Bold and Brash Intelligence: Examining Geert Wilders and the PVV in the Netherlands.

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Thursday, 16 March 2017 04:17.

Introduction

‘Bold and Brash Intelligence’ is a feature that I’m inaugurating today, in which I’ll just give a very quick opinion about an event as it is unfolding, interpreting the facts on the ground to draw conclusions about the operational efficacy of a particular political tactic or strategy.

For the mechanics of the election in the Netherlands, the parties that contested it, and the way that the coalition politics of the Netherlands works, mainstream news organisations everywhere have already adequately described that, so I won’t repeat what is already understood by everyone.

I’ll just dive straight in to some points that I’d want to highlight, which I think are relevant to our readers here from an ethno-nationalist perspective.

The assumption I’m proceeding forward with in this article is that the objective of those who profess support or allegiance to the PVV is that they are concerned about the problem of mass migration of people from Muslim-majority countries into the Netherlands and they subjectively perceive that the PVV is a way to somehow counteract that threat.

If we accept that assumption as true, the central question then becomes, why does the PVV consistently fail to accomplish that, and how did it fail again last night, despite the fact that the conditions – for example the rise of the migrant crisis, the conspiratorial relationship between Rutte and Merkel, the secret deal with Turkey, and so on – could be seen as ripe issues for them to build significant gains atop? How did the PVV go from having 40% support, to having only 20% support in a year, despite the fact that all of these apparently terrifying events were occurring which they ought to have been able to politically capitalise on?

I will suggest some reasons.

1. The VVD moved slightly to the right in rhetoric so as to sap PVV’s base

Mark Rutte’s VVD moved to the right in terms of rhetoric, and was able to take away a significant amount of the PVV’s support. 34% of the people who said that they voted for VVD, say that Rutte’s little battle against Turkish ministers influenced their vote. Clearly the optics of that fight, although lacking in any substance, helped Rutte. Given that the media environment in the Netherlands is one in which the PVV is portrayed as ‘extremist’, it means that for those who like to be risk-averse, it may be the case that they would rationalise making the ‘safe’ centre-right choice.

The VVD may also have either sought to emulate or been given help in emulating a strategy used by Angela Merkel in Germany several years prior. Casting oneself as a supporter of a ‘responsible and steady’ centre-right statesman who is willing to ‘resist populism’, is – paradoxically – psychologically rewarding to the kind of people who individually believe, either correctly or incorrectly, that the concept of ‘basic-bitch average civilian’ includes everyone except their own esteemed selves.

The nativist populist rhetoric which has become ubiquitous online and can be seen in loud campaign slogans and vague policies, paradoxically repels the very kind of people who are needed to make nativism successful. The politically-savvy cohort who is desperately needed by nativists and yet is absent everywhere, is the kind of person who is just above-average enough to see politics as being more than a public stage on which to have a moralistic battle of sentiments, but is unfortunately also not above-average enough to be willing to entertain a certain amount of deliberate stupidity or obfuscation for the sake of courting the below-average cohort which must also be secured in order to fully lock-in a victory.

Now, some people may be thinking, “But didn’t Trump show that it can work in the United States? He managed to get lots of people to vote for him by basically talking complete nonsense in a very loud voice, all day long, and people voted for it!” Yes, but the United States is populated by low-information voters who are moved by animal-spirits, with an electoral college that grants a large amount of weight to the opinions of a voting bloc of actual political retards who have been subjected to a kind of Pavlovian meme-conditioning for 40 years, so it’s a completely different environment there. There is no parallel to that in Europe. It is not possible to simply meme one’s way to victory through padding-out your vote with political ‘potatoes’ in Europe, no matter what party you are representing.

The other thing about ‘potatoes’ is that they are notoriously unreliable, even if you can find them and secure them in Europe. Because they tend to vote on appearance over substance, they are just as likely to vote for you, as they are to vote for a guy who comes out cosplaying as you in the week prior to the election. The PVV lost significant support to the VVD precisely due to that phenomenon. Having locked down the limited number of ‘potatoes’ that did exist, it couldn’t even hold them. Why even bother?

By way of an agricultural comparison, one which the Irish are surely familiar with, you could very well say that monocropping is the worst possible strategy. In other words: Live by the potato, die by the potato.

2. All substantive debates in the Netherlands are conducted behind a technocratic layer of abstraction, in which the PVV cohort does not participate

The Dutch people really like their technocratic TV debates and their statistics which they drag into every comments section and all over social media. In that sense they actually resemble the British voting profile, and that is not a bad thing.

The PVV of course failed to tap the breadth of issues that Dutch people have been discussing throughout the election, because the PVV is widely perceived as a single-issue party and acts exactly like a single-issue party.

Geert Wilders’ views on immigration, the refugee crisis, and the European Union are a key part of the national debate in the Netherlands, but the polls and a basic survey of the media shows that the biggest issues in the minds of voters are healthcare and social care for the elderly. Other issues of interest to them are law and order, social service provisioning, and so on.

Crucially, 81% of the Dutch people who voted for VVD say that they did so because they liked Rutte’s views on the economy.

If the PVV is seen as having either no economic platform, or alternately, a bad economic platform, is anyone really surprised that it’s also a party that cannot win?

3. The PVV attempts to publicly re-litigate the past 70 years of immigration policy and the majority are not responsive to it

Rather than focussing on one explicit part of the immigration situation – the issue of the actual threat posed by Europe’s lack of coherent external borders – as a fulcrum around which many other issues implicitly rotate, the PVV and other parties and groups similar to it, tend to have a habit of trying to re-litigate the entire history of immigration policy in Western Europe over the past 70 years. In one election.

Obviously this cannot work as part of electoral rhetoric, as it opens a wide flank for public debate and criticism which would otherwise not occur. Why bother talking about the overall immigration policy from years gone by, when you could instead – for example – just talk about the Bataclan attack and the security situation which led up to it?

It remains a mystery as to why political parties with nativist intentions do not yet understand how to strategically dress all their concerns up as security issues which – in reality – those concerns in fact are.

Having the entire debate through the lens of ‘culture’ and ‘civilisation’ ends up giving social services professionals, third sector organisations and charities, and political dilettantes the ability to talk their way out of recognising reality with increasingly complex verbiage and appeals to emotion.

There is however no appeal to emotion and no language construct which can be leveraged against the hard reality of bombs, bullets, armed police response times, economic disruption, and emergency services personnel putting out fires and carrying away body bags. It is a reality which everyone is forced to acknowledge simply by watching television.

‘Defence of your city from bombs and roving bands of armed ISIL-affiliated men’, sounds much more concrete to the average voter than ‘defence of Western Civilisation from Islamisation.’

‘Defence of your city’, is an angle which does not require the voter to accept any fact other than the simple fact that the Bataclan attack happened and that security services have accurately described how that attack took place.

The ‘Western Civilisation’ argument, however, requires that the voter must accept someone’s particular view on what that civilisation should look like or what it used to look like, and requires significant time and effort to articulate. This doesn’t mean people shouldn’t articulate such a view, but it shouldn’t be done as part of electoral messaging when you have a limited amount of time and space to make a point to people who have a limited attention-span. Yet, in a move that can only be seen as a mysterious herculean effort to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory, almost all nativist groups would rather wax lyrical about ‘Western Civilisation’ than actually just exploit the really-existing feelings of terror which have manifested as a result of the absolutely exploitable series of terrorist attacks which have occurred in Europe since 2014.

4. The PVV embodies and vectors a pro-Zionist narrative-hijack and diminishes its own electability as a party in the process

This is the foundational point that underscores all the others, as I believe it is the fundamental root of the problem. The PVV is basically a party of Zionist-imperialism which is committed to socially-legitimating the State of Israel through the propagation of a ‘Clash of Civilisations’ narrative which conveniently – for Israeli communications operations commanders – posits that the State of Israel should be understood by Europeans to be the most important and most brittle line of defence against an allegedly monolithic ‘global Islam’.

It’s such a transparent narrative-hijack that one almost has to stand back in wonderment and stupefaction at how gullible a person would need to be to fall for it.

The PVV and the so-called ‘counter-jihad movement’ propagates messages of social-legitimation for Israel’s actions in Gaza and the West Bank by transforming every Islamist attack that takes place on European soil, into part of their ongoing narrative which usually contains the nonsensical words “this is what Israel has been fighting against all along.”

Nothing could be more absurd.

It is the foreign policy pursued by the State of Israel and vectored though the halls of American power, which has been one of key factors in sustaining the civil war in Syria from which the migration crisis arose, and furthermore, Israel is the same country which also – with no concern for the migration crisis – had one of its top think tanks advance the concept that it would be a ‘good’ idea for the West to deliberately let ISIL continue to exist. The State of Israel is a country whose strategic command has rationalised that since “Assad is now Iran” it would be better for Israel if “Al-Qaeda” or “one of those groups” were to be left running Syria in the aftermath of the war.

To posit that Israel could ever be a real ally of Europe on the issue of radical Islamic terror and the migrant crisis, is an absurdity. Yet it is an absurdly which is continually repeated by the likes of PVV politicians and allies, Geert Wilders himself, and the so-called ‘counter-jihad movement’.

The only way to explain that in the context of the Netherlands is to look at the ethno-racial identity of Geert Wilders himself, as his personality has a strong influence over the essential character and policy direction of the PVV. It is after all a party that was created by him.

Geert Wilders has volunteered at a Kibbutz during his youth, and has lived in Israel. Wilders’ paternal grandmother Johanna Meijer was a Dutch Jew who lived in the Dutch East Indies. Wilders’ family fled the Dutch East Indies during the Second World War shortly after Japanese occupation began, for reasons which probably need no explanation. Wilders has asserted that his father was Jewish. Additionally, Wilders is married to a Jewish-Hungarian diplomat.

Given that Jewishness clearly is a core part of Wilders’ identity and his talks and speeches on the matter only serve to bring that into sharper relief, no one should be surprised that things have turned out the way that they have as a consequence of having allowed Wilders to rise to a leadership position in Dutch the nationalist scene.

Whenever European nationalists engage in political bargains with Zionists, the Zionists will tend to inappropriately utilise the European nationalist organisations as a public relations show-piece whose mission is to divert all revenue streams toward projects which serve to socially-legitimate Israel’s foreign policy preferences among right-wing voters and will function as an aggressive public relations interface for Israel. That interface is then used by them to neutralise existing anti-Zionist sentiment on the right, or to forestall any imminent development of it there.

Combating anti-Zionist sentiment is basically the only thing that the PVV ever concretely accomplishes, which is why the PVV is in fact worse than useless.

Additionally, the PVV would probably have a wider appeal if it were not a Zionist party. Yet, for the operators of the party, the maintenance of the PVV as a ridiculous Zionist outfit is more important to them than actually winning at anything. Even when taken alone, that simple fact should speak volumes about the priorities of the so-called ‘activists’ who represent that party.

This whole assessment is simply a results-orientated approach to politics, devoid of any emotional bias. Even from the most cynical perspective, bartering with Zionists makes no sense.

Empirically speaking, have Europeans who bartered with Zionists ever been known to emerge with a good result for European nationalists? Scientifically speaking, has bartering with Zionists ever been known to work? 

The answer to that question is: Basically no.

Verdict: Into the trash

Some people like to claim that Geert Wilders and the PVV are bold and brash. In reality, Geert Wilders and the PVV are in fact worse than useless, and they belong in the trash.



Comments:


1

Posted by Geert Wilders suspicious relationship with Israel on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 20:36 | #


Geert Wilders and his suspicious relationship with Israel

Unfortunately, there is some Mulatto guy defending Islam (against Wilder’s characterizations) in the video, but it does cross reference his Jewish ties.

Post by DanielS


2

Posted by Kumiko Oumae on Sun, 19 Mar 2017 22:42 | #

It is not merely ‘suspicious’ at this point, it has always been completely obvious as to what Wilders is doing. He is literally a flamboyant Zionist political campaigner.

Geert Wilders actually believes that western armies need to go and die in a war against Iran, for Israel:

Ynet, ‘Geert Wilders: Israel fighting ‘’‘our’‘’ war’, 30 Nov 2010 (emphasis added):

[...] He has many friends in Israel, including in the political system. With former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, for example, he had a particularly warm relationship and has a lot of appreciation for him to this very day. “He was also greatly demonized by the West, but was a great politician who serves as a role model for me,” Wilders stresses.

[...]

Wilders doesn’t hide his support for a military option against the Iranians. “Iran is the greatest geopolitical threat on Israel, on stability in the entire Middle East, and on Europe and the entire world,” he says. “This is a country run by mad people, religious fanatics like Khamenei or other lunatics like Ahmadinejad.

“Now we are seeing some movement there. Even the Revolutionary Guards are voicing criticism. Iran can blow up from the inside. The danger in countries dealing with an internal threat is that their regime will do crazy things. That’s what I’m afraid of.

“Because of the growing internal instability, they must not be given access to plans which could be used for military purposes. They will search for a joint external enemy, and Israel will be the first to pay the price. I hope diplomacy will lead to a non-military solution, but if at the end of the day Israel decides on a military counterattack because its existence is threatened, I will understand. The alternative is having Israel destroyed.”

This has been known for years. It has been known for years that Geert Wilders is like that.

Contrast that against the position taken by Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski when he was subjected to a passive-aggressive interview by Gerald Posner. Brzezinksi took the exact opposite perspective:

The Daily Beast, 18 Sep 2009:

POSNER: There are some pundits who believe that by abandoning the missile-defense program, we will gain the help of Russia when it comes to arm-twisting Iran over its nuclear weapons program. Anything to that?

BRZEZINSKI: I doubt it. The Russians have their own interests in Iran, which are far more complex than the simplistic notion that the Russians want to help us with Iran. The Russians have a complicated agenda with Iran. They also know in the back of their heads that if worse came to worse—and I am not saying they are deliberately promoting the worst—but if worse came to worse, which is an American-Iranian military collision, who would pay the highest price for that? First, America, whose success in ending the Cold War the Russians still bitterly resent. And we would also pay a high price in Iraq, Afghanistan, and massively so with regards to the price of oil. Second, who would suffer the most? The Chinese, who the Russians view as a long-range threat and of whom they are very envious, because the Chinese get much more of their oil from the Middle East than we do, and the skyrocketing price would hurt them even more than us. Third, who would then be totally dependent on the Russians? The West Europeans. And fourth, who would cash in like crazy? The Kremlin.

POSNER: Is the fallout as bad if Israel preemptively strikes Iran?

BRZEZINSKI: Absolutely. That is the way, more importantly, how the Iranians would view it. They really can’t do much to the Israelis, despite all their bluster. The only thing they can do is unify themselves, especially nationalistically, to rally against us, and the mullahs might even think of it as a blessing.

POSNER: How aggressive can Obama be in insisting to the Israelis that a military strike might be in America’s worst interest?

BRZEZINSKI: We are not exactly impotent little babies. They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch?

POSNER: What if they fly over anyway?

BRZEZINSKI: Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they [the Israeli Air Force] fly over, you [the US Air Force, the Royal Air Force] go up and confront them. They [the Israeli Air Force] have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse. [Israeli jet fighters and torpedo boats attacked the USS Liberty in international waters, off the Sinai Peninsula, during the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel later claimed the ship was the object of friendly fire.]

Barack Hussein Obama later was induced to actualise Brzezinski’s viewpoint, as Ma’an News Agency reported:

Ma’an News Agency, ‘Report: Obama threatened to fire on Israeli jets attacking Iran’, 28 Feb 2015 (emphasis added):

BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) – A Kuwaiti newspaper reported Saturday that US President Barack Obama thwarted an Israeli military attack against Iran’s nuclear facilities in 2014.

Al-Jarida newspaper quoted “well-placed” sources as saying that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had taken a decision to carry out airstrikes against Iran’s nuclear program after consultations with his minister of defense Moshe Yaalon and foreign minister Avigdor Liberman in the presence of top security commanders.

The decision came, according to al-Jarida, after Israel revealed that the United States and Iran had been involved in secret talks over Iran’s nuclear program and were about to sign an agreement in that regard behind Israel’s back.

According to the report, Netanyahu and his commanders agreed after four nights of deliberations to task the Israeli army’s chief of staff Beni Gants to prepare a qualitative operation against Iran’s nuclear program. In addition, Netanyahu and his ministers decided to do whatever they could do to thwart a possible agreement between Iran and the White House because such an agreement is, allegedly, a threat to Israel’s security.

The sources added that Gants and his commanders prepared the requested plan and that Israeli fighter jets trained for several weeks in order to make sure the plans would work successfully. Israeli fighter jets even carried out experimental flights in Iran’s airspace after they managed to break through radars.

However, an Israeli minister “who has good ties with the US administration revealed Netanyahu’s plans to Secretary of State John Kerry” and as a result Obama then threatened to shoot down Israeli jets before they could reach their targets in Iran.

Netanyahu had to abort the operation and since then relations between Israel and the United States have been declining, according to the sources quoted in the report.

And then Donald Trump got mad and decided to run for President of the United States because he wanted to hurt Iran and Netanyahu smiled and transformed him into a Mossad asset of the highest calibre.

And here we are, in a scenario where the Alt-Right believes that hyper-Zionist Trump and Wilders are somehow in some demented way ‘a step in the right direction’, and that people like Brzezinski are ‘evil globalists’, whatever the fuck that even means.

I asked in a previous article the following question:

Kumiko Oumae / Majorityrights.com, ‘A view of Brexit from Asia: Britain as a Pacific trading power in the 21st century.’, 06 Mar 2017:

Everything really hinges around what people’s priorities are. Is your priority to defend the structural integrity of the propositional nation called ‘the United States’ or ‘the Russian Federation’ or whatever? Or is your priority to counteract the power of the Jewish lobby which is firmly entrenched in those two locations above all else? The answer cannot realistically be ‘both’. Choose one.

I have yet to receive a response to this question from any of the Alt-Right figures out there, and they refuse to come here and talk to me.



Post a comment:


Name: (required)

Email: (required but not displayed)

URL: (optional)

Note: You should copy your comment to the clipboard or paste it somewhere before submitting it, so that it will not be lost if the session times out.

Remember me


Next entry: Suidlanders Reach out to Americans to Stop South African White Genocide
Previous entry: 61,697 Invaders Land in Europe: Jan. 2017

image of the day

Existential Issues

DNA Nations

Establishment Problem

Categories

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Immigration

Islamist Threat

Anti-white Media Networks

Audio/Video

Crime

Economics

Education

General

Historical Re-Evaluation

Controlled Opposition

Nationalist Political Parties

Science

Europeans in Africa

Of Note

Comments

O.J. Simpson's cheerful parole hearing commented in entry 'O.J. Simpson & Nicole Brown's Alleles Combined' on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 22:56. (View)

The PIS side of the story commented in entry 'Since July 12th all courts in Poland are under threat of being controlled by ruling party (PIS)' on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 21:40. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 19:35. (View)

Didess42 commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 15:55. (View)

Tara blows it epistemically commented in entry 'Are Whites stupid, or what? Tara will be an epoch light out of the darkness, especially if...' on Sat, 22 Jul 2017 08:55. (View)

"she did not have to die" commented in entry 'Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city's first Somalian police officer.' on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 11:04. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 02:12. (View)

Killercop: affrimative action hire by Hijabwearing commented in entry 'Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city's first Somalian police officer.' on Fri, 21 Jul 2017 00:58. (View)

Betsy tries not to laugh, shrugs it off commented in entry 'Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city's first Somalian police officer.' on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 15:56. (View)

told you commented in entry 'Heimbach & Parrott's Jesus group acts into right wing altercast of YKW' on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 11:36. (View)

Officer Noor and family commented in entry 'Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city's first Somalian police officer.' on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 07:23. (View)

Betsy the Hijra Hole commented in entry 'Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city's first Somalian police officer.' on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 02:25. (View)

Orbán, Soros and Bibi commented in entry 'Hungary’s PM Orbán: Nowhere Do Human Rights Prescribe National Suicide' on Thu, 20 Jul 2017 01:14. (View)

Belarusian nationalist Tanya Tay commented in entry 'BELARUSIAN NATIONALISM, A WHITE NATIONALISM' on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 22:22. (View)

Incredibly creepy Besty Hodges campaign video commented in entry 'Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city's first Somalian police officer.' on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 07:35. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Kristol>NeoCon>Meyer>Paleocon> Gottfried>Francis>NPI> Gottfried>AltRight/lite> Paleocon>Bannon>Trump' on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:52. (View)

Bannon hired Milo to pander to White tech paleos commented in entry 'Alt-Right or Alt-Lite? It's worse than you think.' on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 02:40. (View)

Mudshark Mayor of Minneapolis commented in entry 'Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges hired Mohammed Noor, the city's first Somalian police officer.' on Wed, 19 Jul 2017 00:23. (View)

Thousands protest coup against Polish constitution commented in entry 'Since July 12th all courts in Poland are under threat of being controlled by ruling party (PIS)' on Tue, 18 Jul 2017 11:49. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Mon, 17 Jul 2017 03:12. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Sun, 16 Jul 2017 17:16. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Sun, 16 Jul 2017 17:02. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sun, 16 Jul 2017 11:08. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Sun, 16 Jul 2017 03:29. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Sat, 15 Jul 2017 09:01. (View)

Captainchaos commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 22:24. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 17:30. (View)

John K Press commented in entry 'Test Your Capacity To See Through Jewish Crypsis: Which ones are Jewish?' on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 10:24. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Thu, 13 Jul 2017 03:46. (View)

DanielS commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 22:18. (View)

Guessedworker commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 20:55. (View)

Evidence of Trump collusion piling up commented in entry 'Trump Jr. admits Goldstone arranged meeting with Russians for dirt on Hillary' on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:58. (View)

Political Islam commented in entry 'Before treating Unz Review as friendly Jewish ally, better look under the dress' on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:47. (View)

Heraclitus commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 12:24. (View)

Parmenides commented in entry 'Pragmatism as ethnonationalism's tool against radical skepticism' on Wed, 12 Jul 2017 11:01. (View)

affection-tone