The Mainstreaming Far-Right (MFR) has failed again, spectacularly crashing and burning in the recent Dutch election, to the joy of globalists and leftists and to the gloom and doom of naive “movementers” and their breathless anticipation of another “victory.”
What broke Wilders was an attack from both the right and the left. On the right, Wilders had to deal with the VVD saber rattling at Turkey and signaling hard against immigration. On the left, Wilders had to deal with panicked media coverage trying to scare the voters by declaring a PVV victory would mean the end of the EU and a Continent in chaos.
Note that the MFR fails in the following manner: on the one hand, by moving toward the center, the MFR is vulnerable to having their positions co-opted by the Mainstream Right. On the other hand (ironically or paradoxically), the moderating MFR is accused of being “extremist” by both the Left and Mainstream Right. So, the MFR doubly fails – by failing to distinguish itself from the Mainstream Right while at the same time still being labeled as nutty extremists who must be eschewed. The solution is to be leaders and not followers – instead of compromising their beliefs in order to follow mindless and conformist voters to the center, the Far-Right needs to stand for uncompromising principles and move the voters in their direction, a movement made more possible by the rapidly declining racial and cultural situation for Whites worldwide. The Far-Right needs to clearly distinguish itself from the Mainstream Right, to an extent that makes it impossible for the Mainstream Right to co-opt the positions. If the Far-Right is going to be labeled as extremists and lose elections, then they may as well do so with a distinct ideological position, so that any future electoral gains and successes can be clearly seen as a validation of the Far-Right approach. All else is folly. The MFR approach certainly hasn’t worked in Western Europe. And in the east, one can argue that, by Western European standards, Orban is more “extreme” than Wilders or Le Pen, and I’ve already argued that in the ultra-cucked American Right, Trump cannot be seen as a mainstreamer either. The clearest examples of mainstreaming – the real test cases – have been in Western Europe, and they have failed, failed, and failed again. All their pandering to civic nationalism has not helped them. All their denunciations of Golden Dawn, and support for the Greek Far-left, hasn’t helped them. All their “throwing the Nutzis under the bus” hasn’t helped them either.
I am refraining from personally attacking leading “movement” supporters of mainstreaming, but I note that they never admit when they are wrong. The upcoming French election is their last chance for credibility. Le Pen wins the second round and comes to power, all well and good. I’ll stand corrected, and maybe mainstreaming – as a means and never as an end – has some legitimacy, at least in Western Europe. But if Le Pen fails, then enough is enough. The whole point of mainstreaming is “electoral success so something can be done” – if they can’t achieve what is the whole purpose of their strategy, then it should be consigned to the dustbin of history.
And as regards arguments that speech restrictions make a more extreme approach impossible in (Western) Europe – well, I’ve been consistent in arguing that free speech has to a pivotal plank in a Far-Right platform, up there with immigration. I’ve been ignored about that as well. Happy losing, Western European “Far-Rightists.”