Karel van Rossum: The diversity dogma
The West is currently dominated by a dogma. It’s the dogma of multiculturalism and globalism. As with all dogma it is totalitarian in nature. Now, totalitarianism might have its merits in some cases, this certainly isn’t one of those cases. Back when I was in high school I was taught that nazi-Germany was bad because it was totalitarian and didn’t allow for any opposing views. The curriculum also very explicitly condemned the “gleichschaltung” of the society; the fact that the ideology encompassed all aspects of life. If you, for example, became a member of a sportsclub, it was the national socialist sports club. The irony seems to be lost on most people. Current society allows for not a single opposing view. If you become part of anything in this society, you can bet that the organization has a policy of inclusiveness, tolerance and some cases democracy.
Now, it’s not totalitarian in the classical sense of the word where if one does not adhere to the dogma, a nightly visit or a disappearance is guaranteed. This system is a lot smarter. Instead of relying on crude repression alone that could potentially breed more resistance, it has put its focus more on social alienation of renegades, or heretics if you will. Instead of being brutally beaten and locked up, they simply portray dissidents as the bad guy. This isn’t reserved for only the most radicals; just look at the portrayal of populists to see they are treated no different than radical nationalists. People are very much hardwired to associate anything that isn’t dogma with nationalism, racism, sexism – in short – with evil.
Nearly all bad guys in modern fiction hold some form of Fascist or nationalist characteristics. This has been a smart move on the part of our enemies because the modern consumer doesn’t care much about politics; they generally do care about pop culture and fiction, though. In the 50’s all Dutch political parties that were in the parliament had between the 600.000 and 800.000 members together total. Since the turn of the century, the number has been stuck around 300.0001 while the population counted only ten million in 1950 (around eleven million in 1960), opposed to the seventeen million today.2Gradually, people care less and less about politics, so other means have been deemed necessary to reach out to them. They have become more and more mindless consumers who flock to pop culture events en masse but turn their backs on anything serious. A festival like lowlands gathers between 50.000 and 60.000 for just a weekend- most political parties are probably jealous of those numbers.3The Green Left party attracted a crowd of 5000 at one of their election meetings4– but only because the speaker was a young fellow who stylized his speech as if it was a musical performance. And that is just one festival of the many, one expression of pop culture among the many.
It should come as no surprise that fiction and popculture have a heavy influence on people. Even without reading a study on the subject it should already be obvious; if someone is, for example, a huge Harry Potter fan, chances are he or she will be influence by the series or will dislike it if the message of the series strays far from his or her own. And since the main villain is somewhat a Hitler-type figure that is fighting for the purity of the blood of the wizards, chances are, the fan won’t be very nationalistically inclined. Of course this is a general trend and it’s not restricted to this one franchise. Fiction is quite the same, it’s a recurring theme; it’s usually the battle between good (represented by equality and democracy) against bad (usually nationalistic/intolerant). Think of most blockbuster movies and you are bound to pick one of these themes up. Another example could be music, the world famous Dutch DJ Mental Theo made a remix of the antifascist song “Ciao Bella”, saying he likes it because it is a rebellious song.5
This depoliticizes politics, as strange as that may sound. By equating certain political values with good and neutral and others with bad and evil and by propagating these views you create a world where eventually no dissidents are both allowed nor accepted. Not because you are actively repressed by expressing your views, but because you risk societal alienation. If this keeps on for long enough and people don’t come into contact with rebelling opinions, the whole concept of an alternative may even become foreign to a lot of people. One has to look only to the current treatment of nationalist activists in the Netherlands; if a person shows up at any big nationalist demonstration he risks getting “exposed” on the internet by antifascists. This will make him turn up in Google, which will diminish his chances at getting a job. In 2012, a former Dutch activist applied for a job but was refused by the company because he showed up on internet pages where his nationalist activities were on display. He takes the case to court and wins; but does that even matter? The court case only generated more attention and since he never condemned his former views it wouldn’t have improved his situation.
Populism isn’t opposition
As I mentioned before, if a certain message is pushed hard enough, eventually people will not be able to think outside the box and will be confined to the mental prison of cultural Marxism. Populism is seen as a great rebellion by the left; a grave threat that is very different to them and has to disappear. But if one was to look at the rhetoric, they are actually very similar: the goal in most cases is the exact same. It’s just the means to get there differ. Both sides uphold a humanistic world view and are defenders of the “tolerant society” . The only real difference between the two is that the populists hold a more realistic, less short-term suicidal view on the matter. The real reason they are against immigration and Islam- as seems to be often forgotten by radical nationalists – is not because they are against immigration and multiracial society in the first place. It’s because there are more immigrants coming in than can be assimilated. The reason they oppose Islam has nothing to do with traditional European culture but because it is an obstacle to world globalization, just as nationalists are.
Geert Wilders, the leader of the Freedom Party, which by now is world famous, is often classified as far-right by both the media and the left. Most arguments he makes against migration are either crime or finance related. A popular theme among his many performances is the costs of migration, as if there would be no more to it.678The other theme the party focuses on a lot and is probably most famous for, is Islam and “islamification”, the latter being the idea that the Islam is slowly taking over. This isn’t a view espoused because he believes in the traditional European culture and sees Islam as a traditional enemy, which would be forgivable, but because Islam is a threat to humanistic society e.g. globalist values. Martin Bosma is sometimes thought of as less badly than the rest of his party by radical nationalists because he stands up for the Afrikaners in South-Africa. They see in him some kind of undercover comrade. However, he said about gays: “Just when homo-emancipation looked like it was completed, something happened. But what happened, what disturbed the idyll? Who is responsible for gays feeling unsafe?” 9
Later on in the same speech, he would dismiss the idea that all orthodox religions are to be blamed, but that this is mostly the fault of the Islam. This is telling, because it shows again that he does adhere to the humanistic worldview and that he is mostly concerned with protecting this worldview.
It doesn’t matter if the west is ruled by these populists or by the left, if either has their way, by the end of the day, there won’t be much left of traditional western demographic, values and culture. The left wants complete mass migration and an open gate policy, the populist right wants a controlled gate policy, but at the end of the day, does it really matter? The gates will be open either way. The rise of the populist right shows us that there is not true alternative possible within the system. Nothing is allowed to grow that is not infected by its totalitarian control of everything. This is enforced more and more by the tight grip grows onto the minds of the peoples, where they can’t even perceive an alternative and ostracize anyone who does not adhere to the dominant ideology.
The average lemming has a political opinion that in this sense is no more than one dictated by their own selfishness combined with their longing for social acceptance. They have an opinion on politics that basically comes down to: I can do whatever I like, as long as I allow other people to do the same. It is an opinion dominated by individualism, egoism and nihilism. It’s an opinion that basically comes down to “I have no opinion”, especially if it is shared by a majority of the population and turned into a dogma.
Another analogy one could use is that of a carpet. People don’t see the holes in multiculturalism because they haven’t taken the time to look at them. The system shows them a rolled up carpet and tells them to admire the fabric, the print and size of it. The people, uncaring as they are, shrug and say “sure”, not taking the time to better inspect it. What they can’t see, however, is that the carpet is very different on the inside. The print is very different and it’s full of holes. It’s up to the nationalists to unroll the carpet and show it for what it really is- a mess.