Good thing politicians aren't known for keeping their word. I'd almost wish they'd try. Because the resulting coalitions would need so many parties, would be so unwieldy and unpopular that they would discredit the whole system - as is happening in Germany.
A lot of "center-right" parties steal right-wing votes that want lower immigration, less climate insanity. They will lose even more of their voters if they actually follow through on not including him, and instead going for a crazy 6-party coalition just to exclude him. They will try to avoid that.
The establishment parties collectively have enough seats to form a government while excluding the PVV, the FVD and the Farmers party.
A brand new "centre-right" party just split off from the Christian Democrats in the final leg of the campaign and took everyone by surprise by eating up a lot of populist votes. It's exactly an "En Marche" or RFK Jr scenario where an establishment politician pops up pretending to be a more palatable populist, standing against the conventional parties, and people fall for it every time.
Note that Omtzigt, the 'new guy', split off from the Christian Democrats about two years ago when the PM tried to get him removed from the parliament for holding the government accountable. He actually stole fewer populist votes than expected. 35 seats for Geert Wilders is an absolute stunner, more than anyone expected. This will send shockwaves through all of Europe.
Count up the number of populist and semi-populist seats and you will find a great improvement. And if the new party does not deliver, his voters will simply move to the other ones.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not white pilled. I think that none of this will amount to anything. Just not for the reasons that you think.
The only truly "anti-establishment" parties in the Netherlands are the VVD, the FvD and the Famer-Citizen coalition. Now that support for the latter has collapsed, even combined with Wilders they'll get about a quarter of the seats. The most intelligent and thoughtful dissident leader is Thierry Baudet, and it looks as though the FvD may not even win a single seat, so say goodbye to all of his epic speeches. Overall, considering the momentum behind the Dutch farmers protests last year, this is pretty disappointing.
I'm impressed by your knowledge of European politics, but you still look at it too much from the American/Canadian perspective. There was zero chance of these parties gaining a majority. The aim was to get as many seats to make it impossible for the powers that be to get around you. And these three parties gained more seats than anyone could have expected or predicted. FVD will definitely win at least 2 seats. From the last exit poll:
PVV (35)
BBB (7)
FVD (3)
That's 45 seats out of 150, nearly 1/3 of seats. That is pretty great.
Add to it other proper right-wing, populist and semi-populist parties, and you get slightly less than half.
NSC (20)
SGP (3)
JA21 (1)
That is 69 seats out of 150.
I'm not sure why you are disappointed. This is better than anyone on the 'right' could have hoped for (noting that a lot of European 'far-right' parties are not right-wing economically even by European standards, let alone American standards). I can guarantee you that no one in Europe dared to even hope for a result that was this good.
Does this guarantee government participation? No. Does this guarantee a good government? No. It's Europe. We're screwed no matter what. But it's pretty awesome all the same. Imagine a dying dog giving a vicious bite to a thug that beat it to death.
The obvious counterpoint: is looking at the effects of communism on countries that implemented it not an accurate way of judging that it is an inherently broken and abusive concept?
General Consequentialism is also very typically poor on how to judge a system because it typically doesn't take a more long term analysis into effect. It doesn't take effects through time, and it also doesn't base a system as fundamentally metaphysical as politics on anything other than outcome. Materialistic Sciences can be judged consequentially, but politics can not.
Instead, most political systems need to be deontological. This is because politics has to be about making sure that the general sentiment of a governed population may have their concerns re-presented to the governing state craft, in such a way that power may shared without violating people's moral framework, and that they may live in a peaceful, healthy, and prosperous way.
Those issues can't be dealt with from a consequential analysis alone. As Dev points out in the video. Consent is deontological, and as such can't be addressed with consequentialism properly. Most moral systems are not consequentialist. In fact, there's only one that is consequentialist, and that's Utilitarianism. It's basically a Philosophy 101, week 3 topic to show why Utilitarianism is a fucking shit ethical framework.
I'm not partial to one system or another (I honestly don't know which is better), but can someone post the case in favor of the US system vs. proportional representation?
Theoretically in the US voters choose their party platform and coalitions before the election rather than the parties making that decision later, which may done by making compromises that some voters wouldn't have expected or agreed to.
The 'big bad extremist' that for years Europe tried to paint as a pariah, is essentially the most representative.
Unfortunately as I'm looking it up, no party can gain enough seats to rile alone and apparently EVERY party is refusing to work with them, I hope that either one capitulates so they can, re run for more seats or he freezes government so they can do nothing.
This week's had a couple of really good victories. The international order is taking some good damage, and I'm glad to see it. Just have to follow through.
What damage would that be? Even if he does get into power, he'll have to contend with coalition partners and the bureaucratic machines full of left-liberal progressive civil servants. They're the same in every European country. Their solutions are always the same: more immigration, more asylum seekers, deconstructing/dismantling the national identity, borders and welfare systems.
It's a fundamental undermining of the established order, and a rallying voice that could dominate politics for years forwards.
You need to understand that you are the revolutionary, and not actually a conservative, because the values you are trying to conserve have already been dismissed from the Overton Window of the establishment. Your primary objective (as was Saul Alinsky's) is to undermine the legitimacy of the ruling power by dragging the counter-narrative directly in front of the general public and beating the drum of your demands is actually the thing that delegitimizes them, and sets them as the target of blame for the society's problems.
It exposes the enemy, it forces the Overton Window to shift, and the damage against legitimacy, inevitability, and invincibility is far more significant than simply an executive order or a bill that could be changed or left unenforced. That's what this scene in Chernobyl is all about. The reason "humiliation" is so important, is because it is the absolute rejection of power. Once you are unable to summon a sense of legitimacy, civil disobedience to your authority becomes normalized, and people start operating as if the other guy was already in charge. Eventually, the parallel society becomes dominant. Just don't forget to gatekeep when they realize we've won.
Sounds good on paper, but the damage has already been done. And such 'moments' unfortunately have had only temporary effect in the past. The unrelenting stream of immigrants continued unabated. They only took on different forms: low-skilled immigrants got turned into asylum seekers.
I expect future defeats, but this is a long war. And you don't win those with a couple of victories. It's just nice to see a series of wins.
I've said it before. The right needs to learn how to take casualties. When you lose things and people, you grieve for a moment, turn right the fuck around, and get back out on patrol. When you win you need to learn to pursue the route, as that guarantees a longer victory.
Oh he’s already cucked out. From the shitty source that is Wikipedia, but still.
Wilders lived in Israel for two years during his youth and has visited the country 40 times in the last 25 years.
“We [in the West] are all Israel"
“nowhere did I have the special feeling of solidarity that I always get when I land at Ben Gurion International Airport."
He’s a huge jew lover, does everything he can to support them and distance himself from any fascist rightist groups, and even had a Dutch holocaust organization confirm he isn’t a fascist.
And because parliamentary systems are fucking retarded, he won't be permitted to have any governing role.
The so called conservatives and center parties will join with the leftists.
They will certainly try, but this defeat is so immense that they will have a hard time doing it.
And if they do, they'll lose even more voters and end up in a worse situation.
My worst worry is that he will prove another Meloni.
A hard time doing it? Literally every other party has already sworn not to include him.
Good thing politicians aren't known for keeping their word. I'd almost wish they'd try. Because the resulting coalitions would need so many parties, would be so unwieldy and unpopular that they would discredit the whole system - as is happening in Germany.
A lot of "center-right" parties steal right-wing votes that want lower immigration, less climate insanity. They will lose even more of their voters if they actually follow through on not including him, and instead going for a crazy 6-party coalition just to exclude him. They will try to avoid that.
The establishment parties collectively have enough seats to form a government while excluding the PVV, the FVD and the Farmers party.
A brand new "centre-right" party just split off from the Christian Democrats in the final leg of the campaign and took everyone by surprise by eating up a lot of populist votes. It's exactly an "En Marche" or RFK Jr scenario where an establishment politician pops up pretending to be a more palatable populist, standing against the conventional parties, and people fall for it every time.
Note that Omtzigt, the 'new guy', split off from the Christian Democrats about two years ago when the PM tried to get him removed from the parliament for holding the government accountable. He actually stole fewer populist votes than expected. 35 seats for Geert Wilders is an absolute stunner, more than anyone expected. This will send shockwaves through all of Europe.
Count up the number of populist and semi-populist seats and you will find a great improvement. And if the new party does not deliver, his voters will simply move to the other ones.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not white pilled. I think that none of this will amount to anything. Just not for the reasons that you think.
The only truly "anti-establishment" parties in the Netherlands are the VVD, the FvD and the Famer-Citizen coalition. Now that support for the latter has collapsed, even combined with Wilders they'll get about a quarter of the seats. The most intelligent and thoughtful dissident leader is Thierry Baudet, and it looks as though the FvD may not even win a single seat, so say goodbye to all of his epic speeches. Overall, considering the momentum behind the Dutch farmers protests last year, this is pretty disappointing.
I'm impressed by your knowledge of European politics, but you still look at it too much from the American/Canadian perspective. There was zero chance of these parties gaining a majority. The aim was to get as many seats to make it impossible for the powers that be to get around you. And these three parties gained more seats than anyone could have expected or predicted. FVD will definitely win at least 2 seats. From the last exit poll:
PVV (35)
BBB (7)
FVD (3)
That's 45 seats out of 150, nearly 1/3 of seats. That is pretty great.
Add to it other proper right-wing, populist and semi-populist parties, and you get slightly less than half.
NSC (20)
SGP (3)
JA21 (1)
That is 69 seats out of 150.
I'm not sure why you are disappointed. This is better than anyone on the 'right' could have hoped for (noting that a lot of European 'far-right' parties are not right-wing economically even by European standards, let alone American standards). I can guarantee you that no one in Europe dared to even hope for a result that was this good.
Does this guarantee government participation? No. Does this guarantee a good government? No. It's Europe. We're screwed no matter what. But it's pretty awesome all the same. Imagine a dying dog giving a vicious bite to a thug that beat it to death.
Dog's still dead.
I thought Europeans* generally liked and trusted the government.
(*dangerous fringe ultra global far-right extremist nationalists excluded)
Geert Wilders has lived under armed guard, moving from safe house to safe house every single night, for more than 10 years. He's the real deal.
NSC is apparently walking back their tough talk about not working with PVV.
It looks like the center right parties are starting to realize they can either jump on for the win or this will be their last election.
You know how I know it isn't the right system?
By looking at the results.
Personal consequentialism is never a good way to determine the functionality, efficiency, stability, or utility of any system.
The obvious counterpoint: is looking at the effects of communism on countries that implemented it not an accurate way of judging that it is an inherently broken and abusive concept?
Personal Consequentialism. "Was it good for me?"
General Consequentialism is also very typically poor on how to judge a system because it typically doesn't take a more long term analysis into effect. It doesn't take effects through time, and it also doesn't base a system as fundamentally metaphysical as politics on anything other than outcome. Materialistic Sciences can be judged consequentially, but politics can not.
Instead, most political systems need to be deontological. This is because politics has to be about making sure that the general sentiment of a governed population may have their concerns re-presented to the governing state craft, in such a way that power may shared without violating people's moral framework, and that they may live in a peaceful, healthy, and prosperous way.
Those issues can't be dealt with from a consequential analysis alone. As Dev points out in the video. Consent is deontological, and as such can't be addressed with consequentialism properly. Most moral systems are not consequentialist. In fact, there's only one that is consequentialist, and that's Utilitarianism. It's basically a Philosophy 101, week 3 topic to show why Utilitarianism is a fucking shit ethical framework.
No it's the wrong system because it lets the people who outright lost the election collude to exclude the guy who won.
I'm not partial to one system or another (I honestly don't know which is better), but can someone post the case in favor of the US system vs. proportional representation?
Theoretically in the US voters choose their party platform and coalitions before the election rather than the parties making that decision later, which may done by making compromises that some voters wouldn't have expected or agreed to.
The 'big bad extremist' that for years Europe tried to paint as a pariah, is essentially the most representative.
Unfortunately as I'm looking it up, no party can gain enough seats to rile alone and apparently EVERY party is refusing to work with them, I hope that either one capitulates so they can, re run for more seats or he freezes government so they can do nothing.
watch as he immediately doubles immigration
He's the guy from the draw mohammad competition in Texas yes. They tried to assassinate him and got gunned down unceremoniously.
Edit: check the comment below it was someone else.
Oh thank you, glad to get the right one.
BOOM another fucking win.
This week's had a couple of really good victories. The international order is taking some good damage, and I'm glad to see it. Just have to follow through.
Cue the music
What damage would that be? Even if he does get into power, he'll have to contend with coalition partners and the bureaucratic machines full of left-liberal progressive civil servants. They're the same in every European country. Their solutions are always the same: more immigration, more asylum seekers, deconstructing/dismantling the national identity, borders and welfare systems.
It's a fundamental undermining of the established order, and a rallying voice that could dominate politics for years forwards.
You need to understand that you are the revolutionary, and not actually a conservative, because the values you are trying to conserve have already been dismissed from the Overton Window of the establishment. Your primary objective (as was Saul Alinsky's) is to undermine the legitimacy of the ruling power by dragging the counter-narrative directly in front of the general public and beating the drum of your demands is actually the thing that delegitimizes them, and sets them as the target of blame for the society's problems.
It exposes the enemy, it forces the Overton Window to shift, and the damage against legitimacy, inevitability, and invincibility is far more significant than simply an executive order or a bill that could be changed or left unenforced. That's what this scene in Chernobyl is all about. The reason "humiliation" is so important, is because it is the absolute rejection of power. Once you are unable to summon a sense of legitimacy, civil disobedience to your authority becomes normalized, and people start operating as if the other guy was already in charge. Eventually, the parallel society becomes dominant. Just don't forget to gatekeep when they realize we've won.
Sounds good on paper, but the damage has already been done. And such 'moments' unfortunately have had only temporary effect in the past. The unrelenting stream of immigrants continued unabated. They only took on different forms: low-skilled immigrants got turned into asylum seekers.
I expect future defeats, but this is a long war. And you don't win those with a couple of victories. It's just nice to see a series of wins.
I've said it before. The right needs to learn how to take casualties. When you lose things and people, you grieve for a moment, turn right the fuck around, and get back out on patrol. When you win you need to learn to pursue the route, as that guarantees a longer victory.
Nice Israeli flag in the background there. Cant wait for him to immediately cuck out as soon as he has any power!
Oh he’s already cucked out. From the shitty source that is Wikipedia, but still.
He’s a huge jew lover, does everything he can to support them and distance himself from any fascist rightist groups, and even had a Dutch holocaust organization confirm he isn’t a fascist.
Lol. At least he'll wake more people up on how we have zero representation in our governments and thus none of them can be trusted
Forehead.
That's all I have to say.
That's at least a fivehead.
Ironic the 3rd place “center right” party that might work with Geert is headed by a Turkish woman.
Nice flag in the background, wonder why a Dutchman would have it in his office???