The Telegraph reports on the outcome of yesterday’s Dutch general election:

With 88 per cent of the votes counted, published partial results showed the Liberals with 31 and Labour on 30.
But the real victory went to Geert Wilders’ Party for Freedom (PVV), which demands an end to immigration from Muslim countries and a ban on new mosques. The PVV took its number of seats from nine in the last parliament to 24, and could hope to enter a coalition government.

The far-right leader with his distinctive shock of fair hair called the result “magnificent”.

“The impossible has happened,” he told a televised party gathering. “We are the biggest winner today. The Netherlands chose more security, less crime, less immigration and less Islam.”

Wilder’s party has been a beneficiary of the Dutch committment to proportionality (for the delivery of which the list system is employed).  We are about to see whether the resultant coalition-driven politics are kind or unkind to Wilders.  That there is any possibility of kindness at all is testimony to Wilders’ ability to avoid at least some of the wages of dissidence.  But there is a challenge to conventional nationalism contained in that.  Wilder’s Judeophilia, whether it is sincere or simply a stratagem, has worked to his advantage thusfar.  The same can be said for his Islamophobia, which shifts the focus to cultural rather than racial preservation.  It’s about “the Judeo-Christian heritage” and “Western civilisation”.  The focus has shifted from a revolutionary nationalism that sees the challenging of the system in toto, and the deliverance of European Man into his own hands, as the ultimate political good to a civicism that is customised to an electorally proportional representative system and that sees electoral progress as the ultimate good.

Whether anything of actual value can be achieved by this means we may now learn.

by PF

The following are quotes from the 1998 Harvard edition of Rüdiger Safranski’s intellectual biographical work, Martin Heidegger: Between Good and Evil, originally published in German in 1994.

We already know one moment when “disguises” break up and authentic Being discloses itself - the moment of anxiety. The world loses its significance, it appears as a naked “that” against the background of nothingness, and Dasein experiences itself as homeless, unguarded and unguided by any objective Being.

The breakthrough to authentic Being thus takes place as a contingency shock, as the experience of “there is nothing behind it.” Even more clearly than in Being and Time, Heidegger formulated this initiation experience for a philosophy of authenticity in his Frieburg inaugural lecture of 1929. Philosophy, he then said, only begins when we have the courage to “let nothingness encounter us.” Eye to eye with nothing, we then observe not only that we are “something” real, but also that we are creative creatures, capable of letting something emerge from nothing. The decisive point is that man can experience himself as the place where nothing becomes something and something becomes nothing. Anxiety leads us to this turning point. It confronts us with the “being possible” that we are ourselves.

Heidegger’s analysis of anxiety expressly does not have fear of death as its subject. It would be more correct to say that its subject is fear of life, of a life that one suddenly becomes aware of in its whole contingency. Anxiety reveals that everyday life is fleeing from its contigency. That is the meaning of all attempts to firmly root oneself in life.

One might assume that ‘They’ are only Everyman, [had previously spoken of the fact of self-loss into the ‘World of They’], but ‘They’ are also the philosophers. Because these, as Heidegger remarks critically, firmly root themselves in their grand constructs, their worlds of values and metaphysical backworlds. Philosophy, too, is for the most part busy removing the contingency shock or, better still, not admitting it in the first place.

READ MORE...

by I. Bismuth

They are out there. They are in here. They are all around us. Is there one near me at this very moment? Do I know what is going on behind that face? Or that one? Am I even now within touching distance of an attitude that has no place in a decent society? These are not comfortable questions, but they have to be asked.

They have to be answered too. Over the years I have brought many offenders to justice, and most of them are unremarkable in appearance and speech. They look like you and me and him and her. Most of the time they seem preoccupied with traffic conditions and discounted prices and their health and your health and warm fronts approaching from the south-west. How better to put you off your guard? But underneath — underneath there stirs the beast.

At the university we are used to relying on our trained antennae to monitor our own and others’ attitudes so as to ensure a perfect uniformity of diversity, and sometimes it’s easy to forget that not everyone enjoys our advantages. Out there, millions of attitude-carriers are still having to go for hours and, in the worst cases, whole days without being professionally monitored, a neglect that can allow the inner beast to grow and strengthen. In my own small way, and as a civic duty, I therefore make it my practice, whenever I venture out into the wild, to hunt it down and point the accusing finger.

READ MORE...

A Majority Rights Radio presentation of a libertarian nationalist political economy and its traitors is now available.  I’ve repeatedly argued that this is the winning political paradigm in the present circumstances.  We can ignore, for the sake of argument, that it is also philosophically and practically superior to other political economy paradigms.

Or, How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Embrace The Ocean’s New Diversity’

by The Narrator

The symbolism in the gulf oil deluge is profound. Greedy corporations willing to do anything to increase their profit margins unleash a natural substance into another natural substance, causing a catastrophe of near Armageddon-like proportions.

The similarity to immigration (both legal and illegal) is obvious.  The sad irony is that everyone acknowledges that the corporations which run this world, care little for it. And that they will do or say anything to turn a profit.

Take this piece by the New York Times very own black columnist:

....how is it possible for anyone with any reasonable awareness of the nonstop carnage that has accompanied the entire history of giant corporations to believe that the oil companies, which are among the most rapacious players on the planet, somehow “had their act together” with
regard to worst-case scenarios.

These are not Little Lord Fauntleroys who can be trusted to abide by some fanciful honor system. These are greedy merchant armies drilling blindly at depths a mile and more beneath the seas while at the same time doing all they can to stifle the government oversight that is necessary to protect
human lives and preserve the integrity of the environment.

President Obama knows that. He knows — or should know — that the biggest, most powerful companies do not have the best interests of the American people in mind when they are closing in on the kinds of profits that ancient kingdoms could only envy. BP’s profits are counted in the billions annually. They are like stacks and stacks of gold glittering beneath a brilliant sun. You don’t want to know what people will do for that kind of money.

READ MORE...

So we have all got well and truly used to the idea that the left is out of office after thirteen long, hard years.  The political class generally has lost the trust of the people, and will not easily win it back.  In Europe the post-national project is in trouble.  The internal inconsistencies of the single currency seem set to tear the Union in two.  Power, it seems to me, is more fluid than it has been for twenty years at least.

Yet at the very moment that political nationalism in England should be rising irresistibly on the back of this and of its European Parliament success of a year ago, it is mired in self-doubt and introspection.  The Labour Party, shamed and defeated on Election Night though it was, out-thought and out-classed it in Stoke and Barking, and the usual squeeze on minor parties did the rest elsewhere.  The same old questions return again and again about the leadership, about the calibre of senior activists, about finances.  There is an inescapable feeling that the BNP has a narrow performance corridor in which it will, from here on, oscillate electorally, but from which it will never escape.  It is not going to shake the ground.  It is not going to destroy the Establishment.

The Establishment, meanwhile, may be tempted into returning to the legal fray to destroy it:

The British National party faces the prospect of renewed legal action from the government’s equalities watchdog over allegations that it has failed to remove potentially racist clauses from its constitution. The court case could potentially see the BNP’s leader, Nick Griffin, jailed or fined for contempt of court, or see party assets seized, lawyers believe.

... The BNP constitution was challenged in court last year by the government’s Equalities and Human Rights Commission. In March, Judge Paul Collins ruled that even after the BNP lifted a direct ban on non-white members, the revised document was indirectly discriminatory because it required applicants to oppose “any form of integration or assimilation of ... the indigenous British”, something the EHRC argued could not be endorsed by those in mixed-race relationships.

READ MORE...

The following is an excerpt from a book by the man who authored Seven Points of Agreement Between Individuals previously posted.  It explains some of the philosophy behind the seemingly “draconian” laws upholding sex differences with single combat to the death as well as capital punishment.

READ MORE...