Block
Seats
Changes since 2012
Party
Core electorate
Seats
Changes since 2012
Government
76
+ 5
VVD
Liberal-Business
33
- 8
D66
Liberal-Nihilist
19
+ 7
CDA
Christian-Bourgeois
19
+ 6
CU
Christian-Progressive
5
0
Conservatives
3
0
SGP
Christian-Conservative
3
0
SJWs
49
- 12
GL
Green-Nihilist
14
+ 10
SP
Socialist
14
- 1
PVDA
Pseudo-Socialist
9
- 27
PVDD
Animal Rights
5
+ 3
50PLUS
Pensioner Rights
4
+ 2
DENK
Minority Rights
3
+ 1
Patriots
22
+ 7
PVV
Libertarian-Populist
20
+ 5
FVD
Libertarian-Intellectual
2
+ 2
The Dutch Election Results: Commentary
Some comments are useful for foreign observers to navigate the political landscape resulting from the 2017 election:
(1) Despite the government coalition’s narrow majority, it is unlikely to be affected by dissent. The leaders of all three junior coalition partners have opted to take their seats in parliament to enforce internal party discipline. The government can also rely on the ‘faithful opposition’ of the Christian-Conservative SGP, which tends to put political stability above political principle.
(2) Following the demographic decline of the baby boomers, the political tendency among native Dutch population is towards a decline of the Social Justice Warrior parties. The loss of these parties generally translates into the gain of the patriotic parties.
(3) The native Dutch population is increasingly polarized into two diametrically opposed groups: the wealthy ‘elite’ and entrepreneurial wannabe elite (together perhaps about 20% of the population), which favours the liberal parties, and the increasingly marginalized ‘common people’, who favour the patriotic parties.
(4) The rapid demographic rise of a non-native electorate, accentuated through accelerated ‘immigration’ and ‘naturalization’ procedures, translates into an electoral strengthening of the governing liberal parties: the non-native electorate now views them as the guarantors of continued non-native privilege. This factor also increasingly delegitimizes the ‘democratic mandate’ claimed by the political elite.
(5) The decline of the classical Social Justice Warrior parties has led some of their non-native supporters to form their own party: DENK. This new party, de facto controlled by the Turkish government, is the first independent non-native parliamentary party in the Western world.
(6) Domestically, the current socio-economic trajectory suggests a general trend towards further political polarization — and further devolution of power to ethnicity-based interest groups. On the one hand, the wealthy native elite will combine with the new non-native electorate in supporting the pro-globalist, pro-European, pro-business liberals. On the other hand, the marginalized native ‘common people’ will increasingly support the patriotic parties. The simple mathematics of demographic development, however, ‘democratically’ dooms the patriotic cause of the native people.
(7) Internationally, the 2017 elections condemn the Netherlands to continued adherence to popularly discredited ‘superstate’ structures such as EU, Schengen, the euro and NATO, further exposing the country to mass immigration, international crime and labour outsourcing — and implicating it in continued globalist agendas of military aggression and economic imperialism. Given the electoral trajectory mentioned under point (6), only a drastic political realignment of its economically and politically dominant neighbour, Germany, can allow the Netherlands to escape from its nearly seventy-year-long diplomatic servitude.
The Dutch Election Results: Prognosis
In terms of the patriotic and identitarian cause, the only glimmer of hope visible in the murky wake of the incompetently fraudulent, foreign-manipulated and journalistically rigged elections of 15 March 2017 is the meteoric rise of the Forum for Democracy, appearing practically out of nowhere on the parliamentary scene. Forum for Democracy reaches beyond the bland libertarian populism and the facile anti-Islamic rhetoric of its older patriotic fellow-traveller, the Freedom Party: Forum for Democracy addresses a wider identitarian agenda and aims at more fundamental political reforms. But it should be noted that Dutch parliamentary history is full of such false dawns — embers of consciousness and resistance in the ashes of the national body politic. Many good political beginnings and many sincere political start-ups have been smothered by organizational infiltration, media manipulation, violent intimidation and good old-fashioned bribery. To the extent that such embers were not snuffed out in their early development, they were slowly choked by the poisonous fumes of parliamentarianism and institutionalization. To the extent that ambitious newcomers are not stopped in their tracks by procedural formalities and bureaucratic resistance, they tend to be eventually co-opted into the Dutch governing elite.
Forum for Democracy is media-savvy and its two dashing parliamentary representatives have made a good start, but they need to remember the true meaning of ‘parliamentarianism’ and the true nature of ‘democracy’. Concerning ‘parliamentarianism’, they would be well advised to remember the words of their illustrious rebel predecessor: Ferdinand Domela Nieuwenhuis. Nieuwenhuis not only considered the phenomenon of the ‘parliament’ to be best expressed in the portmanteau of the two French words parler and mentir, ‘speaking’ and ‘lying’, but also stated that the Dutch parliament was ‘the most disgusting in the civilized world’. As they attempt to cross the mudflats of the Dutch political landscape, the parliamentarians of Forum for Democracy would also be well advised to learn the lessons of Dutch history — and to study the more fundamental lessons of Traditionalist political philosophy concerning the actual meaning of ‘democracy’.
Beyond Democracy: Lessons of Dutch History
In a strange way, the present Dutch political landscape reflects the challenging Dutch natural landscape, characterized by dangerous tidal sea arms, ever-shifting river beds and uninhabitable marshlands. Many times throughout history this vulnerable lowland country, taken from the sea by the hard work of many generations, has been re-invaded by the sea: this long battle against the elements is the greatest Dutch national epos. But now even greater dangers threaten the Netherlands. Never before has the Dutch political landscape been invaded by hostile elements as it has been during the last decennia. Anti-national neo-liberalism has destroyed much of the Netherlands’ industries and trades, anti-national secular nihilism has undermined its churches and families, anti-national cultural bolshevism has hijacked its arts and sciences and anti-national multicultural activism has abolished its borders and sovereign rights. The present Dutch political landscape is now splintered in an unprecedented manner — it is now wholly dominated by irrational forces of hyper-democracy. The resulting political fragmentation inevitably strengthens the power of the Cultural Nihilist hostile elite: divide et impera. Before the patriotic and identitarian opposition can hope to loosen the Cultural Nihilist stranglehold on the body politic, it will have to understand how this situation has come about
. It will have to learn the lessons of Dutch history:
First: the tight-fisted, narrow-minded and cold-hearted Pharisees who have been banking, trading and scheming in the Netherlands for many centuries, will never voluntarily hand over true power. They will rather cut the dykes, open the sluices and give the land back to the sea than to hand it over to those who actually want what is good for the Dutch people — economic justice, social equilibrium and national honour. They will rather see the land disappear, the people drown and the culture swept away than to hand over power to those who actually want what is best for the nation.
Second: the liberal-Capitalist, secular-nihilist and anti-national politicians who have been ‘governing’ the Netherlands for many decades, will never voluntarily hand over the state apparatus — least of all democratically. When their rival is not worn down, corrupted and co-opted, they will simply resort to murder — as in the case of Professor Fortuyn. They will say that it is more ‘convenient that one man dies for the people’.
Third: foreign models, resources and auxiliaries — even the most generous and most noble — will not prevail against the stubborn mental diseases bred by the toxic swamp of native ‘democracy’. The fever-ridden swamps of the Netherlands not only became the graveyard of the mighty Spanish Empire, but they also put a full stop to many mighty armies — as happened with the French in 1672, the Russians in 1799 and the British in 1809. The native swamp of democracy must be drained first.
Let the brave little knights of Forum for Democracy remember that the many will-o’-the-wisps of the Dutch political ‘Dead Marshes’ have led astray — and killed — greater men than themselves. Brighter lights than theirs have been extinguished in the Dutch political swamp. They should realize that theirs is a hazardous quest.
The Dangers of Democracy — Freely Inspired by Nicolás Gómez Dávila
The Signposts of Democracy:
The word ‘democracy’ never indicates a political fact: it merely indicates a metaphysical perversion.
*
Life is hierarchic: only death is democratic.
*
Man can only be free in a hierarchical society, because it is the only one where he feels the urge to be free.
The Shoals of Democracy:
The legitimacy of power does not depend on its origins but on its goals.
*
A free society is not a society that has the right to choose its ruler, but a society that chooses as its ruler the one who has the authentic right to rule.
*
The number of votes on which a government is based is not the measure of its legitimacy, but rather of its mediocrity.
*
A democratic parliament is not the place for debate, but the place where collectivist absolutism issues its proclamations.
*
It is not worth listening to representatives who do not represent eternal values.
The Guides of Democracy:
Slowly by slowly, the library of history transfers the thinkers of democracy from the political section to the psychiatric section.
*
There is irredeemable meanness in the proponents of democracy: they are the dedicated accomplices of a phenomenon that kills everything good and beautiful.
*
Democratic politicians are the condensation of the stupidity of the rabble.
*
If we see an intelligent man becoming a politician we feel the same as when we see a beautiful girl becoming a nun.
*
Advocates of true democracy will sacrifice even their personal interests to their social resentments, but only after they have sacrificed the interests of the people.
The Fellow Travellers of Democracy:
The rabble never rises up against despotism: it rises up against bad food.
*
The rabble does not vote for cures, but for anaesthesia.
*
The rabble is only seduced by prostituted ideas.
The Traffic Rules of Democracy:
The basic postulate of democracy: the law is the consciousness of the citizen.
*
Under the aegis of democracy, the law is not feared by real criminals, but only by those who are falsely accused.
The Destinations of Democracy:
The democratic society of the future: slavery without masters.
*
Society becomes a combination of prison and asylum once the democratic happiness of the citizen becomes the aim of its rulers.
*
A true political role for the rabble always ends in a hellish apocalypse.
Resolutions:
Every cultured person has the duty to be intolerant: tolerance proves the end of authentic culture.
*
When dialogue is the only way out, the situation is hopeless.
*
Surrender to the majority only becomes an option once we are out of ammunition.
(*) Note that the Traditionalist critique of Modern ‘democracy’ provided in this chapter is supplemented by a Traditionalist critique of Modern ‘human rights’ in Appendix A.
sīn rā’ ’alif
Chapter Four
The Sword of Knowledge
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth:
I came not to send peace, but a sword.
— Matthew 10:34
Ethnic Vocation
As individuals have a vocation, so peoples have a vocation:
they either radiate this vocation or are left infertile and obscure
according to whether they obey it or resist it.
— Pope Pius XII
In Traditionalist theory, all forms of authentic identity, including religion, ethnicity, caste and gender, appear as ‘vocations’: they have the role of immanent and micro-cosmic ‘callings’ that reflect transcendental and macro-cosmic ideals. From a Traditionalist perspective, therefore, the birth of individual human beings in specific physical, geographical, historical and cultural settings is never a ‘coincidence’: rather, it is considered a ‘destiny’ that involves specific privileges and specific limitations, specific duties and specific rights. To the extent that the individual is capable of understanding and coming to terms with the exoteric and esoteric meanings of this destiny, he experiences his life in terms of a ‘calling’. On an individual level, the obvious categories of ‘biological calling’ (race, gender, age) and ‘cultural calling’ (ethnicity, caste, heritage) are augmented by highly personalized categories that combine physical, intellectual, moral and spiritual aptitudes: these are the additional dimensions of ‘calling’ that are commonly referred to as ‘talents’. The resulting specific ‘admixtures’ create so great a spectrum of individual variety, that each single human being can, theoretically, be considered ‘unique’ — worthy of a unique name and a unique place in the world. In the world of Tradition, however, this ‘uniqueness’ of individuals was not what counted: what counted was the extent to which individuals were capable of reproducing on a micro-cosmic level — i.e. in their personae — the macro-cosmic ideals that underpinned their overall vocations. This pursuit of vocation and its implicit ‘drive to destiny’ account for the anonymous and archetypal quality of the ancient world of Tradition — for its imperious grandeur, sublime art and impersonal detachment. In the world of Tradition humanity always attempted to mould and conform itself according to ideal ‘models’. These archetypal models — ‘King’, ‘Warrior’, ‘Priest’, ‘Father’, ‘Mother’, ‘Husband’, ‘Wife’ — were essentially superhuman ideals. In terms of Modern psychoanalysis these models generally match Jung’s archetypal images — ‘unconscious’ mediators of a hidden unus mundus. Modern mankind is now so far removed from these archetypes, and from the Transcendental Sphere that they reflect, that it even doubts whether they ever really existed. But despite their excision from the physical world and their suppress
ion in the psychological, they continue to haunt Modern mankind in occasional flashes of numinous experience — dreams, visions and portents.
In the world of Tradition the realization of these ideal models required a deliberate dissolution of ‘self’ and a strenuous stylization of ‘personality’. The ‘de-personalization’ involved in this archetypal conformity accounts for phenomena such as the regnal name of the king (assumption of sacred office), the accolade of the knight (passage to noble status), the tonsure of the monk (renunciation of worldly aspirations). Obviously, the extent to which individuals actually achieved their personal vocation fluctuated, but the superhuman ideal that this vocation referred to did not. In other words: the standard of vocation was always immutable. This standard was guaranteed by the holistic quality and anagogic direction that characterize all Traditional communities: ‘individuality’ and ‘personality’ were always inextricably linked to communal functionality as well as transcendental purpose. It is the gradual departure from this standard, this functionality and this purpose that defines ‘Modernity’. Thus, Modern ‘history’ and Modern ‘progress’ are basically descriptions of the loss of all substantive forms of vocation. From a Traditionalist perspective, authentic identity can be defined as conformity to substantive vocation; failure to conform to substantive vocation therefore equals loss of authentic identity. Thus, Modernity can be defined as failure of vocation and loss of identity: in this sense, Modernity is nothing more than the negation of Tradition.
In the world of Tradition the concrete collective identity of ‘a people’ — (an ethnicity) was always an agglomerate of concrete identities: religious identity, genetic identity and linguistic identity were its essential components. Shared spiritual experience, shared genealogical heritage and shared linguistic medium defined the boundaries of ethnicity. To a certain extent, these boundaries were permeable: Traditional ethnicities were bio-cultural organisms that had to be able to grow, diminish and adapt according to changing circumstances. They had to be able to absorb, reject and change new religious ideas, new genetic elements and new linguistic concepts according to their needs. Thus, the boundaries of Traditional ethnicity were flexible — but not infinitely so. Strong ethnicities were always characterized by strong boundaries, and the strongest ethnicities, the ones that endured longest, were those that had the strongest boundaries. This is illustrated by the fact that the oldest surviving historical ethnicity, the Jewish ethnicity, has very high ‘boundary walls’: the prolonged and steep process of ‘conversion to Judaism’ constitutes, in fact, a carefully screened programme of ethnic assimilation: ‘absorption within the Jewish people’ would be a more accurate term. Within the boundaries of the Traditional ethnicity ‘peoples’ are defined by — and literally enclosed within — highly specialized existential modalities. Within these modalities, individuals live the life of their people, and ‘peoplehood’ is alive in them. In Modern philosophical terms, the boundaries of these modalities match Heidegger’s specialized time (the protective temporal horizon of Kulturkreisen) in specialized space (the protective spatial horizon of Blut und Boden), a theme that will be explored in more detail in Chapter 8.
Alba Rosa Page 12