The Legacy of Pim Fortuyn

Eric Rembrandt, American Renaissance, September 19, 2014

The Dutch politician martyred for his beliefs.

It is five minutes to midnight, not just in the Netherlands but in Europe. I stand with this country, which has been built up in six centuries. There is a goddamned fifth column in this country that wants to take us into the abyss. I tell them [foreigners], you can stay here, but you adapt. When I visit their neighborhoods they tell me Allah is great, that I am a dirty pig and the leader of the Christian Democrats is a Christian dog. The people are fed up with the soft approach of the ruling parties, which is the reason I have won many seats during the elections. Fine, then I will be murdered. But the problem will remain. — Pim Foruyn

It has now been 12 years since the assassination of Pim Fortuyn, the flamboyant Dutch politician who was one of the first to break the taboo and call attention to the deadly threat of Muslim immigration. He was one of very few critics of mass immigration who was able to reach a broad audience, and the success of his movement broke down barriers that have never been fully rebuilt.

Fortuyn was born in 1948. In 1981 he received a doctorate in sociology at the University of Groningen, and for a time taught Marxist sociology at the same university. In 1990, Fortuyn moved to Rotterdam, where he taught at Erasmus University. Although he was, himself, a leftist, he began to notice that the political landscape and media were completely dominated by what he called “the left-wing church.” He also saw first-hand the failures of multiculturalism in Rotterdam, which received large numbers of immigrants during the 1960s and 1970s, most of them Muslim.

In 1997, he wrote a book, Against the Islamization of our Culture, which shocked the country and established him as a prominent critic of immigration policy. He began to appear on Dutch television and in the newspaper, where he relentlessly criticizing the government and Islam. He was soon notorious for saying he wanted a “cold war” with Islam, which he called “an extraordinary threat” and “a hostile religion.”

When he was invited on talk shows, he was often treated like a lunatic, and was usually outnumbered by hostile opponents. However, Fortuyn, who was openly homosexual, had a suave debating style that often routed his opponents.

In one television debate, he flaunted his homosexuality at a Muslim cleric. When the imam responded with furious anti-homosexual invective, Fortuyn calmly explained to viewers that this is the kind of Trojan horse for intolerance the Dutch were letting into their country in the name of multiculturalism.

In 2001, the increasingly visible Fortuyn was put at the head of the new Livable Netherlands party’s list of candidates, and was largely responsible for the party’s success in the Rotterdam city elections. In February 2002, he gave an interview to a Dutch newspaper, Volkskrant, in which he said that Islam was “a backward culture,” and that if it were legally possible he would close Holland’s borders to Muslims. He said Muslims had no understanding democracy or of the rights of women, homosexuals, or minorities, and that in sufficient numbers they would try to impose Sharia law on Holland. He added that it might be necessary to repeal anti-racism laws in order to protect freedom of speech.

This was too much for Livable Netherlands, and he was forced out of the party the day after the interview appeared. By then Fortuyn had bigger plans, and had his eye on the Dutch national elections. His criticism of traditional parties, immigration, multiculturalism, and Islam had attracted a large new group of voters, and with the help of several property magnates, he founded the Lijst Pim Fortuyn (LPF).

The LPF quickly started polling at rates better than any other party. It attracted voters from the entire political spectrum, but especially from the Left. The same year, 2002, Fortuyn published another influential book, The Wreckage of Eight Purple Years. This was a powerful and well-received critique of the “purple” (conservative, liberal, and social democrat) governments that had been in power for almost a decade. If there had been an election when Fortuyn was at the peak of his popularity, he might well have become prime minister.

The establishment realized Fortuyn was a threat, and began a program of demonization. He had been called “right wing” and “racist,” but he always rejected these labels. He insisted–sincerely, it appears–that he did not object to Muslims because of their race but because they were incapable of appreciating modernity, which Fortuyn defined in terms of the achievements of the Left. For this reason, he rejected any comparison to Jean-Marie Le Pen in France or Jörg Haider in Austria, figures he considered genuinely “right wing.” After the establishment of the LPF and its meteoric rise in popularity, the media and politicians–Dutch and foreign alike–went further, and started calling him the new Hitler or Mussolini.

Fortuyn started getting death threats, and at the time of the publication of his 2002 book, he was hit with a pie filled with feces and urine. He requested security guards, but the Dutch authorities refused to protect him. In 2005, it was revealed that instead of protecting him, the Dutch secret services were spying on him. They tapped his phone and even followed him into gay clubs. Leaked documents also showed they were investigating other members of the LPF.

The LPF continued to build a platform, with immigration control as its central plank. Fortuyn also argued that asylum seekers and war refugees should find shelter in their own part of their world rather than in the West. Although it is not well known outside of Holland, the LPF had a comprehensive platform that made many enemies, including:

  • The Political Elite. Fortuyn blamed the “purple” government or “the left-wing church” for the failing multicultural state, a weak police force, and a mediocre health care system.
  • Muslims. All Muslim organizations hate him.
  • The Dutch royal family. Fortuyn criticized Queen Beatrice for interfering too much in government matters, and complained that Crown Prince William Alexander was old fashioned and too strongly influenced by the military.
  • The uniformed services. He thought the police were ineffective, and he wanted to cut military spending and radically reorganize the armed forces. He opposed Dutch participation in development of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which he thought was a huge waste of money.
  • The European Union. The EU was not as powerful as it is today, but Fortuyn already recognized its love of wielding power that was accountable to no one. As he said, “The elite of the European Union does not like democracy, in fact this meritocratic-bureaucrat clique is not being controlled by anyone, and they intend to keep it that way.”

Of course, Fortuyn had many friends who shared his beliefs. One was Theo van Gogh, a film-maker and columnist, and great-grand nephew of the painter. Van Gogh frequently criticized Dutch multicultural society, and was best known for his short film Submission, about the abuse of women in Islamic society. Van Gogh and Fortuyn sometimes appeared on television together; no one knew that both would soon be dead.

Theo

Theo van Gogh

The early part of 2002 was a chaotic time for Fortuyn. His party had been founded only in February, but had to prepare for general elections in May. As the LPF polling numbers climbed, the demonization campaign went into high gear, and Dutch Public Television was especially strident in denouncing the party. Just two months before he was assassinated, Fortuyn denounced the hysteria that had been built up against him:

If something happens to me, the purple politicians are also responsible. They cannot just tell you they have not wanted an attack. No. They have created the climate, and this has to stop.

On May 6, 2002–just 11 days before the election–Fortuyn gave a radio interview in the city of Hilversum, in which he discussed polls that suggested he might be forming the next government. When he left the studio, a man approached him in the parking lot and shot him in the head, chest and neck. Fortuyn died soon after. The murderer, Volkert van der Graaf, explained at trial that the rise of Fortuyn was like the rise of Nazism in the 1930s. He said he had murdered Fortuyn to stop him from exploiting Muslims as “scapegoats,” and for targeting “the weak members of society.” Van der Graaf was sentenced to 18 years in prison, but received a conditional release in May of this year, after serving two-third of his sentence.

The Netherlands was shocked by the assassination, which was the first political murder in its democratic history. Riots broke out in The Hague, near the national parliament, but the elections went ahead as planned. The LPF polled as the second largest party, with 17 percent of the vote. Many potential LPF voters had switched to the Christian Democrats (who never participated in the demonization of Fortuyn), because they felt that the party had no value without its leader–and they were proven right. It took just two years of infighting, financial mismanagement, and lackluster leaders to drive the party to just 1 percent support, and it disintegrated soon thereafter.

In November 2004, Fortuyn’s ally Theo van Gogh was butchered on the streets of Amsterdam. Mohammed Bouyeri, a Dutch-Moroccan Muslim, shot him eight times and slit his throat. Mr. Bouyeri then drove a dagger into van Gogh’s chest with a note that threatened one of his film collaborators with death. Mr. Bouyeri was sentenced to life in prison.

The Dutch politician who now most closely resembles Fortuyn is Geert Wilders, whose Party for Freedom is now the fourth-largest party in parliament. He has famously said that the Koran “incites hatred and killing and therefore has no place in our legal order.” He believes there should be no more Muslim immigration, and that all Muslims in Holland should be paid to go home. If Muslim immigration continues, he says, “We are heading for the end of European and Dutch civilization.”

Geert Wilders

Geert Wilders

Although Fortuyn is dead and his party disintegrated, many of his former supporters now vote for Mr. Wilders. Fortuyn was the first Dutchman to give voters a real alternative to the traditional parties and to give voice to that large part of the population that realizes immigration threatens our culture. Fortuyn broke the taboo on frank talk about immigration, an achievement he paid for with his life.

Pim Fortuyn also shows the role just one man can play in history. He started a movement single-handedly. The almost immediate self-destruction of that movement after his assassination shows how essential he was. This always seems to be the case with movements that depart from convention. Traditional parties of the center-right or center-left can plod along with virtually anyone in charge, but a party with a fresh perspective needs extraordinary and charismatic leaders.

Racially aware critics complain that Fortuyn never opposed immigration on the basis of race. Conservatives complain that he opposed immigration for the wrong reasons, namely, that Third-Worlders do not adapt to the features of Western societies that conservatives most dislike: feminism, homosexual marriage, and other forms of egalitarianism.

These critics do not realize that in the late 1990s and even today, it is impossible to win broad support in Holland by criticizing immigration from the Right, and certainly not from a racial perspective. Such views can be too easily caricatured as Nazi or white supremacist, and are confined to the fringe. Pim Fortuyn, with his PhD, his expensive suits, his urbane manner, and his open homosexuality, could attack the horrible consequences of immigration without terrifying Dutch voters. The enormous response he received shows just how much the Dutch resent the transformation of their country, and how willing they are to act on that resentment if they can do so in a way that does not seriously threaten their respectability.

The success of Nigel Farage in Britain and the rise of Marine Le Pen in France–after she purged the National Front of “extremists”–are further proof of the deep yearning Europeans have for leaders who promise to protect and restore their nations. Someday, open racial appeals will take their legitimate place in the formation of public policy, but that day has not yet come.

This video and this one are rare examples of Fortuyn debates that have been given English subtitles.

Topics: , , ,

Share This

Eric Rembrandt
Eric Rembrandt is a Dutch university student who is studying international relations. He also practices martial arts.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Pim Fortuyn recognized that the threat against him, which was ultimately “successful,” is what we now call “eliminationism” or “eliminationist hate.” It’s not a matter of people with black hats and black suitcases and black budgets engaged in a discernible conspiracy, because that’s not necessary. All that is necessary is for popular media and pop culture to gin up a campaign of rage and hate against you, and at some point some lone nut will respond to the invective and pop out of the woodwork.

    I think eliminationism is the best fit explanation for Arthur Bremer almost assassinating George Wallace, and verily ending his serious national ambitions.

    • anony

      Agree with your analysis, but remember the story told by the alleged assassin of MLK, James Earl Ray, who described someone named “Raul” who “managed” him for more than a year prior to the hit. Raul maneuvered him to Memphis, had him buy a rifle for a hunting trip, put him up in a hotel right across the street from MLK’s motel, and the rest is history. Ray never fired a shot that day although he test fired the rifle a couple of days prior to the hit.

      Ray managed, prior to his death, to convince the King family of his innocence. That’s not to say that he was of course. But his story was compelling.

      I am quite familiar with these people like Raul. They are, in the trade, called “handlers”.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Patsy or Manchurian candidate.

    • Oil Can Harry

      Let’s not forget Floyd Corkins shooting up the Family Research Council after the $PLC demonized them.

      Also, I don’t think Wallace would’ve beaten Nixon in ’72. Maybe he would’ve been the nominee in ’76 instead of Carter.

    • SentryattheGate

      re. the immense power of the press: David Rockefeller thanks the media, who are Bilderberg Group attendees, “We are grateful to the Washington Post, the New York Times, Time magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promise of discretion for almost 40 years. It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government…” – David Rockefeller in Baden-Baden, Germany 1991.

  • JohnEngelman

    When he was invited on talk shows, he was often treated like a lunatic, and was usually outnumbered by hostile opponents. However, Fortuyn, who was openly homosexual, had a suave debating style that often routed his opponents…

    He had been called “right wing” and “racist,” but he always rejected these labels. He insisted–sincerely, it appears–that he did not object to Muslims because of their race but because they were incapable of appreciating modernity, which Fortuyn defined in terms of the achievements of the Left

    – Eric Rembrandt, American Renaissance, September 19, 2014

    That is the way to do it. Respond in a civil manner to the most vile insults of your detractors. Never respond in kind. Whenever possible, use their values and cognitions against them.

    • P3P3P3P3

      conceal carry works best

  • Jack Burton

    Pim Fortuyn was not killed by a radical Muslim, but by an environmentalist, animal rights activist, vegan, white liberal.

    So there you go, there it is encapsulated for you. White liberals and Third World immigrants want to murder traditional white Europeans and their culture, one way or another. There are your enemies. The “peaceful” ones are merely the Trojan horse.

    • italian guy

      “Pim Fortuyn was not killed by a radical Muslim, but by an environmentalist, animal rights activist, vegan, white liberal.”
      The real enemies of the Western World, if it wasn’t for the retarded ideas of White liberals there wouldn’t even notions like diversity, racism etc. etc.

      • IstvanIN

        We (Whites) are our own worst enemies. While we may disagree internally on issues we should always show a united front against non-Whites/non-Westerners/Non-Christian religions. Blacks, Arabs, Asians, Muslims, Hindus should not be in our nations.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      It is apalling how leftist environmentalists are. In Europe all “green” parties are Cultural Marxist and pro-immigrant. In the Netherlands there is a Green-Left Party, but a Green Right Party seems unthinkable.

      • anony

        I remember years ago listening to a speech by Vaclav Havel, former president of the newly formed Chech Republic (IIRC), who knew the communists well having grown up under communism. This was after the fall of the Soviet Union of course and all of the West was celebrating the end of communism (so they thought).

        Havel warned us in that speech that far from disappearing, communism had merely wrapped itself in a “green” cloak.

        • Franklin_Ryckaert

          The Dutch Green-Left Party came into being as a fusion of 4 parties, all of the Left to extreme Left : 1) EVP ( Evangelical Peoples Party), 2) PPR ( Political Party of Radicals), 3) PSP (Pacifist Socialist Party), 4) CPN (Communist Party of the Netherlands). Its first representative in parliament was Paul Rosenmöller who had been active as a labour union activist for a Maoist Marxist-Leninist Group.

          • BillMillerTime

            Yes, like many (but certainly not all) environmentalists, they’re watermelons: green on the outside, red on the inside.

          • Jacobite2

            No sense going to war with external enemies while you’re harboring a huge fifth column inside the walls. Leftists have to disappear, as in Argentina’s Dirty war. Then we can take on the wogs.

        • SentryattheGate

          Yes! Former head of the USSR, Mikhail Gorbachov founded the Green Cross, now in cahoots with the infamous UN! “Green Cross International enjoys consultative status with the United Nations Economic and Social Council, and United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. GCI is an admitted observer organization with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and the Conference of the Parties to the UN Convention to Combat Desertification.”

        • Janette

          …Like tomatoes…first they are green, then they turn red.

      • SentryattheGate

        Being for environmentalism AND pro-immigration shows the lack of sound reasoning right there! How can they profess to be concerned about nature AND support your country’s welcome of millions of foreigners? That’s why the Sierra Club lost about half it’s members!

      • 1stworlder

        Because watermelon green is commie red inside. If they really cared about the environment they would be anti 3rdworld immigration as 3rdworlders can give off lots more pollution while on welfare than they could in their homelands.

      • Raymond Kidwell

        Left and Right are manufactured by the current masters of the universe so no matter what side you choose they win. The Nazis promoted vegetarianism, were extreme environmentalists, believed in socialism (such as high taxes on the rich, efforts to keep wages high, labor unions etc.) but also tough on crime, racist etc. This seemed more like a “real” ideology invented by people rather than the fake choices we are given in modern politics.

        Let’s say if you become a leftist- you support the lowest common denominator, want to discriminate against white males, love immigration etc. the average white person loses.

        Right- you want to exploit working people, lower taxes on the rich, exploit the environment (disproportionately harms average people) etc. the average white person loses.

        It’s head they win, tales you lose- so pick a side.

        Instead more effort should be made creating a realistic and viable alternative to mainstream parties and toss out the “left” “right” definitions. This is why I dislike it on here when people try to make this a conservative issue or leftist vs right etc. that’s the trap they want you to fall into because in the end they define what left and right is- not you, and that’s the problem.

      • rightrightright

        Greens are known as the watermelons – green on the outside, red in the middle.

      • WR_the_realist

        It baffles me how left wing environmentalists think that flooding their country with Muslims or Mexicans is a pro environmental policy. The truth is that most professional environmentalists are just hard leftists with a thin veneer of greenery. Of course it also baffles me why so many leftists want to bring in Muslims who favor policies towards women that make the “sexism” of America in the 40s and 50s look positively enlightened. To a leftist anyone who is non-white and in opposition to Western culture is good, no matter how much that person disagrees with standard left issues.

      • pcmustgo

        Not me. I am an environmentalist and race realist. And an artist.

    • Garrett Brown

      Funny how Jorg haider suspiciously died in a car accident as well isn’t it?

      • anony

        It’s instructive to study assassinations of high profile political figures over the last 200 years. Study the assassins carefully.

        • Garrett Brown

          Before even beginning the search my suspicions are they start with a J.

      • SentryattheGate

        Oh, yes! I remember him; I’m glad you brought up his name. He too deserves to be remembered for his brave, un-PC stance against esp. Muslim Immigration, and for his Austrian homeland!

        • Garrett Brown

          He was a hero of mine. One of the people that inspired me to learn German.

      • none of your business

        It was not an accident.

    • anony

      ” The “peaceful” ones are merely the Trojan horse.”

      I prefer to call them “useful idiots”. I think that is more accurate on several levels. 🙂

      • Jack Burton

        You don’t get it.

        • anony

          Please enlighten me.

    • jackryanvb

      I once saw a great pro White bumper sticker in Oregon:

      Keep Oregon green and White.

  • LHathaway

    This is an incredible article. One of the best I’ve read on AmRen.

  • Bryce Armstrong

    Tisk tisk. I have so much empathy for a lefty homo.

  • antiquesunlight

    “[Geert Wilders] believes there should be no more Muslim immigration, and that all Muslims in Holland should be paid to go home.”

    To my American ears, it’s almost shocking to hear a mainstream politician say something like that. I think it’s a terrific idea. Hell, I’d be willing to donate money to the cause.

    • dmxinc

      Yes, you’ll never ever hear a statement like that from one of ours will you?

      That is that advantage (in today’s environment) of the parliamentary system.

      It doesn’t matter if you alienate even a majority of the voters, you will still win seats and gain representation.

      In our “winner take all” system, such an approach today is political suicide.

      How do we operate successfully with the system we are under?

      • anony

        We don’t.

    • SentryattheGate

      Years ago, Germany (and another European country or two?) offered $3000 and a free airline ticket home to each immigrant, esp. hoping the Muslims would accept. Unfortunately, not many accepted. After all, with free welfare in a First World nation, why go home?

      • antiquesunlight

        Well I hope they didn’t give up. Offer more than 3000. I’m generally against raising taxes, but if the government told me they needed to sharply raise taxes in order to get all the immigrants out, I’d send them a check in addition to my taxes.

        • 1stworlder

          It would save money in the long run.

    • dukem1

      Just to hear someone say it!

  • Charles Lufkin

    It is my impression that Fortyn cared primarily for homosexual “rights” and could care less about the issue of preserving a white Netherlands( he had little problem with black africans or other third worlders as long as they accepted “liberal’ views).Therefore how could he be the leader of an anti-immigration united front of various groups.

    • IstvanIN

      Whatever his reasons, it was a start.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      Pim Fortuyn bragged about making love to young Moroccan boys. That was his argument for not being “racist”.

    • 1stworlder

      He was the only viable path to getting 3rdworld scum out of his nation. If the other options where Christie/Clinton I could see myself voting for someone like Pim. If there was a gay running for president that had obvious grievances with the 3rdworld such as an illegal alien drunk driver killed some of his boyfriends, realized that blacks commit most bashings against gays (as reported by the San Fran Gate that most gays complained about the publishing) & who promised to run every muslim and illegal out of the nation he would be the best option to clean up the country.

  • Martel

    The people of the Netherlands are eternally indebted to Pim Fortuyn. Prior to Fortuyn my country was comparable to Sweden today when it came to the subject of immigration. Absolute silence was demanded by the political establishment, and it was zealously enforced. We owe Fortuyn for the country we live in today, where it has become much easier to discuss Islam, immigration and to openly denounce multiculturalism. I will never forget the political turmoil during those days, it was a time of amazing hope and intense frustration. There wasn’t a day which went by where tax payer funded newsstations didn’t push aggressive propaganda against Fortuyn, or where I didn’t overhear another immigrant expressing his deep desire for Pim Fortuyn to be murdered. The entire country held its breath the day he was murdered while waiting for the media to report the ethnicity of his killer, and I have little doubt there would have been a violent reaction if the killer had not been Dutch. I don’t think the political establishment would still exist in its current form if the assassin had been an immigrant.

    • Bantu_Education

      I don’t think it would have made any difference. Theo Van Gogh’s assassin was a Muslim immigrant and nothing changed. If Geert Wilders is also assassinated, which is very likely, do you think there will be a huge anti-muslim reaction?

      • Martel

        The atmosphere prior to Fortuyn’s death can’t be compared to the situation prior to Van Gogh’s death. Fortuyn was nearly hailed as a messiah, and the people where galvanised in a way I have not seen since. When he got shot, it was quite clear to me that his followers, talking decent citizens here, were an inch away from taking it to the streets. But..a white leftist shot him. Unfortunately there where no community organisers to channel those feelings into grassroots action. Had I been a grown man back then, I would have made the most of this opportunity. Instead, we mourned. Rotterdam became the scene of one of the largest vigils in its history.

        • Bantu_Education

          Thanks for your reply. I don’t know much about the situation in Holland but I am fearful for the safety of Geert Wilders. If he is taken out, who will replace him? Almost nobody these days has the courage to stick their head above the parapet. Jared Taylor, GW, and a handful of others being honourable exceptions that prove the rule.

          • Martel

            Fortunately I have spend my worries for the moment. I often feared most for Tommy Robinson the last few years, who was often physically assaulted and received horrifying threats on a daily basis, while not having the same security as Wilders but with a similar high profile in his own country. I don’t think Muslims are so strategically incompetent to take out Wilders in the current situation, it would be an incredible mistake. As Fortuyn predicted before his death, the statesman who would take over the reigns after he would be assassinated would be less mild then he was. If Wilders gets assasinated I believe my people will be tolerant of more radical ideas. For Wilders party, his second in command, Martin Bosma is a great intellectual and charismatic enough to keep the party alive if something would happen. He might even have an easier time to become prime minister in that case.

        • none of your business

          Also in muslim countries where there is freedom of religion the buildings of other religions must be lower than muslim buildings by law.

    • dmxinc

      About twenty years ago, I discussed with a few of your countrymen and women the future loss of your entire county to immigrants.

      They were indifferent!

      In each case, they didn’t think it would be so bad if that happened.

      As I looked at one drop-dead gorgeous Dutch girl in her bikini, I thought “maybe not from your perspective, but certainly from mine!”

  • IstvanIN

    He made a stand and, it appears, rather than protect him the government wanted him out of the way, although his murder may have been inevitable. In fact all of us are slated for murder by the Muslims and White “liberals”.

  • IstvanIN

    I don’t think it was likely that he could have raised an army similar to the brown shirts. Government arrest those types.

    • M&S

      The truth is that the left has the upper hand in that they may j’accuse anyone they don’t like of Nazi associations and thus invoke both the common perception of distasteful views unfit for public discussion and, in Europe, actual legal consequences.
      It would _greatly_ detooth The Agenda if the Left were forced to publically recant or suffer their own ‘fines’ for bringing up The Jews and Naziism everytime someone dared to say “Not in my country.”
      Keep in mind, the Nazis, if you believe the narrative, wanted everything. Not just a land of their own and the right to say whom they associated with, within it’s borders, but a Jew free Greater Reich in which their racial ideals were forced on everyone.
      It is this which differentiates a racist from a genocidist and the rabid Left must be held up as self-righteous, stupid, bigots in their own right for borrowing a slander that doesn’t apply, simply because they can think of no other excuse which works when someone says the culture is losing it’s quality because of a specific group of unwanted outsiders being forced on everyone.
      As soon as you beat the Reductio Ad Hitlerum strawman misdirect, the Left have no arguments. The statistic destroy their position for them.

      • Charlie

        Here is the problem, and it’s a very simple one…for starters, the reason that the Left is much larger than the Right, is simply because, anyone can become a Leftist…from some of the most rabid racists, to the most radical anti-racists, have all flirted with the Left, and its politics, at some point in their political careers…it has been historically proven, that the Fascists, in particular Mussolini and Hitler, had borrowed heavily from Marxist/ Leninist doctrine, in order to get their political movements, “over the hump”, and into the gates of power…had the two leading Fascist figures of the 20th century, never borrowed from the Left, then they would never have been able to create mass movements of national scope…the Right always operates from a “doctrinaire of purity”, meaning that, only the ethnic group or race, can be party members, thus, in a multi-ethnic society, which is stacked against the Nationalists in the first place, their numbers always remain low…the Left has become the supreme societal force in virtually every single Western European society, as well as America, for the media, educational institutions, even the religious institutions, are heavily saturated with Leftists…in order to get a position of influence in the government these days, one is usually “screened” for potential anti-Leftist thoughts and beliefs, and thus, that person will not get the position that they want…even the militaries of various European states, have become politically indoctrinated to the Left…there are far more Leftists, than you actually think…

  • IstvanIN

    Isn’t sad that freedom of political expression is so limited in the western world? A man should be able to express his thoughts without fear of death from opponents or repression by the government. The Western World has become very much like the communist world.

    • anony

      Let’s not forget that we were allied with the communist Soviet Union in WWII. Also, the FDR administration was rife with active communists during his administration. Hitler rose to power on the promise to rid Germany of communists.

  • jackryanvb

    I’ve been waiting for an American version of Lib/Left pro freedom Dutch patriots like Pym Fortyn, Theo Van Gogh and Geert Wilders. Ever since American Renaissance published “Don’t Write Off the Liberals” – must have been 20 year ago, I’ve been longing for a pro White, pro Western American Lib/Left leader, movement and it just hasn’t come.

    Why?

    Why do American Lib/Leftists take the side of invading Islamic 8th century throat cutters, slavers, women abusers, gay killers?

    Why?

    • Maybe the reason the Dutch political culture could spring a liberal immigration restrictionist is that the Dutch political culture is such that social liberalism is settled politics, therefore, any immigration restrictionist to gain stature was by definition going to be a social liberal.

      Why are there no really serious immigration restrictionists among American liberals? I think it’s because all they care about is YAY BLUE TEAM winning elections, so pursuant to that, they have to elect a new people.

      • jackryanvb

        Another big cause of pro White, pro Western Lib Leftist party in Holland is the parlementary form of democracy. Smaller immigration restrictionist, anti Islam parties that win 15-20% of the vote can have representation in parlement, can have influence. In the United states system of democracy it’s all >51% or nothing. Our side gets nothing.

        This is another reason to marginalize, get away from US Constitutionalist patriots idiots – who insist, all evidecence to the contrary that our Constitutinal Republic system is the greatest form of government ever.

        Our system enables the likes of Lindsey Graham, the Bush family, Sheldon Adelson, Holder, Elena Kagin to be pretty much whatever they want to be and do to us.

        • Franklin_Ryckaert

          “The winner takes all”-system is the most unjust form of democracy. It
          prevents small parties to have a chance and only consolidates TPTB.

          • Bantu_Education

            The “first past the post” system as practiced in the UK is the most undemocratic system one can imagine short of an absolute monarchy which, IMO, would be infinitely better. The Uk had a referendum recently to change this but the alternatives offered were not much better. Needless to say it was rejected (by a large margin) largely because the media kept raising the spectre of a BNP (or another Nazi-type party) being able to gain traction. Apparently anything, even an Islamic theocracy gaining power, is preferable to that. Britain is a “field of fools” indeed.

          • Charlie

            Democracy is an ineffective form of rule, simply because of lobbyists, who usually have money and resources than anyone else in the country, who are able to buy off various politicians, who for money, are more than willing to sell their people, down the toilet…

        • M.

          Yes, another example of that is Sweden. If it weren’t for its parliamantary system, the immigration restrictionist SD party would’ve still been irrelevant today, even though it’s the third largest party in Sweden.

        • Stan D Mute

          You forget our Constitution has been gutted by the Amendment which ended State appointment of Senators replacing that with direct vote (17th? Can’t multitask on this device) as well as the blatant disregard for the 10th which reserved all powers not specifically enumerated by the Constitution to the States.

          We have strayed so far from the Constitution that it’s nearly impossible to conceive what the country might look like had the Framers’ intent been obeyed.

          • anony

            My tag line on another blog used to be “eliminate the 17th amendment”.

            You are right, though, that we have not been a constitutional republic since around 1865. Some say that it began eroding much earlier in 1803 with the Marbury v. Madison, where the Supreme court gave excessive power to itself. But that one is for legal scholars.

            I’ll go with 1865 which ended States’ rights otherwise known as State sovereignty

          • none of your business

            Marbury vs Madison was the one,just one case in which the supreme court gave itself supreme dictatorial authority over the elected president. Our constitution was designed that way by the founding fathers who had no intention whatsoever of giving power to the proles and peasants who fought the revolution for them.
            Like everybody of laws ever written, the constitution is subject to interpretation by some authority figure.

          • anony

            True to a point. SCOTUS was not intended to be the final word on the law. The intent was for the Three branches to do a “balancing” act with respect to laws.

            If the intent had been for the Supreme Court to be the “final word”, there would be supreme power residing there, and we would not have “three equal branches”, would we.

            If you’re interested further, read THE IRREPRESSIBLE MYTH OF MARBURY, a white paper whose author’s name I forget.

          • SentryattheGate

            So glad you brought that to our attention! Yes, it was the 17th Amendment, brought to us that same infamous year, 1913, as the income tax (16th Amendment) and the Federal Reserve. It’s been downhill for American citizens ever since! At least states are finally putting to good use the 10th Amendment; telling the federal gov’t. to back off from issues and areas where they have no jurisdiction!

        • SentryattheGate

          The US Constitution doesn’t call for political parties. I forgot which founding father denounced political parties.

          • none of your business

            George Washington; he said something like ” a political party might someday put a suit of clothes on a broom stick and get it elected to public office.” But Washington was a follower of Plato who believed that there was a natural God given aristocracy that would naturally rise to the top.

        • none of your business

          Reading those constitutionalists I realized that none of them ever sat through even a semester of constitutional law or know anything about our constitution. Our constitution, like every body of laws ever written is subject to

    • P3P3P3P3

      part of liberalism is to h8 Western Culture, which includes Christianity and Capitalism, the lefits despise rules, which preserves, protects and procreates for their future

    • M.

      That’s because most of the anti-immigration and/or pro-white folks tend to be extremely conservative and find the liberal West to be degenerate. Yes, they tend to use those puritan vague quasi-spiritual terms like “degeneracy”, “decadence”, or “moral decay” (I mind-read those with a Southern accent). Those terms usually involve people not having sex with the right people, not having sex for the right reasons, not being sexually attracted to the people, doing things people of your gender shouldn’t be doing (like a girl doing kickboxing), or wearing certain clothes they deem immodest.

      This whole puritanical conservatism usually involves people’s body parts, gender roles, and fashion choices, with an aura of spirituality/religiosity about it.

      Take a look at the comments below the Swedish girls article of yesterday to have a better idea.

      Anyway, that’s one of the reasons many people (especially homosexuals, social liberals, and other degenates haha) tend avoid these movements and vote for leftist parties even though they may not agree with their immigration policies. The rampant anti-Semitism doesn’t help either.

      • UncleSham

        One definition of a conservative is a person who wants to conserve Western civilization. The two most prominent components of traditional Western civilization are the White race and Christianity. So it makes sense that people who feel oppressed by Christian morality are often anti-White. Leftists tend to view morality as petty or insignificant, but its not. It is the key to our survival. Sex is not all about pleasure, it is literally what makes the difference between existence and nonexistence.

        • M.

          Actually, the Western civilization really kicked off with the Enlightenment, which is incidentally where Christianity started to be gradually sidestepped: the Inquisitions stopped, no more executing for witchcraft and sorcery, no more blasphemy laws, no more buggery laws, no more bowdlerization of literature, etc. And most important of all, the introduction of notions like secularism, and the separation of Church and State, especially since the French Revolution.

          The Western Civilization never stopped to sidestep Christianity ever since it started, bit by bit by bit. And it still is.

          Leftists don’t view morality as insignificant. They measure morality by human suffering, not by what people do in their bedrooms or with their private parts.

          “Sex is not all about pleasure.”

          I didn’t say it was all about pleasure. Yeah, I know that it can also be used, like, 3 out of the 1,855 times in your life to make kids too.

          “It is literally what makes the difference between existence and nonexistence.”

          So?

          • UncleSham

            The interpretation of the Bible became more liberal, but the influence of Christianity did not become less significant during the Enlightenment. Freedoms were gained during that time because the people believed that fighting against tyranny was fighting for God. The concept of Separation of Church and State was invented and practiced within the framework of a Christian society. All atheist societies so far have been Communists that do the opposite of separate church and state. They combine church and state in to a single entity.

            You implied that sexual morality was inconsequential to society at large. This is wrong for many reasons. One problem is people having children that they are incapable of taking of and placing a burden on society. A larger problem is that Whites in most places are having children at rates below the replacement level. Sex shouldn’t have to be a political issue, but the left has turned it into an issue by coming up with the idea of same-sex marriage. Society does not benefit by encouraging people to make a lifelong commitment to be in a relationship that does not make sense on a biological level.

          • M.

            Homosexuals will be homosexuals. Whether they marry or wear sandals. They don’t need “encouragement” to be homosexual.

            And what do you care if they marry or eat fish? How does that affect your life?

            Whites tend to not have any more children than they can financially afford. Today’s whites are more fiscally responsible.

            Also, urbanization tends to lower birthrates. So do higher literacy rates, education, and many other factors.

            And this can be observed worldwide. Iran’s fertility rate (1.85 children/woman) is lower than that of Norway, Iceland, Sweden, France, the U.K., the U.S., Ireland, and New Zealand.

            https://www(dot)cia(dot)gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank(dot)html

            And Iranians are neither (overall) liberal nor atheistic by any stretch of the imagination.

            “One problem is people having children that they are incapable of taking of and placing a burden on society.”

            They can have that too even within marriage. Religious people are more inclined to have more children than they can afford. “Be fruitful and multiply”. Secular people tend to be more prudent.

            As for your first part, I didn’t say Christianity was ditched altogether. But it has been gradually softened and sidestepped ever since the Englightenment began.

            I edited my previous message before reading this, adding that I’m not denying Christianity has been a part of the white West and its developments.

          • Garrett Brown

            If homosexuals make their partnership official in courts (which I have no problem with) it needs to be labeled something else. Marriage is defined as union between a man and a woman. So either change the definition of marriage or label it something else.

          • 1stworlder

            Just wait until they find out about gay alimony.

          • Garrett Brown

            Oh dear.

          • Kenner

            As soon as ‘gay divorce’ gets into full swing, with it’s attendant financial and emotional pain, expect ID Discovery, aka the ‘Murder Channel’ to have an endless source of new material.

          • UncleSham

            About homosexuals you asked, “what do you care if they marry…How does that affect you life?” As if its just a personal issue that doesn’t affect the rest of society. I wish that were the case. The reality is that it is a part of a larger agenda. The left is using the issue of same-sex marriage to effectively ban people from openly professing the Christian faith. When people claim to believe in traditional marriage the Left attempts to get them fired from their jobs, or if they are the owner, boycott their companies. Taking away people’s livelihoods and their ability to feed their children because of religious disagreements is not an acceptable practice in a free society. The government is also using anti-discrimination laws to force businesses to participate in same-sex wedding ceremonies. This means that the power of the state is being used to force people to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.

            If same-sex marriage was only about people of the same sex having large gathering where they walk down an isle and exchange rings, then no one would bother opposing it. But the Left is never happy until they can force the rest of society to bend to their will.

            I believe very strongly in freedom of association. We have not had true freedom of association since at least the 1964 civil rights act. Since we already can not discriminate based on sex or race, does not being able to discriminate based on sexual orientation make much of a difference? No, not really. But its still a step in the wrong direction.

          • M.

            You believe same-sex marriage is part of a conspiracy. I don’t know what to say to that.

            If you add that to the half a dozen conspiracy theories that are rife among regulars of this site (Jewish conspiracy, Zionist conspiracy, Leftist agenda, the Globalists, “TPDB”). When superstition thrives that much in a place, that’s not a good sign.

            You make us all look bad. That’s all I can say while remaining polite.

          • none of your business

            Don’t forget that the Vatican is behind the Zionist conspiracy and Jewish communism and that that Polish Pope really worked for Farben gas fueling the gas chambers of Auschwitz during WW2

          • UncleSham

            The mainstream media would have you believe that racial differences are a conspiracy theory. So anyone that reads this website is already questioning the official narrative.

          • rightrightright

            The Enlightenment could only grow out of Christian soil. No Christianity, no Enlightenment.

            Further, by the age of the Enlightenment, Europe had already surpassed the achievements of all other civilisations. Why? Because of its Christian ethos.

          • BillMillerTime

            Maybe, or maybe it just hindered what would have happened anyway. The ancient Greeks had already correctly surmised that the world was a sphere, and had even developed a rough sense of its circumference some 400 years before the invention of Christian mythology.

          • M.

            The Englightenment was the result of Greek philosophy, Roman civilization, and the Arab/North African golden era (especially in Spain and Bagdad), during which Greek astronomy, medicine, and philosophy, as well as Indian mathematics, were perfected and advanced.

            None of those four civilizations had anything to do with Christianity.

          • none of your business

            The preservation of Greek writings was done by Christian Syrian monks who had been doing it since before Christianity was legalized. Haroun al Rashid Caliph of Bagdad just subsidized and encouraged what they had been doing for centuries.
            Virtually all the muslim buildings in Spain were built by White Christian slaves from architects and engineers to laborers. Even the glorious mosques, seminaries and dormitories of Ishfan (Persian Shia
            Vatican) were built by mainly Italian slaves.
            Don’t be fooled by the anti Christian anti Western propaganda of the great Arab civilization after the muslim conquests. Civilization was carried on for a few centuries by Christians and Jews, but muslims contributed nothing and eventually destroyed the civilizations they conquered.
            Indian numerals were used by N European Aryans who brought them to India in prehistoric times.

          • M.

            There were many advances made in domains like medicine, philosophy, astronomy, and mathematics by Muslims. They were at least nominally Muslim. Many of them were accused of heresy by the Islamic clerics back then.

          • Batterytrain

            The last part is actually false, the Aryans weren’t Northern European and were from around Central Asia/Caucases area and they were mainly nomadic horse pastoralists with no tradition of literacy or complex written symbols, or canal large scale agricultural civilizations. The Indian numerals were developed by the indigenous indus valley civilization that the Aryans merely took control off like the Germanic Barbarians lording over Roman ruins, which the Aryans didn’t create nor did they have a civilization of that complexity. I know my history pretty well sir btw…

          • SentryattheGate

            As is all too typical, you don’t even mention the ways in which Christianity enlightened society; ideals that founded legal rights & courts for the common man,
            rights for women and children, abolition of slavery, places of sanctuary for political fugitives & orphans, keepers of libraries and knowledge, founders of the first universities & hospitals, scientific research (i.e. the monk Gregor Mendel and his genetic experiences w/plants), administering food, and care of the sick (i.e. the Black Plague and now, with ebola). Remember, there is an evil agenda to destroy Christianity! Christianity formed the principles that made the West the place where all immigrants want to go! Don’t misread me; I am not a mere cheerleader; I have my criticisms too. But ALL we hear in this era is the criticism of Christianity and the West, w/o any fair-minded, educated balance.

          • M.

            First of all, I didn’t say Christianity (and religion in general) was all bad.

            And I’m not criticizing the West. On the contrary.

            There’s no “evil agenda” against Christianity. It’s just that today’s secularists are more outspoken. You sound just like the Muslims who say the world is ganging up on them to vilify their religion.

            The “abolition of slavery” part made smile though. Keep in mind that both the Unionists and Confederates used the Bible to justify keeping/abolishing slavery. And the slavers were on the winning side of the theological debate.

            The New Testament makes no condemnation of slave ownership but does have advice for Christian slaves and also regulates how Christian slave owners should treat the slaves they own. (Ephesians 6:5-8; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Ephesians 6:9; Colossians 4:1; 1 Timothy 1:9-11).

            I’m not usually into the militant atheistic business. I rarely criticize religion. But you brought it up.

          • BillMillerTime

            I’m looking though my Bible here and don’t see any condemnation of slavery. Oh wait, I just found a passage from the New Testament about slavery. “SLAVES, OBEY YOUR MASTERS!” St. Paul’s Letter to the Ephesians (6:5).

            Let’s see, women’s right. “WIVES, OBEY YOUR HUSBANDS!” Ephesians 5:22

            Well, OK, well what about children’s right? Turns out that disobedient children should be put to death. Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

            “keepers of libraries and knowledge,”

            Are you familiar with the Church-ordained book burnings? In the 14th Century John Wycliffe was the first person to translate the Bible into English, which did not endear him to the authorities. He preached in England, and on the Continent, that priests should do nothing more than oversee church services and help the laypeople interpret the Bible for themselves. Pope Gregory XI issued no less than five Papal Bulls attempting to shut Wycliffe up, but he would not be silent. 30 years later after his death, the Council of Constance ended “the three popes’ reign” and elected Alexander V, who immediately denounced Wycliffe as a heretic, had as many of his books burned as could be found on the Continent and in England, excommunicated and consigned to everlasting flames from the moment of his death. In 1428, Pope Martin V had him dug up and burned at the stake.

            “scientific research”

            That might come to a surprise to Galileo, whose scientific research
            was punished by Church authorities.

            See also the case of William Tyndale, who in 1525 translated
            the Bible into vernacular English. It was printed en masse and smuggled all over Europe, especially into England, where the Catholics in charge burned a number of them in public. He was finally caught after some help from a backstabbing friend named Henry Phillips, charged with heresy for no other reason than translating the Bible into English, and strangled, then burned at the stake, on 6 October 1536, in Vilvoorde, outside Brussels. The Catholic Church has never apologized. All subsequent English Bibles, including the King James have borrowed extensively from Tyndale’s Bible.

            I could go on and on, but anyone capable of rubbing two brain cells together can do his own research on the question.

          • SentryattheGate

            Then rub your 2 brain cells together! Your unenlightened judgement against Christianity is the usual criticism WITHOUT the balance of real research! Remember, the church is made up of humans, and “to err is human”. And, remember, young’un, that the fool thinks he knows everything while the wise man realizes how little he knows (and therefore continually seeks to learn more). Keep an open mind—learn more!

          • BillMillerTime

            I see that you didn’t refute or address any of the empirical statements I made referring to the actual text in scripture.

            Not once does the Bible condemn slavery. Women are to be obey, “witches” are to be stoned.

            Even today if you meet anyone in the world who rejects evolutionary biology, you will find his stubborn refusal rooted in religion.

          • SentryattheGate

            Use your limited capacity to read my statement; the church is made up of people, thereby it makes mistakes. But it is you that refuse to be balanced in your judgement. You did not address nor refute my more balanced assessment. Instead you apparently want to be hateful and condemning of Christianity. Try that around Muslims, if you fancy yourself so brave! The first step in being wise is to be humble enough to realize you don’t know everything, and seek to learn more. But I guess you’d rather have your “Miller time”! I’ll not waste anymore of my time on such an immature, pompous brat! I’m hoping that life will teach you the lessons you need to learn.

          • dukem1

            Uhhh…So what’s your point?

      • SentryattheGate

        The terms “liberal” and “conservative” change over time. A liberal during the JFK presidency would be considered a conservative today. Re. your comment “puritanical conservatism”; you sound quite young and therefore indoctrinated via “education” and the media (both with an agenda), w/o decades of learning and experience to see the pattern of increasing decay/decadence. Any honest historian would describe this era that way. It is wrong to label those against this rampant moral decay as being prudish or uptight!

        • M.

          Everything with you (like with most people here) is an agenda, or a somber conspiracy.

          Those who base morality on people’s sexual partners, sexual frequency, clothes, or sexual orientation are puritans.

          • SentryattheGate

            You remind me of the saying “Need solutions to your problems? Ask a teenager, while they know everything!”. Remember, a fool thinks he knows everything, while the wise man realizes how little he knows (and therefore always seeks to learn more)!

          • M.

            I take that as “no response” to my points.

        • none of your business

          I’m 72. I can’t stand what someone called puritanical conservatism.
          They carry on and on about abortion, sexual sluttiness, gays, pron, vulgar popular culture and entertainment and totally ignore:
          (1)) Affirmative action
          (2) Black on White crime
          (3) School integration
          If young Whites had the job opportunities young Whites had before the 1968 to 1973 affirmative action laws and court rulings maybe they would have children. So you old fogeys stop harrumphing about young Whites who are discriminated in both the job market and setting up their own businesses who cannot afford to have children.
          When I say can’t afford, I don’t mean luxury or even comfortable lower middle class. I mean basic food, shelter, transportation to work.

          • SentryattheGate

            Who said it had to be one OR the other? I certainly didn’t! I can be concerned about cultural moral decay AND also be concerned about the future of our younger generations, and I am! My kids are in their young 20’s. I have been an Amren follower and supported organizations like FAIR &CIS (fighting for Americans vs. massive immigration) for >15 years because I am concerned.

      • BillMillerTime

        You are correct. The Taliban-wing of the white nationalist movement – vocal, noisy, cranky – drives away women, normal white people, would-be Jewish allies, etc.

    • JohnEngelman

      Why do American Lib/Leftists take the side of invading Islamic 8th century throat cutters, slavers, women abusers, gay killers?

      – jackryanvb

      They are hostile to Western civilization, and believe that the enemy of their enemy is their friend.

      KPFA is a left wing radio station that broadcasts from Berkeley, California. After 9/11 KPFA featured Arabic music, and programs that idealized Arabs.

    • SentryattheGate

      When Ayaan Hirsi Ali, former Muslim who made the film Submission with Theo Van Gogh, came to speak at the local university, most attendees were searched due to death threats against her (by Muslims, of course). Yet, the Muslim women, in their full burqas were NOT searched! Afterwards, I asked several policemen if the burqa-wearing Muslims were searched; they said ‘no, but if any of them had acted nervous, they would have had female police search them’.

    • rightrightright

      Jack, that is the big question of our era. It overshadows all other questions but is the question that may not be asked.

    • none of your business

      Because they are determined to destroy Christianity based western civilization so their strategy is to side with the enemies of their enemy, us. From communist atheists to capitalist muslim religious fanatics, it does matter with whom they ally.

  • jackryanvb

    I will start a Chicago based organization to honor the memory of both Pym Fortuyn And Theo Van Gogh. The Netherlands’s most beloved, respected patriot in 100 years was a brave gay man, who was brutally burdered, martyred defending our Western freedoms.

    • Martel

      Both where incredibly brave. Did you know Van Gogh’s son, just a young kid back then was threatened by a group of Maroccans while walking back from school?

      His father was shot and stabbed only weeks earlier..

  • Franklin_Ryckaert

    What the success of Pim Fortuyn, Geert Wilders, Front National and UKIP shows is that one has to be anti-immigration without appearing to be “racist” (the greatest sin since Auschwitz). If that succeeds one can tap on the widespread discomfort with race replacement among the white public. There is hope, at least for Europe.

    • SentryattheGate

      Meanwhile, we are being replaced, primarily by Hispanics! They are so arrogant and proud of their heritage—yet what do they have to be proud of? They have a horrible track record!!!

  • dmxinc

    “Someday, open racial appeals will take their legitimate place in the formation of public policy, but that day has not yet come.”

    Then that day may be too late.

    • JohnEngelman

      As more is learned about the human genome, the scientific truths of race realism will be more difficult to deny or suppress.

      • 1stworlder

        Every time they start to find out anything about the genetics of IQ or violence the stop ever since the discovery of the “warrior”(belligerent A-hole) gene. The gene that does nothing for the ability to fight, but makes one more likely to get into fights was found in several orders of magnitude higher in one demographic before they stopped research on it.

  • dmxinc

    There’s a time for each approach.

    If someone is too rabid, they will drive a lot of their support away.

    If someone is never hard, they may end up dead as Pim did.

    The Teddy Roosevelt “Walk softly but carry a big stick” approach might be best.

    • P3P3P3P3

      not only did Teddy not walk softly (Rough Riders – Bull Moose Party) those kind of folks never get wide spread attention, much less sway a nation

    • dukem1

      The “big stick” we must all carry is race realism.

    • M&S

      I don’t know what the gun laws are like in the Netherlands but Pim signed his own death warrant by not drawing the obvious secondary conclusion: “If I am being set up and I cannot afford my own protection then _I Need To Make That An Issue_ in demanding support from my base.”
      Because if you don’t ask…
      Adolph Hitler suffered literally dozens of well orchestrated attempts on his life during his driving tours of south central Germany (which was then in the process of breaking back up into principalities, with individual militias and police forces) and yet Hitler was always one step ahead of the opposition.
      Some say that this is because his rise to power was orchestrated by outside forces. Others that he simply had a good instinct (and a lot of well armed friends, some of whom later went on to form his Schutz Staffeln) for when it was time to get the hell out of Dodge via an alternate route than that which was planned.
      Mr. Fortuyn was triple tapped with high chest, throat and a head shot from a significant distance ‘to make sure’, which likely means he was wearing body armor. Yet his killer took the time to walk up and slit his throat, after.
      This was a message: “Don’t talk about uncomfortable subjects or we will deprive your mouth of the air to speak.”
      And the rabid Left who made it all possible by denying a controversial political figure any personal protection are the sole ones to benefit from the act of raising up a hero only to slaughter him and intimidate all who might have secretly agreed with him.
      This is nothing less than hard psyops in play and it works on the silly assumption that evil never wins and thus if someone is assassinated for saying something which is against the commonly held zeitgeist, ‘it must be because they were wrong’.
      Evil won a long time ago. The EU as a governing body beyond the power of those it rules proves this.

  • dmxinc

    Sarkozy isn’t French….he’s not Hungarian either.

    • BillMillerTime

      He’s Eskimo if I remember correctly.

      • Franklin_Ryckaert

        Yes, but a kosher eating Eskimo.

  • It seems to be the case that anybody who gets close to a significant breakthrough in terms of immigration (and Islamic issues in particular) are assassinated, no matter whether they are lefty liberals or ‘right wing’.

    Pim, Theo, Jorg, to name just a few outspoken people who have come to an untimely end. Jorg Haider of course had a “crash” – but I think there was more to it than a mere “accident”.

    I am not a fan of this liberal-left rhetoric on immigration and protecting the degeneracy of liberal culture from Islam, but beggars cannot be choosers in this game I suppose.

    I used to like Geert Wilders until I became a little more wise to the world, but I still have some admiration for a man who stands to his principles and spends about a decade or more living in permanent hiding and ‘safe-houses’, flanked with bodyguards because he feels so passionately about his cause.

    No wonder he is frightened of coming to a sticky end too, given the patterns that seem to be emerging. The real ‘tyranny’ in politics is of course from the immigrants and communistic/liberals, who are prepared to ‘take out’ any threat to them and their ideals.

    I think Pim was spot on about how the media and liberals exhibit so much venom and far-fetched scare stories – and how it was them who would contribute to his death one day.

    They do have blood on their hands in my opinion, yet in all European nations the media and the liberals are still carrying on with the smears and labels that put peoples lives in danger.

    • Franklin_Ryckaert

      Jörg Haider’s “car accident” is suspected to have been a murder, possibly by the experienced hands of the Mossad, a well known Middle Eastern terrorist organization. That terrorist organization might have had an internal spy in Peter Sichrovsky who was the general secretary for foreign affairs of Haider’s Freedom Party. Sichrovsky belonged to the same ethnic group as the members of above-mentioned terrorist organization. Haider wanted to show he had no ethnic prejudices in accepting Sichrovsky, and that of course proved to be fatal.

      • rightrightright

        Vlaams Blok, Belgium’s Flemish nationalist party, was declared racist and therefore illegal and closed down. They reformed as Vlaams Belang. In 2007 a group of them, including a duly elected MP, were beaten to the ground by Belgian police.

        Nick Griffin of Britain’s BNP was hounded and demonised by the State. The government had him tried in court for racism for revealing the rape and pimping of underage (read: often 11/12 year old) girls. When he was acquitted, the State had him tried a second time. He was again acquitted.

        Tommy Robinson has been relentlessly pursued and persecuted by the State and refused Police protection in spite of several beatings at the hands of Moslem groups.

        Currently, the State has its guns fixed on Nigel Golding of the Britain First party, a nationalist party with a strong Christian core.

        Paul Weston of LibertyGB was dragged off in handcuffs for reading from the writings of Winston Churchill.

      • none of your business

        You are absolutely right about Haider’s death.

  • Lygeia

    We should not pay immigrants to go back to their country of origin

    We should have their countries of origin pay for these people to be sent back to these countries and out of ours.

    The West should be not be an endless, never-ending piggy-bank for Muslim countries (yes, pun intended).

    • Jaggers

      You have to say, though, it would be a good investment!

      • SentryattheGate

        Some countries won’t even accept their “natives” back!

  • Courageous leader, but just our luck–during the demographic elimination of White people, the only people we are not allowed to fight for are White people.

  • Garrett Brown

    I wish his major debates had English subtitles or were translated like the videos provided.

  • Roger Noah

    “The success of Nigel Farage in Britain and the rise of Marine Le Pen in France–after she purged the National Front of “extremists”–are further proof of the deep yearning Europeans have for leaders who promise to protect and restore their nations. Someday, open racial appeals will take their legitimate place in the formation of public policy, but that day has not yet come.:

    This is precisely the point I have been making in several responses on this forum, and people do not seem to understand. Our first and urgent priority is to stop our lifeblood being drained away through mass immigration, legal and illegal. We need an immigration moratorium. And racialist arguments scare away the white masses. We need to eschew those arguments. There are enough cogent reasons that are not racial in nature to stop our being overrun.

    • Martel

      Give me some of those non-racialist yet effective arguments, because I have yet to see them. Perhaps you hope for such a leader to emerge in your own country, but as we in Holland can attest too, its not enough. We fight for the day that biological differences are considered an acceptable subject in politics, only then will the people be willing to impliment an immigration policy discriminating against non whites.

      • Roger Noah

        I did write a comprehensive response that somehow got redirected to the moderator. Very frustrating. I do not know why some postings automatically get this treatment – is it the length of the posting?

        • Martel

          Several things seem to trigger auto-moderation, including length, copied text and posting links. Either how, I would like to know your views on this matter, even if in a nuttshell.

          I don’t see how arguments involving ”culture” will suffice as it’s generally believed that individuals can shed conflicting cultural values when they feel accepted.This view is supported by the common belief that the West transformed from a misogynistic, racist, intolerant culture into a multicultural paradise in the short period after Hitler’s defeat. At best such arguments will convince them that there will be temporary tensions, a risk most of them are willing to take especially so they can avoid taking a controversial political position.

          The many schools of thought within economics also make it difficult to convince opponents, furthermore, as non-white immigrants are economically worse off then Westerners, it is considered immoral by a large part of the public to deny them economic opportunities over gloomy economic forecasts.

          • Roger Noah

            Let me try piecemeal posting.

            None of these arguments below are racial. Offering a racial, “bio-genetic” argument is tantamount to ringing a leper bell – your own kin will flee from you for the most part. But we need to stop the invasion first and quickly. There is no time to waste by taking unwinnable positions. Here are some good arguments for controlling and stopping the invasion:

            Argument 1: Cultural and religious incompatibility. For instance, you would not deny that the sons and daughters of Arab Christian immigrants would assimilate well.

          • Roger Noah

            Argument 2: Reciprocity. Dutchmen might want to live in America, and some Americans might want to live in the Netherlands. Establish reciprocal immigration visas between the two – one for one, rounding up or truncating down to accommodate families. How many Dutch citizens would like to migrate to Etrirea in one year? Maybe a number that is small enough to count on your fingers. So allow, say, five Etrireans in for every five Dutch citizens that migrate to Etrirea. This solves America’s cross-border issues with Mexico vs. Canada. How many Americans want to seek jobs in Canada? Quite a few. How many American would want to seek jobs in Mexico? Not many. Establish balanced, reciprocal Canada America and Canada Mexico permanent immigration quotas, and let the immigration quotas change with emigration volume.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            “Reciprocal immigration” is a good agrument : we accept only immigration from them if they accept immigration from us, thus a “balance” is reached. Of course no First Worlders want to immigrate into the Third World (except a few idiots). The beauty of this fake agrument is that it is based on the fundamental Leftish idea of “equality”.

          • Roger Noah

            Not only would they need to accept immigrants from us and grant them citizenship eventually (and countries like Indian and China who follow jus sanguinis faithfully don’t), but (here’s the clincher!) our kind should ardently desire to emigrate to their lands!
            Now white folks were quite eager to do that until WW1, and white boys in their 20s were willing to mate with the local colored gals to produce mixed offspring of various sorts (e.g. the Dutch Burghers in Sri Lanka), but there is no longer a desire for first worlders to immigrate to third world $hitholes, maybe because we do not rule those $hitholes any more.

            So for 10,000 H1B visas to be granted annually for immigration from India to the USA, India should be willing to allow 10,000 Americans to settle in India and get US citizenship AND there should be 10,000 American citizens (whatever their color) who actually want to become Indian citizens. So maybe it is not 10,000. Maybe it is 100. So we can allow a 100 green cards and citizenships from India to the USA, in return for 100 Americans of whatever color who become Indian citizens (and the Indian government would have to change its rules to allow that!).

            Sounds like this would be a sea change over what we have now! It is victories like this that will help our cause, and ultimately save the white race for the most part – – dreams of a white ethnostate etc. are just mental masturbation. They might make you feel good from a fantasy perspective, without delivering concrete value.

            I am amazed that Jared Taylor, for all of his insights and intelligence, does not see the need for us to obtain a few tactical victories (such as an immigration moratorium) and then regroup for longer-term strategic objectives. I am amazed how the contributors to these comments swoon over unachievable goals such as “deporting all non-whites” including those who have been here for generations while ignoring tactical victories such as :

            STOPPING THE BLEEDING CAUSED BY MASS THIRD-WORLD IMMIGRATION ASAP NOW!!

          • Roger Noah

            Argument 3: Environmental. Steve Sailer describes this well in one of today’s posts on V-dare. Immigration from the third world to the first world increases the immigrants’ carbon footprint. Also, it releases Mathusian pressures on the country of origin, thereby encouraging more reckless breeding since the under-breeding West provides a Malthusian safety valve.

            Argument 4: Wage depression and local unemployment, especially for low-skilled jobs. Some of these low-skilled jobs will be taken over by robots and by computer systems anyway.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            The white working class can be easily swayed by the wage depression argument as any socialist party worth its salt should.

          • Roger Noah

            Argument 5: Fiscal reasons. Most low-skilled immigrants contribute less to the tax base than what they consume in services. It is not fair for others to pay for them.

            Argument 6: Encouragement of pseudo-refugee applications. Most so-called refugees are not fleeing death camps. Also, as the Norwegians realized – it is more expensive to maintain a Syrian refugee in Norway than in Jordan. Why not make the refugee charity money go further in a refugee camp in a low-cost country near the source of conflict? Also when Syria returns to normal, Syrian refugees in Jordan will return while those in Sweden will not.

          • Franklin_Ryckaert

            The fiscal argument has already been used by Geert Wilders. His party has published a report about the costs of the multicultural society, and that includes the costs of fighting crime by immigrants.

            And that most “asylum seekers” are in reality only “economical refugees” (the official term) is common opinion in Dutch politics.

  • JohnEngelman

    The opponents of race realism love to portray race realists as poorly educated neo Nazis. It is important not to be that way.

    • 1stworlder

      There is nothing they hate more than logical explanations that short circuit their narrative. They will not censor someone just saying n1663r times 20, but pointing out specifics or even just mentioning Asians is what gets them censored.

    • M&S

      Hitler carried two pistols and a black jack and was supposedly quite the in-fighter during his political stump speaking tours.
      He also had friends who handled the dirty work and ran interference so that it became increasingly unnecessary for him to smack heads together in his own defense.
      Since simple survival is the only means by which a message as an alternative strategy to the extant Agenda can ever gain a foothold, I would suggest that men like Geert Wilders need both remote video to prove self defense (and scan hostile crowds for observers as opposed to simple nay sayers) and the men on staff to be bullies in shoving the masses back if need be.
      Unfortunately, in this litiginous society, if you have money to hire professional talent you are already pod-peopled as part of the problem. And if you can only provide room and board to a couple thug pals who are big enough to beat your enemies purple you are vulnerable to charges of political intimidation in your own right.
      All this while the simple right to publically speak without due allowance as permits takes from us the kinds of men who can speak to a crowd _like themselves_ and get them sufficiently riled up on racist/nationalist rhetoric as to make them remember how good it felt to stand together with other Kindred and not be victims for 30 minutes.
      It is those kinds of men who can swing votes based on their speaking abilities and will to invoke shared fears and hatreds that this nation needs right now. Because those who are all about normalcy and calm reactions are the ones set to run us, quite willingly, off our own rails.

      • JohnEngelman

        I doubt Adolf Hitler is a good role model for race realists. I prefer the demeanor of Jared Taylor.

        Compared with whites, Negroes tend to be dangerous and criminal. Martin Luther King, Jr. did not advance the interests of Negroes by adopting the persona of a violent street criminal, but by projecting the image of a humble man of God who was too good of a Criminal to hate his enemies.

        • M&S

          Hitler was a man of all seasons who was not good enough at any particular area he needed to be a genius in to carry the day once he achieved success.
          But unlike Mr. Fortuyn who might have risen to greatness on the basis of his ‘untouchable minority’ status as a gay racist, Hitler -did win- a chance to succeed.
          You can argue that Mr. Fortuyn was assassinated because he might have succeeded (and the dominant majority of the ruling class who prefer a pluralist society do so because they cannot foresee the ugly racial backlash and powergrab reality of what happens when whites are not the dominant leaders of their own countries as social systems) but the truth is that Hitler had his hands in both classes pockets.
          The wealth class wanted to use him to destroy the Communists and the Social Democrats and so informed him of assassination and arrest attempts using informers in the ranks of those groups whom they and they alone had the money to fund through ‘corporate security’ systems.
          It is the ONLY explanation for why Hitler could survive so long simply on the basis of “No driver, take that turn instead.” simple route changes.
          Yet Hitler also appealed to the beer drinking, working class, German who wanted -something- like a gemeinschaft to go with the gesselschaft as a social contract guarantor of a way out of the terrible (white slavery) that period 1920s German economic troubles found him in.
          Hitler was the man who spoke to their own fears and nascent sense of power as the working muscle of Germany and his plain speech did so in a committed fashion that did not make it seem he was out to win a ‘debate point’ rather than a nation.
          Such lower class men and women gave him secure residency when he moved from city to city and formed the core of his inner bodyguard at very cheap (feed me, booze me, give me a cool uniform) rates while also forming the cadre element of the brown shirted SA whose home grown brutality brought Hitler power far more than the midnight black SS (it was Bormann who did the deals which brought the shadow economics and kurfutz inclusion through local burgemeister recruitment outside the rallies).
          Acknowledging this need to appeal to the base population, unfortunately, the debonair and sophisticated Mr. Fortuyn did not do.
          And so he was alone in the parking lot, without a host driver to pick him up at the door or a bodyguard to open it and walk him out, after making a predictable point-location radio interview appointment.
          Which is all the assassin needed.
          Such is what being too smart to be dragged down into the trenches of race warfare buys you. Such is what thinking that being homosexual as a shield against the ugly truth of class as much as racial dogmas denies you.
          Because as much as the elite class can keep you exposed to being beaten up and killed by denying you the basic protections of a political advocate, the working class have their own standards. And number one of those is that you don’t transgress certain, socially hardwired, lines and then expect your polite speech to carry the day anyway.
          The white working class are being destroyed as much because they form their own, picky, in-group of acceptance rules as because they ask for too much.
          I will not compare Mr. Taylor to Hitler. If you choose to insult our host by doing so, that is your mistake.
          I will say that it is likely the reason Mr. Taylor is still breathing has less to do with his intellectual or rational approach to racism than that he has made accommodations with the people who look down on him to the extent that he runs a website which acts as a both a collection point for ‘dangerous identities’ and a safety valve mechanism for blowing off steam.
          And perhaps as a testing ground on certain politically unsavory ideas that can then be ‘repackaged for the majority market’ using key phrase avoidance tactics as soundbyte logic.
          I do not think Mr. Taylor is an innocent. I don’t think you can be in this world.
          But he is no Hitler because the world which made Hitler possible doesn’t exist anymore.
          And I mean that in a good way, even though I believe that Hitler was right on about 90% of what he saw coming as the end of the white race in a genocidal act so huge, subtle and savagely envious that nothing short of ‘Liberal’ conspiracy could enact it.
          Whether you believe such conspiracy to be murderous or simply suicidal depends on how fine mesh you put on the sieve you filter the instigator vs. enactor element of our wealthiest elites from.
          At some level, it’s always the 3% who drive our death spiral because it is always the 3% who recognize and act together against what we represent as their greatest evolutionary competitors. It is a made fate, not a consequential one.

      • Charlie

        You have to understand that, while the Left was very strong in Europe in the 1920’s, and early 1930’s, it simply didn’t have the widespread and ubiquitous power that it has today…also remember back then, most Europeans are ethnically aware, while today, the exact opposite has occurred…most people have been led to believe that the National Socialists were the only Rightist faction in German politics at that time, nothing could be further from the truth…in all actuality, there were dozens of Rightist parties and factions, that the National Socialists either amalgamated into their movement, or worked in tandem with most notably the DNVP and the Stahlhelm…today’s Rightist political figure in the Western World, basically is fighting a war on 100 different fronts, with Liberals and Marxists, as well as Islamists as their chief opponents and antagonists…with the ratio of Rightist to non-Rightist, being heavily stacked in favor of the Left, and don’t forget, Jewish wealth hates Rightists, ethnically minded political figures, have a near impossible mountain to climb…

  • anony

    “Let’s hope this will actually be the beginning of something.”

    Hope springs eternal as they say, but as the general told the captain, “hope is not a strategy, son”.

    Let’s try to organize a like-minded party in this country. I’m not a politician, but someone smarter than myself should start something in this country. Maybe a few more “rampaging” black “utes” destroying State fairs will be enough to really get something going here.

    • 1stworlder

      Only if it gets reported,

  • ricpic

    How are the Dutch voters so easily swayed by the powers that be that the path of dhimmitude is the best for them to take? The muslim presence in the Netherlands is huge. The Dutch have to rub shoulders with these openly hostile invaders. Why are the Dutch more easily terrified of “an extreme right winger, a racist, a Nazi” than they are of the muslims who have made large parts of major Dutch cities no go zones for the Dutch?

  • Malgus

    Average guy in Holland: “Muslims have to go! They’re violent throwbacks who will never assimilate!”

    Everyone: “NAZI!!! SKINHEAD!!”

    Some educated gay Marxist in a nice suit: “Muslims have to go! They’re violent throwbacks who will never assimilate!”

    Everyone: “Yeah! Exactly right! Whoo-Hoo!”

    I am genuinely confused…. plain speech that voices the concerns of the everyday Hollander doesn’t get any traction unless it comes from some educated gay Marxist in a suit?

    Man.. they are so screwed.

    • stop21

      Fantastic point. Maybe the “good guys” ought to always wear a “disguise”

    • Martel

      Fortuyn left his Marxist days far behind him when he started on the political path which got him killed. He wrote for Elsevier which is the only legitimate right to center magazine in the Netherlands, its often quite nuanced about Wilders and often publishes articles critical of Islam and immigration.

      Holland is on a far better track then the US or many Western countries though. I don’t see many other successful political leaders like Wilders besides Le Pen.

      • Malgus

        I’m no expert on politics in the Netherlands, which side is right, right-center, left-center or left. I have only the above article.

        However, the guy taught Marxist sociology for a living. His opposition to the muzzies wasn’t because he wanted to keep our homelands for us, and that inviting in swarms of outsiders and 3rd worlders would change the racial makeup of Europe, but because the muzzies weren’t assimilating. According to the article, he had no issue with them being there. Just with them not playing well with others.

        “He insisted–sincerely, it appears–that he did not object to Muslims
        because of their race but because they were incapable of appreciating
        modernity, which Fortuyn defined in terms of the achievements of the
        Left. For this reason, he rejected any comparison… to figures he considered genuinely “right wing.”

        That’s pretty clear. It doesn’t seem that he abandoned anything. I think the reason he got the traction he did was because he was almost untouchable – he was well educated – holding a doctorate in a suitably squishy subject like sociology. He taught Marxist sociology. He was a fellow leftist. He was gay and a snappy dresser. He was almost untouchable by the left, and they hated him for it. So, they had to resort to comparing him to leaders on the right, throwing poo at him and death threats… eventually being killed.

        My point isn’t that Pim abandoned his Marxist ways or not. My point is that it’s a sad state of affairs when the only person who can speak the truth these days – and actually get any traction with the general public – ends up being a turncoat leftist. Regular folks can’t voice the truth without being excoriated…

        • IstvanIN

          And he ended up dead anyway, so even being a Marxist and gay ultimately did him no good, or the Dutch any good. Sad when expressing one’s political view gets one murdered in a modern, liberal democratic society. On the other hand many western European countries ban both “right-wing” political parties and certain types of speech. Europe doesn’t have our notion of freedom even now.

  • Raymond Kidwell

    I think each nation should have a department of ethnic preservation/racial preservation. So in France there should be some effort to preserve french people and french communities, in the very least, in the Netherlands to preserve the dutch etc. They seem to do this with pine trees, squirrels etc. They are outraged by the lost of some native ground hog to a ground hog from a different continent (and this includes inter breeding). Even the cross breeding of native trees threatens diversity. Laws are made to keep the racial purity of wine grapes in Europe. But no effort at all to protect the native people. No that would be racist. I can understand tolerance, multiculuralism, globalism etc. to a point. Yet what we seem to have is something very extreme and distorted mixed with hatred for white males and this panders itself as “multiculturalism” and “tolerance”. Like the article pointed out- letting in hoardes of muslims who will behead someone for being a homosexual is not promoting tolerance. Constantly attacking the white race is not a promotion of tolerance or freedom, but rather a promotion of third world living conditions and corruption that we see in most non-white societies.

  • Trevor Pilsbury

    The people in the Netherlands of been deracinated to the point of insanity. I find this literally sickening. Any democratic society based on individual rights, freedom, and the rule of law cannot indefinitely accommodate the demands from those alien to the society without subverting its own culture.

    The time will come when they finally have but two choices: either lose their ridiculous fear of racism and start applying racial reality to rid themselves of these foreign aliens, based on race, or hand their country over to said aliens.

    • Cecil Broomsted

      Well said, sir. We can talk about Muslims and Islam as a threatening ideology but in the final analysis one has to come to grips with reality. These are racial aliens who have brought their alien cultures and beliefs into the country right along with them. Discriminating based on race would have solved the problem, not only of Islam, but also the African rapes and murders, and other problems that are ultimately racially derived.

      There are quite a few nutjobs out there who think that if you simply ban the Sharia aspects of Islam then all is solved. We can then live in our wonderful multiracial societies in peace and harmony. Not only are those who believe that idiots but they are also dangerous for any society. They are the enablers whose beliefs have led to this mess we now have.

      • Epiminondas

        And any civil conflict will necessarily mean targeting those idiots first. We all know who they are in our communities.

  • wmhoad

    There are so few really brave white men.

  • Fortuyn means HERO to me

  • ATBOTL

    Not one of the increasingly successful nationalist parties in Europe resemble US style conservatives.

  • Epiminondas

    “In one television debate, he flaunted his homosexuality at a Muslim cleric.”

    We don’t need people like this defending our civilization. And if this is the best we can do, we probably deserve to be destroyed. Homosexuals will not lead us to victory over anything. Their narcissistic decadence is a symptom of the rot that is destroying the West. Hitler warned us in Mein Kampf. But nobody bothers to read it.