I remember an old coach of mine used to incessantly preach: fundamentals matter! I can appreciate that even more in socio-politics than I did in sports. And one of the most fundamental questions of our modern age is: for what do nation-states exist? And for whom?
Any example would do, but let’s take the Netherlands (the Moroccans are). Does Holland exist as a homeland for the Dutch? Or is there some other more fundamental purpose to its existence?
Certainly Dutch people can reside in other countries at the sufferance of their hosts–so long as that lasts. But where is the place specifically for them? That place where Dutch sensibilities, culture, and ethnic interests predominate by design. Where small numbers of non-Dutch guests who find that host dominance objectionable are not only encouraged to leave, but actively shown the door.
Is this place The Netherlands? One presumes that was the purpose of its Dutch founders, after all. Or did they fight and die in the Eighty Years War to establish the Maghreb’s right to colonize their children? If so, you’d think the Peace of Munster would have at least tangentially mentioned that being the cause of so much carnage.
Or alternately, perhaps it wasn’t the Dutch at all who formed this state, but rather the people collectively known as “tolerance.” This tribe having decreed (ex post facto in the latter 20th Century) that the country was instead erected for their purposes.
Whatever the truth, Geert Wilders of the Dutch Freedom Party (PVV) has plainly alighted on the less exotic theory: The Netherlands belong to the Dutch.
THE NETHERLANDS BELONGS TO US!
Millions of Dutch have had enough of the Islamization of our country. Enough of the mass immigration, asylum, terror, violence and lack of safety. Here is our plan: instead of financing the entire world and the people we do not want here, we give our money back to the common Dutch person.
This is what the PVV will do:
1) de-islamize the Netherlands
* Zero asylum seekers and no more immigrants from Muslim countries: we are closing our borders.
* Withdrawal of all residence permits already granted to asylum seekers; asylum seeker centers closed down.
* No more Muslim veils in public functions
* Ban of overall Muslim expressions that are against the public order
* Preventive incarceration of radical Muslims
* Criminals with double nationality stripped of their Dutch citizenship and deported
* Syrian fighters not allowed back in The Netherlands
* All Mosques and Muslim schools are to be closed and the Koran banned.
2) The Netherlands will reclaim its independence. Therefore, we leave the EU.
3) Direct democracy: binding referendums, citizens have the power.
4) Deductible/excess in healthcare insurance is eliminated
5) Rents to be lowered
6) Age of retirement back to 65 years old. Pensions for everyone.
7) No more money for foreign aid, windmills, art, innovation, public broadcasters, etc.
8) Past budget cuts involving care will be reversed.
9) Plenty extra funds for defense and police
10) Lower income taxes
11) 50% reduction for vehicle ownership taxes
I like #7, though windmill defunding may be a bridge too far. I think I’d leave the subsidies in place for any who found that a deal-breaker.
But consider how revolutionary this fundamental platform rings to the modern ear. The world provides a buffet of residential choices for muslims. Holland is not one of those. It is for the Dutch. And it exists to define, defend, and advance their interests as precisely no other polity on Earth is designed to do.
Contra current doctrine, it is actually not a homeland for the tolerance people. Though I sometimes wonder if liberals ever extrapolate their logic if it was.
The position of this blog is that Dutch is an immutable characteristic. One can be a good man or bad, likable or heinous, residing in Amsterdam or Anqing, tolerant or not: none of which bears on being Dutch.
Though the liberal thesis of nationality rests upon the sands of creed. Reportedly, if a person adopts a certain purple mountain majesty mindset, they transmogrify into their new identity. Of course no countries ever evaluate or enforce this alleged metamorphosis. It is simply assumed without even being asserted. Thus Mexicans become Americans because we hope they think so. I imagine the same strict process occurs in Holland. Though the specific tenets that create new Americans or Dutch remain conspicuously vague.
But if nationality is defined by fidelity to some unstated abstraction (the Lazarus poem? Hamburgers?), then the rejection of that abstraction would logically strip a person of the nationality. It’s not an innate feature of identity, you understand. So if being tolerant and universalist in Utrecht is what makes one Dutch, then one must remain tolerant and universalist to remain Dutch. That means tribalist jews and muslims can not be Dutch (or presumably American) by the left’s own definition. What all-men ideology do we imagine ADL or BLM members embrace?
The truth is if substantive universalist creed-tests were applied in America–as they must if the liberal criteria for nationality is to have meaning–then most of the Democrats’ “minority” constituency would be paddling in the Atlantic (along with a sizable number of their “white privileged” colleagues).
It’s amusing to think that a conscientious application of leftist national ideology would result in the certain electoral defenestration of leftist politicians. It’s less amusing to know that no figure on the cuck-right will ever publicly contemplate this fact.
Though Geert isn’t even bothering with the exercise. He knows the Dutch are a people, not a philosophy. And he is speaking directly to their interests. The Netherlands belong to the Dutch. The concept is fundamental.