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.
Something like that is happening again now. This is not about viruses or vaccinations, but it tastes the same. The taboo atmosphere, the censorship, the desire to keep it undiscussable, primary school level of our representatives, distorting meanings, gut talk, confusing terms, misrepresenting facts and definitions: in short, a lot of common ground. I'm talking about 'Repopulation‘. With my background in language proficiency, I think I can say something about that. I'm in a bit of an overconfident mood so I take my chance.
We distinguish between the terms "repopulation" (changed condition), "omvolking" (process of change) and "omvolking" (action) 1The linguistic background of this is a bit boring but you will find here. As if that were not enough, the "omvolkingstheorie" and "(omvolkings) conspiracy theorie" are often thrown into the fray at random. If someone doesn't understand the difference between all these terms and starts using them interchangeably, things will go completely wrong. Then you say one thing and you mean another, and we have seen in infections and positive tests the disasters that can lead to. Just focus. Listen carefully to D'66 party chairman Jan Paternotte who does everything he can to sabotage the ultra-far-right cabinet.
Jan Paternotte is not a conceptual thinker
Paternotte explains that the Nazis defined the word "Umvolkung" as a demographic phenomenon (i.e., not as an act). That's what it is, for everyone, by the way, not just for 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 a spontaneous, organic process, to resurgent anti-Semitism and Jews who feel unsafe. Paternotte 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'. Paternotte "knowingly", as the AIVD describes it, smuggled. This is how it is controlled, not organically.
Paternotte's final conclusion: 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.
As if you have to ban the word 'funeral pyre' if someone ever had the plan to burn at the stake... fill in the blanks.
By mentioning "an incorrect conspiracy theory" he adds another dimension. He does not make it clear how he knows that it is 'incorrect', while we have seen a remarkable number of very correct conspiracy theories pass by during the corona period. This is an aside.
Paternotte argues as follows (I'll replace some loaded terms for a moment so that you have to think for yourself):
- In the teachings of the Nazis, 'cream cake' (Sahnetorte) is described as 'pastry'.
- Their goal was to defeat their enemies by getting them to eat too many cream cakes: the cream cake theory.
- 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, Paternotte 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?"
This is such a mess that it will take a while to unravel.
Is a phenomenon a theory?
It seems like a closed question that suggests two possible answers. In this case, however, the two answers are not identical. Compare: "Is the repopulation theory a shoe size or a conspiracy theory? You have to choose one of the two."
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?"
Actually, there are two sub-questions again. Faber did not say this, it mainly shows that Paternotte should not concern himself with these kinds of abstract questions. The answer could have been:
"No, I've a) never said that and b) a theory is not a demographic phenomenon. What do you mean by a theory that is a demographic phenomenon?"
Paternotte struggles a bit with vague concepts, that much is clear. He would have been better off asking without lies, even if there is nothing left of it at all:
"Is depopulation a demographic phenomenon?"
But he doesn't see it all that clearly. Moreover, he also knows that it can be a demographic phenomenon, after all, he has just read that (the Nazis said so themselves) so that is why he also resorts to surreptitiously adding "conscious" and "theory" in his explanation. Otherwise, the question will not be answered. But he doesn't know how to formulate it, the treasure. With his limited level of abstraction, he got entangled in sloppy conceptual complexes.
Then question 2: - "Is the depopulation theory a conspiracy theory?"
Paternotte himself has just explained that the Germans' theory of population was not a conspiracy theory. It was really, I believe he even mentions who developed the theory. So he must mean something else: perhaps the example that the AIVD gave about a conspiracy theory that is circulating in some far-right circles? The AIVD described this as a conspiracy theory that has to do with the planned repopulation of the Netherlands. He doesn't understand exactly what he wants to say. Shall we make it easy for him and try to translate the answer to his clumsy formulation to the present day?
Answer: "If there is open deliberate repopulation, then the repopulation theory is not a conspiracy theory but we call it an 'ideology' or a 'policy'. However, if such a theory is assumed on the basis of observed demographic changes, then it is a conspiracy theory for the time being, until the contrary is convincingly demonstrated or officially announced. I understand that you find this interesting, but it is separate from the actual observed repopulation, particularly in our large cities, which worries me and many other citizens."
But yes, that's always easy, in hindsight.
Framing from the right is bon ton
In 2020, a Column about depopulation there is still relatively 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, a historian by training, made the mistake that the N.S.D.A.P. would have seen depopulation as a danger to its own population. For their own population, however, the Nazis spoke of purification, not of repopulation. They would have been mad to repopulate their own country! The Nazi doctrine with regard to repopulation was 'Germanization': populating the territorial expansions with Germans. What Rutte describes is more of a point of view from the current extreme right. His active memory must have faltered for a while, but at least the tone was set again.
Don't Let Common Sense Be Framed as Right-Wing Extremism: Tucker Carlson Explains (Click to Open)
In 2017, the AIVD considered protecting one's own culture and national character to be right-wing extremist. Right-wing extremism opposes the manifesting Islamization, therefore wants a brake on immigration and therefore strongly disagrees with a government that does not help citizens to protect their own national character. The AIVD mentions these as three separate(?) characteristics of right-wing extremism. Tucker Carlson explains in the interview below that self-protection is a human right.
Everything on the form: substantive emptiness
So it remained noisy around that ill-defined phrase. Until Faber promised that she would no longer use the term. She accepts that the Nazi connotation carries too much weight to carry it through. I don't blame her: it's like an accusation of transgressive behavior, which will never really be okay again, no matter how you defend yourself. That is also the cowardly thing about this kind of attack. After she had decided to give in to the censors, there seemed to be silence for a while, but that didn't last long: "Faber will no longer use the term 'omvolking', but the ideas are still there!"
Yes duh, worrying demographic developments are not solved by removing a word from someone's vocabulary.
My heart sank. They build a whole circus around the use of a term because Nazis wrote something about it, positive or negative, it doesn't matter. If someone decides to bow to that censorship, it's not good either!
Wouldn't it have been better for Paternotte to immediately refute something substantive instead of arguing over a word? Wouldn't it have been better to talk about the underlying problem, using a well-defined set of concepts? Well, no. We have to speak in a veiled way. It's not about the content at all, it's about indignation and indignation, and you can't say that.
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.
So: no more Nazi terms. Tying shoelaces, didn't the Nazis use that term too? Order, didn't they perhaps also define that in the 'doctrines'? Labour: Probably. Freedom? War? War was really a Nazi thing, but the same fuss-makers who sputter about "depopulation" speak proudly of "our war".
We will certainly not be able to raise the level in the House in the short term and they will still have to continue to communicate. So, what will it be? Something that makes the naughty bellies tickle. Lately, they have been on a lot of 'transition': gender transition, climate transition, energy transition...
People's transition, would that be something...?
What an identity crisis. Soon we will have to vote whether we want to keep our self-esteem.
References
- 1The linguistic background of this is a bit boring but you will find here
