In the seventies, the multicultural ideology that had been developed by the post-modern Western intelligentsia became especially potent in the Netherlands. Its relativist claims of absolute equality of all cultures and culturally defined values were especially appealing to a nation that rejected its morality and questioned its legitimacy. In the eighties, the neo-Marxist Left was so successful at evangelizing it that it very soon became part of popular culture. Ultimately, when it had permeated the more capitalist Liberals and the less relativist Christian Democrats, the ideological nature of multiculturalism became obscured.

During the prevalence of multiculturalism the State aimed at transforming the largely monocultural society of the Netherlands into an assemblage of different cultural communities, each with different languages and values. Hence immigration was presented as something intrinsically beneficial. The resulting aselect open border policies in combination with the recruitment of “guest workers” triggered an influx of more than 3 million immigrants among which a high number of analphabetic religious maniacs. Although this disproportional influx implied the biggest societal transformation in centuries – the obsoletion of the Dutch identity seeming only one of the least problematic consequences – criticism of it was usually countered with the politically correct mantra that “immigration is of all times”.

Most importantly, the cultural integration of immigrants into Dutch culture was actively discouraged. After all, in a universe with total equality of cultures it would be immoral to impose the values of one culture onto another. Moreover, the refusal to accept any hierarchy of values – a symptom of hysterical post-modern relativism – obstructed the resolution of cultural conflicts otherwise than by infinite tolerance on the side of the supposedly debauched and racist Dutch.

In psychological terms, the state-origanized retro-colonization of the Netherlands through the absorption of economically motivated “Others” is at least partly to be seen as a neurotic attempt to make up for the Dutch people’s errors of history. The Dutch idea of immigration, i.e. a self-chosen cross, is therefore fundamentally different from the American one, which revolves around the selection of capacitated immigrants.

Not surprisingly, criticism of multiculturalism was regarded as morally objectionable for many years. Due to the resulting nigh Stalinist political correctness the consequences of multiculturalism such as the balkanization, dewesternization, and islamization of society and the marginalization of Dutch urbanity could not succesfully be addressed for decades, a period that ended with the publication of Paul Scheffer’s article. With its translation, I hope to familiarize a much wider audience – and especially those who live in politically correct countries such as the U.K., France, Canada, Norway and Sweden – with his influential appeal.

Anders Wellebeeke

Paul Scheffers tekst findes her.

In the seventies, the multicultural ideology that had been developed by the post-modern Western intelligentsia became especially potent in the Netherlands. Its relativist claims of absolute equality of all cultures and culturally defined values were especially appealing to a nation that rejected its morality and questioned its legitimacy. In the eighties, the neo-Marxist Left was so successful at evangelizing it that it very soon became part of popular culture. Ultimately, when it had permeated the more capitalist Liberals and the less relativist Christian Democrats, the ideological nature of multiculturalism became obscured.

During the prevalence of multiculturalism the State aimed at transforming the largely monocultural society of the Netherlands into an assemblage of different cultural communities, each with different languages and values. Hence immigration was presented as something intrinsically beneficial. The resulting aselect open border policies in combination with the recruitment of “guest workers” triggered an influx of more than 3 million immigrants among which a high number of analphabetic religious maniacs. Although this disproportional influx implied the biggest societal transformation in centuries – the obsoletion of the Dutch identity seeming only one of the least problematic consequences – criticism of it was usually countered with the politically correct mantra that “immigration is of all times”.

Most importantly, the cultural integration of immigrants into Dutch culture was actively discouraged. After all, in a universe with total equality of cultures it would be immoral to impose the values of one culture onto another. Moreover, the refusal to accept any hierarchy of values – a symptom of hysterical post-modern relativism – obstructed the resolution of cultural conflicts otherwise than by infinite tolerance on the side of the supposedly debauched and racist Dutch.

In psychological terms, the state-origanized retro-colonization of the Netherlands through the absorption of economically motivated “Others” is at least partly to be seen as a neurotic attempt to make up for the Dutch people’s errors of history. The Dutch idea of immigration, i.e. a self-chosen cross, is therefore fundamentally different from the American one, which revolves around the selection of capacitated immigrants.

Not surprisingly, criticism of multiculturalism was regarded as morally objectionable for many years. Due to the resulting nigh Stalinist political correctness the consequences of multiculturalism such as the balkanization, dewesternization, and islamization of society and the marginalization of Dutch urbanity could not succesfully be addressed for decades, a period that ended with the publication of Paul Scheffer’s article. With its translation, I hope to familiarize a much wider audience – and especially those who live in politically correct countries such as the U.K., France, Canada, Norway and Sweden – with his influential appeal.

Anders Wellebeeke

Paul Scheffers tekst findes her.