Post: #1

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world.../84642124/

Could be a sign of a pushback against today's far-left deviancy in the works. Just as the French Revolution was a pushback long in the works against totalitarianism, Western society may be on the verge of a counter-revolution.

Once society's reached the point that the bare basics such as gender identity are being question and pedophilia "rights" are even being given treatment by Salon.com, there's not much further one can go.

I think like a rubber band, once society is pulled too far in one direction or another, it ends up bouncing back hard; and as with ancient Rome, the results may not be pretty, especially those who hide in "safe spaces".

Post: #2

(05-21-2016 08:13 PM)EDantes Wrote:  Could be a sign of a pushback against today's far-left deviancy in the works. Just as the French Revolution was a pushback long in the works against totalitarianism, Western society may be on the verge of a counter-revolution.

Once society's reached the point that the bare basics such as gender identity are being question and pedophilia "rights" are even being given treatment by Salon.com, there's not much further one can go.

I think like a rubber band, once society is pulled too far in one direction or another, it ends up bouncing back hard; and as with ancient Rome, the results may not be pretty, especially those who hide in "safe spaces".

That's a common misconception about the French Revolution, that the Ancien Régime was a highly repressive regime that spurred a spontaneous popular uprising. In reality, it was much closer to the Russian Revolution: a well-funded operation, arguably the first color revolution, funded by the Soroses of their time. It was mostly about destroying Christianity and replacing a patriotic, principled national aristocracy with a globalist, neoliberal/amoral masonic bourgeois elite. This was the first stage of the cultural marxist revolution, spurred by the likes of ideologues like Babeuf and financed by the global banker clans of the time, who still have control of the financial system today. I can provide some links to those that are interested in this chapter and are fluent in French.

This historical parenthesis aside, one important aspect of the "rubber band" is that the PTB fully anticipate the blowback and will often participate in its construction and divert/subvert its focus and goals. Think Shapiro or Tea Party. Jörg Haider wasn't controlled opposition, I'm not sure about the current right-wing leaders in Austria.



(auf Deutsch)

Post: #3

Currently the left candidate has 4000 votes more than the right one. But we'll only know a final result tomorrow because 900.000 voted via post and these will be counted tomorrow.

Post: #4

Women's suffrage was a mistake, proven yet again (Männer=men, Frauen=women):

Post: #5

From the BBC:

Quote:Partial results in Austria's run-off presidential election, which pitches the far right against an independent, suggest it is too close to call.

Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party and Alexander Van der Bellen were each on 50%, with 98% of the vote counted.

For the first time since World War Two, both the main centrist parties were knocked out in the first round.

The presidency is a largely ceremonial post, but a victory for Mr Hofer could be the springboard for Freedom Party success in the next parliamentary elections, scheduled for 2018.

The presidents of the European Commission and the European Parliament, Jean-Claude Juncker and Martin Schulz, have both expressed concern over a Hofer victory. Norbert Hofer of the Freedom Party and Alexander Van der Bellen were each on 50%, with 98% of the vote counted.

Support for the Freedom Party has risen because of deep frustration with the established parties and, more recently, because of fears about the migrant crisis.

Right-wing parties are gaining strength in a number of EU countries. European leaders will be watching the result closely.

The latest partial results have a margin of error of 0.8 percentage points.

Postal ballots, which may prove crucial in such a close race, will only be tallied on Monday. They account for some 900,000 votes, or 14% of eligible voters.

In the first round, Mr Hofer secured 35% of the votes, while Mr Van der Bellen polled 21%.

Post: #6

http://m.focus.de/politik/ausland/bundes...54693.html

"Vorläufiges Endergebnis (ohne die 900.000 Briefwähler): Hofer 51,9 Prozent, Van der Bellen 48,1 Prozent"

Hofer (FPÖ, right party) 51.9% without the postal voters.

The other guy is a leftist and nearly the halt (40%) of his 48.1% of his votes are out of spite against the right party (poll source is the same)

900.000 postal votes will be counted in the next 10 to 20 hours.

Hofer thinks he will win.

I think that keeping the postal votes for another day although they were countable before Sunday is a sign that they could be up to some voting fraud.

Well, the so called "wahlhelfer" (election officials /assistants) are often members of the established parties and like to invalidate ballots which they don't like....in making some more crosses, drawing on the paper or just ripping it up.

The media already tried to placate the voting as 50%/50% or the left winning.. But the right clearly has more votes without the postal voters (they counted them in for the 50/50 without knowing what's in them..)

Also many postal voters are old people or people who are not in the country during the elections.. Means for work.. many of them in Germany.

The left candidate is a member of the green party.

It would be some new information for me if old people or successful people would vote for the greens. Mostly it's young idealistic idiots and foreigners. The German green party (which stood up for pedophile rights by the way) is being invaded by German turks,as example.

So if the 900.000 postal votes don't give the win to Hofer I call fraud.

Post: #7

It's over folks. Van der Bellen won with 51.9% of the votes. What makes this even more painful is that almost all of Austria is right leaning with only Vienna and Vorarlberg voting for VDB:

Burgenland: 97.073 votes (63,0%) for Hofer, 57.077 votes (37,0%) for Van der Bellen
Kärnten: 153.171 votes (60,1%) for Hofer, 101.784 votes (39,9%) for Van der Bellen
Niederösterreich: 457.179 votes (54,3%) for Hofer, 384.860 votes (45,7%) for Van der Bellen
Oberösterreich: 326.074 votes (50,7%) for Hofer, 316.974 votes (49,3%) for Van der Bellen
Salzburg: 128.592 votes (55,1%) for Hofer, 104.897 votes (44,9%) for Van der Bellen
Steiermark: 326.982 votes (58,7%) for Hofer, 230.200 votes (41,3%) for Van der Bellen
Tirol: 151.433 votes (50,7%) for Hofer, 147.141 votes (49,3%) for Van der Bellen
Vorarlberg: 80.777 votes (56,4%) for Van der Bellen, 62.331 votes (43,6%) for Hofer
Wien: 370.147 votes for Van der Bellen (61,2%), 235.028 votes (38,8%) for Hofer

And there you have it. The left wins again despite an explosion in conservative anti-EU sentiment but thanks to the closing of ranks across the entire political Red-Green-Left block. Same game as they played in France last year and the same game they will be playing in Germany next fall.

I wish I was proven wrong just once but unfortunately Houellebecq's Soumission continues to serve as the basic script for the growth of Islam across Europe. The right can only establish itself if it somehow manages to secure a clear majority, which is extremely difficult over here in Europe as the political process is dominated by coalitions. It will happen eventually in some countries - but not before the end of this decade. Of course by then it will be too late and the only remaining alternative to prevent Islam taking over most of Northern Europe will be an outright civil war. May happen but it's equally likely we'll continue to see submission and eventually white flight into the U.S. and Eastern Europe.

On a different note, what's tougher to learn - Polish or Hungarian*? ;-)

*I'd vote Hungarian

Post: #8

Van der Bellen won with 50.3% in my sources and that means the postal votes are highly different from the normal ones. If your 51.9% would be true (which are accidently the same as Hofer had in my source yesterday) then the difference would be as high as ~5%

I called it and I stand by it.. It's fraud.

The postal votes are already sent in weeks before.

And don't forget that 25% of the green votes didn't vote green but against Hofer.

We don't need voting computers in Europe to be screwed over fake Democracy.

In France they also won by Anti democratic mechanisms.

And in Germany next year they will do, too.

It will be civil war or end of civilization in Europe,which both prepare an undemocratic EU dictator police state.

Post: #9

(05-23-2016 10:06 AM)PowerGame Wrote:  Van der Bellen won with 50.3% in my sources and that means the postal votes are highly different from the normal ones. If your 51.9% would be true (which are accidently the same as Hofer had in my source yesterday) then the difference would be as high as ~5%

I called it and I stand by it.. It's fraud.

The postal votes are already sent in weeks before.

And don't forget that 25% of the green votes didn't vote green but against Hofer.

We don't need voting computers in Europe to be screwed over fake Democracy.

In France they also won by Anti democratic mechanisms.

And in Germany next year they will do, too.

It will be civil war or end of civilization in Europe,which both prepare an undemocratic EU dictator police state.

If what you say is true then it would make VDB's victory even more depressing as in a small country like Austria a lead of under 1% represents at most a few thousand votes. Yes, I absolutely expect that there was some monkey business at play here - proving it however is another story.

Unfortunately civil war is the only remaining alternative at this point, agreed. Of course it won't happen - Western men have been systematically emasculated and feminized. The jig is up for Western Europe.

Post: #10

I heard about this shooting in Austria from a few days ago. Since the police refuse to disclose the identity of the attacker, it's very probable that he was of immigrant origin and it was kept a secret to prevent a final boost to Hofer. If he were a native, the media would have surely paraded it around.

What an extremely sad day for Austria and Europe.

Post: #11

Postal votes are commonly known to be a source of massive voter-fraud here in the UK.

It tends to always happen in Labour (lefty), immigrant areas.

In fact, I'd say it was endemic.

Not saying that's what's happened here but it's possible I guess.

Post: #12

(05-23-2016 10:49 AM)redpillage Wrote:  Unfortunately civil war is the only remaining alternative at this point, agreed. Of course it won't happen - Western men have been systematically emasculated and feminized. The jig is up for Western Europe.

I keep hearing this on the forum and I always used to subscribe to this notion that we are so cucked here in Europe but how much better is the US doing? Less than half of new American babies are white. We are disarmed and you have three hundred million fire arms in public hands, and where is the resistance?

On topic: Fuck the election results, not surprised, but apparently the people need to learn historical lessons for themselves the hard way.

Post: #13

The BBC article that is posted in the google news announcement quotes VDB:

Quote:"It's a relief to see the Austrians reject populism and extremism".

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-36362505

(Notice how for any articles that are on demographically related political topics, whatsoever, these major online news outlets almost never attribute articles to an author. Could it be that they don't want their opinions associated with hypocrisy?).

The (fraudulent) vote was 50.3% to 49.7%.

Quote:Mr Hofer had led Mr Van der Bellen by 51.9% to 48.1% after counting on Sunday. But the 750,000 postal votes - roughly 12% of Austria's 6.4 million registered voters - swayed the result.

Putting the fraudulent nature of this "win" aside for a moment, the guy has balls saying that Austria rejected anything.

As I realized ten years ago, and as I state time and time again, democracy is only a valid form of government among a homogenous group with the same overall goals. It is valid when people are largely voting for a method toward those goals, not for the goals themselves. In Israel, democracy can be valid. In the U.S.A. and increasingly in Europe, it can not be held to embody the freedom from tyranny that it was ostensibly created for.

In instances like this, it is an obviously defective method that has two tribes, or armies if you will, voting on which one will rule the other for the politician's term. This before-dubious empowerment becomes completely invalid when standards of justice and "freedom" are now applied.

It even seems to work (but doesn't) when the two poles are controlled for an indistinguishable middle as politics was for decades in the U.S.. But when that farce breaks down, and a nation is attempting to elect one of two politicians at polar ends of the political spectrum, then the larger farce of democracy itself becomes embarrassing to watch.

Such a situation also shows the major flaw in the concept of the nation-state.

What is the future? The world "rejecting" something in favor of something else when we have 20% pluralities once more tribes are jammed into less territory that is thereby deemed to be a "nation"?

Then Democracy will truly be the rule of the minority.

Post: #14

(05-23-2016 12:02 PM)hydrogonian Wrote:  As I realized ten years ago, and as I state time and time again, democracy is only a valid form of government among a homogenous group with the same overall goals. It is valid when people are largely voting for a method toward those goals, not for the goals themselves. In Israel, democracy can be valid. In the U.S.A. and increasingly in Europe, it can not be held to embody the freedom from tyranny that it was ostensibly created for.

In instances like this, it is an obviously defective method that has two tribes, or armies if you will, voting on which one will rule the other for the politician's term. This before-dubious empowerment becomes completely invalid when standards of justice and "freedom" are now applied.

This is a very good point you just made there. Multi-ethnic states cannot function, because in such states the struggle is always about dominance rather than governance.

Post: #15

How can something both be populism and extremism?

The cognitive dissonance in leftists is astounding.

Post: #16

Its not such terrible news. Voters are now used to vote nearly 50% for a "far right" candidate which means they are more likely to vote for that party in the election that actually counts. Also a green candidate is usually a total fucking joke and will only result in a backlash vote next time.

Post: #17

(05-23-2016 10:06 AM)PowerGame Wrote:  Van der Bellen won with 50.3% in my sources and that means the postal votes are highly different from the normal ones. If your 51.9% would be true (which are accidently the same as Hofer had in my source yesterday) then the difference would be as high as ~5%

I called it and I stand by it.. It's fraud.

The postal votes are already sent in weeks before.

And don't forget that 25% of the green votes didn't vote green but against Hofer.

We don't need voting computers in Europe to be screwed over fake Democracy.

In France they also won by Anti democratic mechanisms.

And in Germany next year they will do, too.

It will be civil war or end of civilization in Europe,which both prepare an undemocratic EU dictator police state.

Anti-democratic is in the eye of the beholder.

The people cast their votes. The result is the result.

The runoff system exists for a reason. It selects the two best supported candidates from a wide field. Then it lets the entire population make a final choice from those two well understood alternatives.

Let's consider the US general election, which works differently. Suppose an independent candidate from the right runs in the race, purely to spoil Trump's chances. This forum would also be complaining about it being anti-democratic. Because maybe Trump would have won in a two candidate field.

You can't have it both ways.

Le Pen won the first round voting tallies but lost the run off. So did Hofer. That is the system. I don't see it as inherently unfair.

If you are advocating for a system of preferential voting like Australia has, that might be valid and objectively more democratic.

But I see most of this as just whining about the result. That is ultimately what's most anti-democratic, as you have difficulty accepting the mandate as spoken by the voters.

I strongly wanted Hofer to win too. It's disappointing that he didn't. But at a certain point, you have to be rational and accept the result of the game.

Even (especially) when the result didn't go your way.

Post: #18

This is probably a blessing in disguise. Losing in such a trivial way will only motivate the nationalists more.

Post: #19

(05-23-2016 01:01 PM)Tigre Wrote:  Anti-democratic is in the eye of the beholder.

Sure.

The phrase itself, in terms of how you use it, presumes that democracy is the ideal structure for government in a multicultural society.

If I were to use it, I would only use it in the context of tribal self-determination, which by definition will always be realized through a proper functioning democracy in a monocultural nation (though i still see democracy as too corruptible in that situation). In essence, you could judge the democratic legitimacy in that environment by its ability to bring self-interested results for the majority.

In essence, your "anti-democracy" refers to process in any environment. Mine refers to a result in a specific environment (that of a majority tribal set of interests).

"Anti-democratic", as you use it, merely refers to the observable corruption of a process. Never mind the un-observable corruptions.

I don't see this situation as anti-democracy as you might use the term. I see this situation being democracy as it was designed to malfunction. It isn't anti-democratic, it is merely democracy outside of the short sighted idealism of the way people imagine that it works.

What this situation is is anti-freedom / anti self-determination, as it always is when the contest is between two polar opposite politicians and points of view. It is as democracy is supposed to work in a multicultural nation, and it works predictably to its inherently corruptible nature as it inevitability manifests in most nations given enough time. In that sense, it is "anti-democratic". It is "anti-democratic" in the context of the ideal that most of us still divinize democracy over, subconsciously or otherwise. It is how democracy is supposed to work, in reality.

If you don't view this as a negative result in terms of how the mechanics of government is structured, then you likely hold democracy to an unrealistic ideal of what it is advertised to be versus how what it actually is.

Quote:The people cast their votes. The result is the result.

See above.

Quote:Let's consider the US general election, which works differently. Suppose an independent candidate from the right runs in the race, purely to spoil Trump's chances. This forum would also be complaining about it being anti-democratic. Because maybe Trump would have won in a two candidate field.

Where would his funding come from? If such a candidate is put forth by an aristocracy, in spite of having a relatively low voter approval, then that is the definition of anti-democratic (assuming for a second that we hold democracy to be ultimately a good thing).

Usually, anti-democratic effect of the funding reality always exists in the U.S.A.. Candidates depend on elite approval before the population votes on them; and so the anti-democratic environment exists all of the time. Elite funding of a third party candidate would hypothetically be a secondary anti-democratic detail in comparison to the overall anti-democratic funding requirement needed just to play.

Trump largely had his own funding for the primary, making him inherently the better embodiment of democracy because he could run and win in spite of elite funding. He is the pure democratic choice, one that has rarely been available. Thus, any "anti-democracy" criticism would be pretty valid in this case, should a third party candidate run. It would not be as valid normally. I'm not sure that calling "sour grapes" on critics of a hypothetical third party candidate in this election holds up.

Quote:You can't have it both ways.

What ways are those?

Quote:Le Pen won the first round voting tallies but lost the run off. So did Hofer. That is the system. I don't see it as inherently unfair.

See my first post. See my above criticisms of holding democracy to be an inherently good choice for government. Why do you think that it is pushed at the point of hot metal the world over?

My criticisms, and those of people like me, are also more highlighted in elections such as this between two politicians at the opposite ends of the political gamut: which have not occurred in a long time. Though, just because others are now watching the predicted outcome of democracy does not mean that these criticisms were less valid when the two candidates were more indistinguishable. It simply means that it was a matter of time that this "anti-democratic" result, in the sense of tribal self determination, was inevitable. Some people could see it and some could not. Now, everyone can see it. The criticism was not sour grapes then, and it isn't sour grapes now. It's an over-arching criticism of democracy that exists in "good times" and in bad.

Quote:But I see most of this as just whining about the result.

All of politics is, in essence, "whining at the result". That's the nature of human conflict. Telling someone to stop "whining", and in this case categorizing it as "whining", shows a bias in my opinion.

Quote:That is ultimately what's most anti-democratic, as you have difficulty accepting the mandate as spoken by the voters.

I don't see multicultural democracy to be as ideal as you do, which was the entire point of my first post.

Quote:I strongly wanted Hofer to win too. It's disappointing that he didn't. But at a certain point, you have to be rational and accept the result of the game.

So which is it: are we playing a legitimate "game" that we should accept the outcome of or is the system prone to fraudulent outcomes? If the latter, then don't you have some further cognitive dissonance at your acceptance of multicultural democracy as an ideal? "Be rational" sounds defeatist, and again dissonant, to me in the face of an admittedly fraudulent outcome.

Quote:Even (especially) when the result didn't go your way.

Sure. And everyone with your remark can ignore the people who are consistent critics of democracy in good times and in bad. I'm cursed with being able to see the effects of things past the next five years. Because a sham system might come up for someone I approve of now does not mean that I don't see what the eventual permanent result will be; the long term result that I clearly predicted in my first post. But here you are, anyway, accusing me of my view being election dependent.

You don't know me, but I've been criticizing democracy for almost a decade to whomever will listen. Your comment simply doesn't apply to me. Accusing someone of being petty is an easy argument to make, though. I'll give you that.

Anyway, my argument sounds more impassioned than I actually feel about the issue given that I don't predict anything different. This isn't a disappointment for me, this is merely a predicted outcome. I understand your bias towards fairness in the game. I'm merely not convinced of its structure, overall, not merely fairness specific to this election.

Post: #20

(05-23-2016 11:52 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

(05-23-2016 10:49 AM)redpillage Wrote:  Unfortunately civil war is the only remaining alternative at this point, agreed. Of course it won't happen - Western men have been systematically emasculated and feminized. The jig is up for Western Europe.

I keep hearing this on the forum and I always used to subscribe to this notion that we are so cucked here in Europe but how much better is the US doing? Less than half of new American babies are white. We are disarmed and you have three hundred million fire arms in public hands, and where is the resistance?

On topic: Fuck the election results, not surprised, but apparently the people need to learn historical lessons for themselves the hard way.

Just to be clear - although I have spent significant parts of my life in the United States I'm a European living in Europe.

Post: #21

(05-23-2016 01:01 PM)Tigre Wrote:  But I see most of this as just whining about the result. That is ultimately what's most anti-democratic, as you have difficulty accepting the mandate as spoken by the voters.

Oh yeah? And who the fuck did put those voters there in the first place?

Did the Matthias and Lucas woke up one day and suddenly decided to import third world garbage in their pristine, highly efficient society?? Or were they mandated, by hook or by crook, to follow the postmodern project in place since the 1960s.

It is estimated that at least 10% of Austrian population is foreign-born. And out of those significant percentage are of non-European/non-EU origin, who immigrated in the last 30 years. Hence, will the Turks and Albanians and others vote for a right wing candidate? They might in their own country, but will never do so in Austria because that will be going against their own (racial/ethnic/cultural) interests.

So, it is the immigrant vote that made the difference... which is exactly why they are there in the first place. To fuck things up on behalf of global elites.

Post: #22

I'm really unhappy to hear about this, also as that Hofer sounded really cool https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norbert_Hofer If you lose at say tennis by just 1 point against someone, you can't be too upset or think you're too different in skill level. Sure it's not the same but the hardliners are seriously in the running. Man, it's upsetting, the place is filling up with muslims who will be voting left.. Anyway it will lead to war, the public will realize the dirty plan going on and discontent will boil over.

Post: #23

(05-23-2016 01:06 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  This is probably a blessing in disguise. Losing in such a trivial way will only motivate the nationalists more.

Sounds about right. The President of Austria has a mostly ceremonial role, like the President of Germany. Not a big loss.

The Freedom Party remains the leader in the polls for the next Austrian legislative election, to be held in or before 2018.

Post: #24

Well I would call myself someone who stands behind original democracy.

Like in ancient Athen: no voting for slaves, women, "inner country foreigners" or foreigners. So only men of the own tribe are able to vote who live close by. And the most power in the hands of old families that have proven to do everything for their polis in war, making money or gaining influence in their home. But of course I prefer it after solons or other reformations. Or the law that forces you to decide for one side in a bigger city dispute.

And it's possible to find the point where the democracy of Athen initiated the self destruction. But historical circles will never stop.

I also read somewhere : if you annoyed too many people they just kicked you out for 10 years. Each year a voting took place. It didn't matter how rich or mighty you were, you manipulate and work against the city.. If people find out you get exiled.

And I stay behind the thesis in this thread that hydrogonian stated a lot more eloquently than me. That's beautiful to read.

They got new voters in. Who should never have been allowed to vote.

And the statistic discrepancy and timing of the counting is in my opinion enough to call fraud,like the fact that every media source says between 600.000 and 900.000 postal votes, well that's a huge amount for 30.000 votes that made the decision.

And let's not forget, if Hofer won I'd call it undemocratic, too. But if you count who has the most amount of direct supporters Hofer would be the most Democratic choice.

And the EU itself is totally undemocratic . they can over rule every national law or decision, sure there is veto power. Well use it and see what your secret society friends will do to your career.

And to a certain degree everyone should agree that it's also undemocratic to be over ruled by the city of Wien if you live elsewhere.

I won't adress the whining statements or similar ones. That's just personal conclusion.

Normally things only change by violent takeover not by vote. And too many original citizens of Europe still think that demonstrations or petitions do something. Because they are not violent.

Post: #25

I got very salty after the results. Then I checked the Green party's program and got even saltier.

I love Austria, don't destroy it for the love of God.