Confusing words like infected and infected, infection and infection and the random scattering of contagious and tested positive has led to great confusion and contributed to miscommunication. Ultimately resulting in wrong policy, at least if we assume that they were really mistakes when, for example, 'infections' were used without problem for 'people who tested positive' when it came to that.
Zoiets is nu weer aan de hand. Dit gaat nu even niet over virussen of vaccinaties maar het smaakt hetzelfde. De taboesfeer, de censuur, het onbespreekbaar willen houden, lagere schoolniveau van onze volksvertegenwoordigers, betekenissen vervormen, onderbuikdeugpraat, termen verwisselen: kortom veel raakvlakken. Ik heb het over ‘Repopulation‘. Als voormalig taalbeheerser mag ik daar wat van zeggen op eigen gezag, vind ik. Ik ben in een wat overmoedige bui dus ik grijp mijn kans.
Language is sloppy and changeable
We need to be aware that language is a particularly sloppy communication vehicle. You can use it very precisely, but everything is allowed, so that precision is not a necessity. Everyone is allowed to use language, even people who can't think very precisely. Unlike computer languages, where you have to indicate for each word at least whether it is a variable, a function, a constant, or whatever, spoken language is completely free. That offers unbridled creativity. But that leads to inaccuracies, a problem that in practice is solved by context. In a fledgling love relationship, you fill in those inaccuracies in an understanding way with desirable outcomes. In politics, you use these inaccuracies to torch each other for words: that's what we call a semantic discussion these days. In the past, 'semantics' was about the exact meaning of words or the content, but now it is mainly about the use of the words themselves: the appearance. That's an example of a shifted meaning.
The changeability of language is clearly visible in the spelling, because old books show the solidified spelling of a particular moment. The older it is, the harder it is to read. Just as changeable are the meanings and application of certain words. In other eras with different contexts, meanings can shift. In a rapidly changing social context, new expressions sometimes have to be found. Words are derived from other words or they are put together. Obsolete words are resurrected with a slightly different meaning. Verbs are 'genominalised' (nouns are made from them and vice versa, they are conjugated, kneaded and trimmed, anything goes... Language is alive.
Meanings are therefore not anchored in dictionaries; Dictionaries are snapshots of common spellings and applications. Dictionaries report on language use, they are behind the times.
Take a word like "discriminate." That comes from the Latin "discriminare," which meant to separate or distinguish. The British still use it that way. But with us, you can't use it in that sense anymore, except in a formalized setting (strict scientific language, for example).
For example, in Dutch (and in more Germanic languages) it is unclear what it means when a word ends in "ing". Take "Editing". When you're editing a music composition, the result of that editing is the "editing." But the process you're engaged in during editing, you can also call that "editing," as in the sentence:
"During the adaptation of the epic, he didn't think about anything else."
That may also be: "While editing the epic, he didn't think about anything else."
If you think that you can replace the word "edit" with "editing" everywhere, you are making a colossal fallacy. The sentence "I really love the adaptation of Tomorrow, as Sidney Christmas sang it" is no longer correct if you replace "the adaptation" with "the edit".
This is the source of the misunderstanding.
The first is a noun and refers to the result of editing, a concrete object or phenomenon, the second is also a noun but somewhat less independent: it is the nominalization of a verb form. It is actually the reference to the verb "to edit", the act, the activity of editing, with the appearance of a noun. Let's call these two 'condition' and 'action'. So we have:
Operation (nw, state): object, phenomenon
Machining (n.w., operation): purposeful processing
Compare with:
Overpopulation (nw, condition): object, phenomenon
Overcrowding (nw, act): the deliberate overcrowding
Hey – you can't. We've never heard of active overcrowding, so we understand that "overpopulation" refers to an organic process, a side effect of something else. Overpopulation just happens, for all kinds of reasons, and no one is looking for a theory behind it for the time being. We don't see it as human purposeful activity, but as a process that leads to a state of overpopulation:
Overpopulation (nw, condition): object, phenomenon
Overpopulation (nw, process): the process of overcrowding
Other alternatives have emerged for this 'process': 'excessive population growth', for example.
The reverse is true for the non-existent term 'underpopulation', which is covered by more specific causal descriptions such as 'ageing', 'low birth rate', 'depopulation'.
Anyone who immediately thinks of depopulation, deportation or genocide when they think of 'depopulation' is wrong.
Klik hier voor een aantal voorbeeldzinnen zoals bab.la die geeft:
- The problematic mountain regions continue to suffer from depopulation.
- The increasing depopulation of these areas therefore seems unavoidable.
- I am thinking, for example, of increasing depopulation and orographic characteristics.
- Increasing the size of farms leads to the depopulation of the countryside.
- Money will be made, and at the same time depopulation will be stopped.
- The ecological and socio-economic consequences of depopulation must be prevented.
- In Greece, factory closures are accompanied by the depopulation of cities in peripheral regions.
- This is not only a means of preventing depopulation, but it is also promoting stability in the region.
- This will give rise to depopulation and a reduction in economic activity.
- The depopulation of the countryside is a given.
Source: https://nl.bab.la/voorbeelden/nederlands/ontvolking
It should work analogously to the original, uncontaminated form of the word "omvolking". Think of Suriname, which started around 1500 with 100% indigenous population. In a few hundred years, migration, colonization and cultural exchange have led to an enormous demographic transition: now 3% of the population is descended from the original indigenous population. There was no theory of repopulation behind it. Nobody came up with that idea, it was the course of things.
But then came the Nazis. They were striving for 'repopulation'. Since then, 'deliberate repopulation' no longer sounds as implausible as 'deliberate overcrowding'. According to the rules of sloppy language (see 'Editing'), this deliberate activity is also called 'repopulation'. Thus we are left with three meanings of the same word: the state, the process, and the deliberate activity.
Repopulation (nw, passive): object, phenomenon, state
Repopulation (nw, process): the process of repopulation
Repopulation (nw, act): the purposeful repopulation
Why does this matter?
In de media is een semantische discussie aangezwengeld. Ik meen dat NRC ermee begonnen is maar het sluimerde al langer en een journalist zag er brood in. Alle termen met “omvolking” erin zijn dusdanig geframed dat je er niet eens meer tegen mag zijn: de mogen simpelweg niet meer worden benoemd. Ze zijn gecensureerd, gecancelled. Je kunt het struisvogelpolitiek noemen, maar zo gaat dat in media en politiek.
Is a phenomenon a theory?
In 2020, a Column about depopulation little attention in the NRC. An excerpt from it (because it's behind a donate button):
A month ago, Rutte put the PVV party leader in the Senate, Marjolein Faber, in her number for using the term 'omvolking'. "Omvolking comes from Nazi literature," Rutte said. It was the reproach of the N.S.D.A.P. to the traditional parties," the prime minister taught, that the denial of "classical German values" led to "repopulation."
Rutte, geschiedkundige van huis uit, maakt hier de fout dat de NSDAP omvolking als een gevaar voor de eigen bevolking zou hebben gezien. Voor de eigen bevolking spraken de nazi’s over “zuiveren”. De nazi-doctrine met betrekking tot omvolking was het ‘germaniseren’: het met Duitsers bevolken van de gebiedsuitbreidingen. Wat Rutte beschrijft lijkt meer op standpunt uit extreemrechtse hoek. Zijn actieve herinnering zal eventjes hebben gehaperd maar de toon was weer gezet.
Het beschermen van de eigen cultuur en volksaard werd in 2017 door de AIVD als rechts-extremisme gezien. Rechts-extremisme kant zich tegen de zich manifesterende islamisering, wil daarom een rem op immigratie en is het dus sterk oneens met een overheid die de burger niet helpt om te beschermen waar die van houdt. De AIVD noemt dit als drie afzonderlijke(?) kenmerken van rechts-extremisme. Tucker Carlson legt in onderstaand interview uit dat zelfbescherming een mensenrecht is.
Dat de media (weer NRC) onlangs wel een stevig nummer maakten van dezelfde term “omvolking”, past in de mediamissie om het ‘ultrarechtse’ kabinet alsnog te saboteren na de mislukte karaktermoordaanslag op Ronald Plasterk. Er wordt niets nagelaten. Iemand als Jan Paternotte pakt zo’n mediavoorzetje dankbaar op en duikt in Wikipedia. Jan heeft namelijk uit de media begrepen dat “omvolking” een heel slecht woord is omdat maar één van de drie betekenissen hem aanspreekt: de kwaadaardige. Hij citeert ook de AIVD, waar ze ook weer slordig omgaan met de semantiek. Waarom slordig?
Jan is not a conceptual thinker
We onderscheiden de termen “omvolking” (toestand), “omvolking” (proces) en “omvolking (handeling). Alsof dat nog niet genoeg is, worden de “omvolkingstheorie” en “(omvolkings)complottheorie” ook nog naar willekeur in de strijd geworpen. Als iemand het verschil tussen al deze termen niet goed begrijpt en ze door elkaar gaat gebruiken, gaat het helemaal mis. Dan zeg je het ene en je bedoelt het andere en we hebben bij infecties en positieve testen gezien tot welke rampen zoiets kan leiden. Even scherpstellen. Luister goed naar Jan Paternotte.
Jan explains that the Nazis defined the word "Umvolkung" as a demographic phenomenon (not as an act). That's what it means, for everyone, not just Nazis. That they actively wanted to bring about "Umvolkung" is not the meaning of "Umvolkung".
He then turns it through "the process of repopulation", which, as mentioned, must be understood as an organic process, to resurgent anti-Semitism and Jews who feel unsafe. Jan apparently has no problem with Muslims who feel unsafe.
He substantiates his already somewhat incoherent argument with a text from the AIVD that discusses something completely different, namely the right-wing extremist "Conscious depopulation'. Here, the element of "deliberately" has been smuggled in. Controlled, not organic.
From this, Jan concludes that if someone even uses the word "omvolking" (without "consciously"), he is a right-wing extremist. Whether they are for or against repopulation.
As if signaling a fire is just as bad as arson.
Met het noemen van “een onjuiste complottheorie” snoept hij er nog een dimensie bij.
Jan argumenteert als volgt (ik vervang enkele beladen termen even zodat je zelf moet nadenken):
- In the teachings of the Nazis, 'cream cake' (Sahnetorte) is described as 'pastry'.
- Hun doelstelling was om hun vijanden te verslaan door hen teveel slagroomtaarten te laten eten: de slagroomtaarttheorie.
- The Health Council of the Netherlands warns of the consequences of eating too much cream cake.
Answer the following questions:
- Is the cream cake theory "pastry" as you just said?
- Or is the cream cake theory, as we know from the Nazi doctrines and from the Health Council, a conspiracy theory?
Nonsensical questions? In our House of Representatives, Jan makes a nice appearance with it: "Is the repopulation theory a demographic phenomenon as you just said or is it, as we know from Nazi literature and from the AIVD, a conspiracy theory?"
Dit is een gesloten vraag die twee antwoordmogelijkheden suggereert. In dit geval zijn die twee antwoorden echter niet gelijksoortig. Vergelijk: “Is de omvolkingstheorie een schoenmaat of een complottheorie? U móet een van de twee kiezen.”
No theory is a demographic phenomenon, that question deserves to be dealt with separately because two different answers have to be given. A poorly worded question, in other words. Here are the two questions included:
- "Is the repopulation theory a demographic phenomenon as you just said?"
Eigenlijk ook weer twee subvragen. Faber heeft dit niet gezegd, het toont vooral aan dat Paternotte zich beter niet met dit soort problemen bezig kan houden. Het antwoord had kunnen zijn:
"No, I've a) never said that and b) a theory is not a phenomenon. What do you mean by a theory that is a demographic phenomenon?"Jan worstelt een beetje met abstracte begrippen, zoveel is wel duidelijk. Hij had het beter zonder leugen erin kunnen vragen, al blijft er dan helemaal niets van over:
"Is depopulation a demographic phenomenon?"
maar zo scherp ziet hij het allemaal niet. Bovendien weet hij ook wel dat het een demografisch fenomeen kan zijn, dat heeft hij net voorgelezen dus daarom zoekt hij in zijn toelichting ook zijn toevlucht tot het tersluiks toevoegen van “bewuste” en “theorie”. Anders raakt de vraag kant noch wal. Maar hij weet het niet te formuleren, de schat. Met zijn beperkte abstractieniveau verstrikt geraakt in slordige begrippencomplexen.Then question 2:
- "Is the depopulation theory a conspiracy theory?"
Jan heeft nota bene net zelf uitgelegd dat de omvolkingstheorie van de Duitsers géén complottheorie was. Het was echt. Hij zal dus wel weer wat anders bedoelen: misschien het voorbeeld dat de AIVD gaf over een complottheorie die in sommige extreemrechtse kringen rondgaat? Dat is kennelijk een complottheorie die met bewuste omvolking heeft te maken. Hij begrijpt zelf niet precies wat hij nou eigenlijk wil zeggen. Zullen we het hem maar makkelijk maken en het antwoord op zijn knullige formulering proberen te vertalen naar de huidige tijd?
Antwoord: “Als er openlijk sprake is van doelgericht omvolken, dan is de omvolkingstheorie geen complottheorie maar een ideologie of een beleidslijn. Als een dergelijke theorie echter wordt verondersteld op basis van het waarnemen van een demografisch fenomeen, dan is het vooralsnog een complottheorie, totdat het tegendeel overtuigend wordt aangetoond of officieel bekend gemaakt. Ik begrijp dat u dit interessant vindt maar het staat los van de daadwerkelijk geobserveerde omvolking, met name in onze grote steden, die mij en veel andere burgers zorgen baart.”
Maar ja, verzin het ter plekke maar eens. Want voor een gedegen voorbereiding zal wel geen tijd zijn.
Chewing on those terms for a while
The term Repopulation SEC means nothing more than a population that changes its composition. The term has become contaminated because of its connotation with the Nazis, who actively pursued Germanizing repopulation (Germanization of conquered territories), wanted to cleanse their own population (they did NOT call it repopulating) and resorted to inhumane practices in repopulating conquered territories.
The result of the process of 'repopulation', you could call it 'repopulation', is observable: the population of a city or neighbourhood no longer looks the same as it did 20 years ago. Many people speak to each other in languages that you don't understand as a native Dutch person and manners don't match. This is an organic process, nowadays mainly a side effect of border and migration policy, economic conditions, war, increased mobility. You can applaud this or find it disastrous and everything in between, but denying it is ostrich politics.
If people are actually hurt by the use of the word "omvolking", you can choose a different word for it. We also said goodbye to Zwarte Piet. We have -reluctantly- reprimanded the Black Petes legion into Rainbow Petes.
Of course, repopulation can be a goal of certain activities, but then you have to explicitly speak of active or deliberate repopulation. Just as in the case of a fire you have to speak of a lit fire or arson or pyromania. Repopulation was one of the goals of the Nazis. The theory why and how they wanted to achieve that, Their repopulation theory So, it was that a country was better off if its population was replaced by Aryans. Violence and genocide were not shunned.
I write emphatically "their repopulation theory" because there are also other theories of repopulation, such as multiculturalism that explicitly advocates a change in the composition of the population.
From a multicultural angle, for example, there is also a plea for repopulation of the Netherlands: more colour and more diversity is the goal, with more tolerance, a creative melting pot of cultures and an open society with a fairer distribution of our wealth as a result.
Remains the Population conspiracy theory. There are all kinds of variants that have in common that they exclude organic repopulation as a side effect: it must and it will be intentional. This whole migration policy, it is suspected, was devised to force repopulation. We are being chased away! Conspiracy theorists recognize a systematic set-up; a theory that is being rolled out. Consider, for example, the delusion that the current migration policy is being carried out at the behest of a small group of baby-blood-drinking royals and nobles, big industrialists and politicians, who initiate each other into Klaus Schwab-like capes with an erotic ritual, blackmailed if necessary after temptations on a private island of a movie tycoon who committed suicide in his cell, controlled by a 5G pole. A story similar to the one outlined by the AIVD.
So.
If we use the word "Repopulation" to equate with "Population conspiracy theory", we can no longer use a word such as 'discrimination', 'slavery' or 'depopulation', because these can all be intended goals, or they once were. Slavery was central to the business model of human traffickers, do we still want to use that word? "Discrimination" is also a concept that has been part of the body of thought that characterizes the darkest pages in history. A word that is still used, also by the groups that are now climbing the curtains because of the term "omvolking".
Strangely enough, not so long ago, it was a question of whether you were for or against such a line of thought. Being against slavery was good. It was detestable to admire, condon, facilitate, or profit from slavery. The curious thing is that in the case of "repopulation" it is the other way around. It is not the one who embraces the Nazi theory who is pilloried, but the one who speaks out vehemently against depopulation.
Do we still get it?
I do. The obvious explanation is that those who advocate population change feel uncomfortable because they are in a similar position to the Nazis: after all, they themselves are the ones who facilitate "repopulation". They don't want that word because it's a Nazi term, despite the fact that we've seen how beautiful (multi)culturalist, (multi)racial ideals of society can be. For the Netherlands, a country of cheeseheads, it is an unmistakable form of deliberate repopulation if the aim is to change the composition of the population. So repopulation is allowed, it is even a crucial part of the multicultural philosophy – it just shouldn't be called that.
Everything on the form: substantive emptiness
Zo was er de nodige ophef over die slecht gedefinieerde woordengroep. Totdat Faber toezegde dat ze de term niet meer zou gebruiken. Ze accepteert dat de nazi-connotatie te zwaar weegt om het door te zetten. Het leek even stil maar dat duurde niet lang: “Faber zal nu de term ‘omvolking’ niet meer gebruiken, maar het gedachtegoed is er nog!”
Je bouwt een heel circus op rond het gebruik van een term omdat nazi’s daar iets over schreven, positief of negatief, maakt niet uit. Als iemand dan buigt voor die censuur, is het toch weer niet goed.
Hadden ze niet meteen inhoudelijk kunnen protesteren dan in plaats van over een woordje te soebatten? Hadden ze het niet beter over het onderliggende probleem kunnen hebben? Dan hadden ze met het juiste gebruik van al die hierboven besproken termen een mooi begrippenapparaat gehad. Dat is er nu niet. Er moet omfloerst worden gesproken.
If sharp definitions are too difficult for the AIVDs and the Paternottes of this world, should we get down on our knees and find another term...? I'm afraid so. After all, we also treat the term "discrimination" with caution. In today's language, that no longer means what it should have meant.
Het niveau in de Kamer krijgen we zeker op korte termijn niet omhoog en we zullen toch moeten toch blijven communiceren. Dus, wat wordt het dan? Ze zijn de laatste tijd wel gek op transitie: gender, klimaat…
Volkstransitie, zou dat wat zijn?
