to decide which rights they have in relation to indigenous people whose ancestors have built the nation. It is unjust to give a mass of brainless consumers the ‘democratic right’ to decide about the future of the global ecosystem and about the fate of millions of innocent animals.

  (7) Only the simultaneous and full application of the Traditionalist principles of holistic integration, hierarchic organization and transcendental direction can prepare the Dutch people for the Ernstfall and emergency of the present Crisis of the Modern World. The fatal ‘progress’ of hyper-democratic Modernity and the destructive ‘freedom’ of Postmodern cultural-nihilism can only be exorcized by an honest look in the harsh mirror of Traditionalism. This same Traditionalism, however, also offers the glorious perspective of a national rebirth — a rebirth that can grow from the natural solidarity, the inner strength and the common sense which Divine Providence has granted the Dutch people in ample measure.

  If the old institutions and the traditional qualities of the Dutch nation prove themselves unequal to the modern challenges of inter-ethnic struggle, intercultural conflict and interreligious competition, then the nation as a whole simply does not deserve to survive the impending Crisis of the Modern World. In that case, the forces of nature and history must run their course and the Dutch nation must disappear in the great tides of the world. If it must be so, may Divine Providence return our land to the sea — may the waves mercifully cover the moral cowardliness, the political treason, the social injustice and the cultural dirt of the ‘last Netherlands’. If it must be so, may Divine Providence grant our people an honourable seaman’s grave, worthy of our noble ancestors.

  mīm        ’alif        yā’

  Chapter Three

  The Dangers of Democracy: A Warning from Dutch History

  Dedicated to ‘Forum for Democracy’ — because another false dawn is too tiring

  Postmodern Democracy: The Dutch Test Case

  Democracy can stimulate the human power drive

  without providing any actual power.

  — Mencius Moldbug

  From a Traditionalist perspective, the incidents of Modern ‘democratic politics’ — elections, appointments, debates — are simply staged spectacles in an entirely predictable théâtre de l’absurde, merely meant to maintain a politically correct illusion of ‘popular consent’. To a certain extent, however, they may be ‘diagnostically’ significant: specific political incidents may be indicative of general, long-term developments in the socio-cultural pathology of which Postmodern ‘democracy’ is merely a symptom. Thus, from a Traditionalist perspective, the rise of the so-called ‘populist’ movement throughout the Postmodern West is an interesting development, because it contains elements of a(n imprecisely articulated) neo-identitarian and neo-authoritarian reaction against Cultural Nihilist ‘standard democracy’ (as defined by its aims of neo-liberal globalism, militant secularism, social deconstruction and anti-nationalist culture relativism). In Latin America, populism is associated with the ‘pink tide’, personified by its ‘three musketeers’: Hugo Chávez (elected president of Venezuela in 1999), Lula da Silva (elected president of Brazil in 2003) and Evo Morales (elected president of Bolivia in 2006). In Eastern Europe, populism is associated with (nationalist, communitarian, socially conservative) ‘illiberal democracy’, as in Vladimir Putin’s Russia, Viktor Orbán’s Hungary and Miloš Zeman’s Czech Republic. In Western Europe, populism is associated with the rise of ‘Eurosceptic’ and ‘anti-immigration’ parties, such as the Front National in France, the Freiheitliche Partei Oesterreichs in Austria and the Partij voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands. Throughout Western Europe and the overseas Anglosphere, the rise of the populist movement is primarily fuelled by growing indigenous discontent with the accelerated enforcement of the pet projects of Cultural Nihilist hostile elite: ethnic replacement (mass immigration, selective natalism, affirmative action) and neo-liberal ‘shock therapy’ (de-industrialization, deregulation, privatisation). Overall, the populist movement forms a substantial threat to the global dominance of the transnational hostile elite.

  At its provisional height, this populist movement led to unexpected anti-globalist victories in the British EU membership referendum and the American presidential election of 2016. After the British vote for ‘Brexit’ and the American vote for Trump, it was widely thought that the momentum of the populist-patriotic surge in the Anglo-Saxon world might be replicated in continental Europe in an election series scheduled for 2017. Three of these elections were generally regarded as key stepping stones: these were, in increasing order of significance, the Dutch general elections in March, the French presidential elections in May and the German federal election in September. The first of these, the Dutch general elections of 15 March, were widely considered as a key indicator of the ‘political mood’ in continental Europe: its outcome was widely felt to be a reliable indicator of the outcome of the upcoming elections in France and Germany, the twin pillars of the EU project. With hindsight, this analysis was proven correct: the marginal electoral victory of the Cultural Nihilist hostile elite in the Netherlands was closely replicated in France and Germany. Thus, an analysis of the Dutch parliamentary elections of 2017 may help to explain the relative ‘immunity’, thus far, of continental Western Europe to the spread of populism. The preceding chapter has described Cultural Nihilism’s general socio-cultural configuration in the Postmodern Netherlands; this chapter will describe its precise political configuration and its significance as an important test case of Postmodern ‘democracy’.

  Geopolitically and historically, the Netherlands is situated right in the heart of the Cultural Nihilist ‘European project’, which is aimed at the abolition of national sovereignty (Monnet’s ‘European federation’) and the creation of an ethnic ‘melting pot’ (Kalergi’s ‘Eurasian-Negroid race of the future’). Thus, its geopolitical and socio-economic policies are bound to reflect — positively or negatively — those of its three great neighbours, Britain, France and Germany. ‘Brexit’ leaves the Netherlands without its traditional British strategic ally in the EU: this weakens the Netherlands stance against the Franco-German extreme-integrationist axis. The result of its 2017 parliamentary elections scuttled the Netherlands’ hope of following Britain and exiting the EU: this leaves the Netherlands at the mercy of an ever more radical Eurocratic tyranny. Writing in 2018, the results are already visible: increased tributary payments (more ‘contributions’ to make up for ‘Brexit’ and new ‘funds’ to shore up the ‘Euro’), further mass-immigration (new ‘proportional asylum quota’ and more ‘obligatory family reunification’) and diminished civil rights (new censorship through new ‘hate speech’ and ‘fake news’ legislation). An analysis of the Dutch parliamentary elections of 2017 will help to explain how Postmodern ‘democracy’ allows such obviously self-destructive policies to be implemented ‘in the name of the people’. This Dutch ‘test case’ illustrates the utter incompatibility of Postmodern ‘democracy’ with the fundamental self-interest and self-preservation of the peoples of Western Europe.

  An analysis of the Dutch parliamentary elections of 2017 will help to explain how Postmodern ‘democracy’ allows such obviously self-destructive policies to be implemented ‘in the name of the people’ throughout Western Europe. The results of the Swedish Riksdag elections of September 2018 illustrate this point: they clearly indicate an overall tendency towards politically fatal ‘Dutchification’ and stagnation.35 Thus, the Dutch ‘test case’ of 2017 proves the utter incompatibility of Postmodern ‘democracy’ with the f
undamental self-interest and self-preservation of the peoples of Western Europe.

  The Dutch Election Results — Chart

  chambre introuvable

  The following chart allows foreign observers a quick overview of the new Dutch political reality after the elections of 15 March 2017: it shows the power relations in the 150-seat Dutch House of Representatives (Tweede Kamer). It should be remembered that these election results represent a significant distortion of true popular sentiment: nearly 20% of the increasingly disappointed and apathetic electorate did not participate and there were considerable ‘irregularities’ in the manual counting process. Given the slim parliamentary power margin of the resulting Dutch government these factors are important. Above and beyond this, it should be remembered that during the last decades, particularly lax ‘naturalization’ procedures have added up to two million voters to the electorate: these new ‘citizens’ inevitably strengthen the vote for the parties that guarantee their continued ‘citizenship’, i.e. principally the SJW and liberal parties. Note: in the table below, the governmental block, which is still led by PM Mark Rutte (VVD) but now includes no less than four parties with a combined majority of only one seat, is indicated in bold; the patriotic block, which now includes the Party for Freedom (PVV, led by Geert Wilders) and Forum for Democracy (FVD, led by Thierry Baudet) is indicated in italics.