|Austrian presidential candidates Van der Bellen (Greens) and Hofer (FPÖ). Van der Bellen won with 50.3% of the votes in a tight race to the finish.|
The recent elections in Austria are rich in lessons. Of course, we could analyze the results by categories of voters and notice that the workers overwhelmingly supported the FPÖ (Freedom Party of Austria), or we could discuss endlessly why the results suddenly changed when the postal ballots were counted, making Hofer lose the lead. However, from a Canadian perspective, it would be pointless. We have no party similar to or vaguely resembling the FPÖ: all of the major Canadian parties, and I mean all of them, support mass immigration and are actually in a ridiculous race to know which party will increase it the most and appeal to ethnic votes.
So what lesson is there for us Canadians? Well, it might be a surprise for many here, but where there are nationalist or populist parties there is always a significant segment of the nationalist movement that will not vote for them because of some elements of the programs or because of a personality clash. In France, it is surprising to see large numbers of nationalists who will not vote for Marine Le Pen because she is a "liberal" opposed to immigration and not a real nationalist. The same is true in Austria with the FPÖ, in Sweden with the Swedish Democrats, and even in the case of Trump notwithstanding the enthusiasm he has generated among alt righters.
From an outside perspective it is almost beyond logic. Hofer lost by 31,000 votes, or just 0.6%, and those votes could very well be the votes of nationalists who deserted the ballot boxes. The people who refuse to support those politicians when elections come usually raise some valid points. In the case of Marine Le Pen, the high number of homosexuals in her close circle, the way she treated her father, and her personality are usually invoked. For Trump, the facts that he is far from being a nationalist and that he has a utilitarian or pro-market perspective are the important issues raised against him. Even if those accusations are well-founded, they do not justify not voting for this candidate when he is at the second turn and opposes mass immigration, or at least illegal immigration. The points raised above are significant enough to convince someone not to get involved in that party or fund it. However, when the choice between a liberal anti-immigration candidate and another candidate supporting immigration is laid, the decision is not hard to make.
Single-issue voting is order of the day for nationalists. Opposing mass immigration must trump all other considerations.
In many countries like France and Austria, the second turn of a presidential election is there to determine who the best candidate between the two is. Sometimes the majority of people did not support one or the other before, but now need to choose between them. In 2002, when Jean-Marie Le Pen managed to get to the second turn against Jacques Chirac, the left, the greens, and the right supported Chirac without hesitation. Although he has been involved in corruption, at least he will save us from the "brown tide"!
The democrats, "to save the democracy from the nationalists", are ready to vote against their own interests. And we nationalists must learn to do the same thing in order to save our country from the Great Replacement.
With 305,000 immigrants each year, do you imagine the impact of a four year period on our demographics? It means 1,220,000 more foreigners in four years. Would you be ready to vote for someone who does not perfectly represent your ideology or your interests to avoid that? In fact, immigration is the main issue right now. Voting for a candidate who opposes immigration but supports gay marriage and legalization of marijuana would be more logical than voting for a candidate who supports mass immigration but opposes gay marriage and legalization of marijuana.
Demographics are not, or seldom are, reversible. Policies can be revoked, or changed, unlike the demographic balance of a country. Therefore, just like the "democrats" who will support anyone opposing a populist, we must support anyone who is opposing the Great Replacement, whatever policies he proposes on other issues.