Frits Bolkestein was the very first public figure who dared to question the multicultural mirage out loud. He did this in the early nineties of the last century, way before anybody had heard if Geert Wilders. Indeed, a recent unauthorized biography about Geert Wilders is entitled ‘Geert Wilders - Tovenaarsleerling’: Geert Wilders - Sorcerers Apprentice. The title refers to Frits Bolkestein as the sorcerer to Geert Wilders’ apprentice.
Given these antecedents, it was surprising and puzzling to read today (NL) Bolkesteins opinion that Jews who are recognizable as being Jewish, such as orthodox Jews, have no future in the Netherlands and should seriously contemplate emigration.
For Jews recognizable as such I don’t see a future here, because of the anti-Semitism among Moroccan Dutch, whose number keeps increasing.Bolkestein blamed Arab satellite TV, watched by many Moroccan and Turkish youth, for the growing anti-Semitism.
Reactions to this remarkable statement were as swift as they were shocked. From left to right (politically), from Femke Halsema of GroenLinks to Geert Wilders and the PVV the sentiment expressed was the same: It is not the victims that ought to move, but the culprits.
So, how are we to interpret this? Mr. Bolkestein is not a stupid man (which immediately sets him apart from a goodly portion of the Dutch political landscape). He must have known that reactions to his statements on what is still a very touchy subject in the Netherlands would be all-round condemnation. Personally, I think it was calculated. Putting it in the terms as Mr. Bolkestein did, forced even the left to come off the fence. It is no mean feat for Mr. Bolkestein to forge such a choir of unity out of the increasingly polarized Dutch political landscape. But he pulled it off.
He was able to pull it off by performing what could best be described as a judo-like use of his opponents moves against them. By putting the issue of immigration from pre-dominant muslim countries in these stark terms, casting Holland and its political elite as so inhospitable that Jews must escape, he unsubtly poked a finger in the rawest of nerves of the Dutch left.
Their self-awarded moral superiority stems from their own delusions of being part of ‘the resistance after the war’; of being the good guys that would, had they been of age during WW2, have naturally stood up for their Jewish compatriots. If only they had been there and then, Anne Frank would not have perished in Bergen-Belsen. They would have put a stop to it!
Frits Bolkestein forcefully confronted the multi-cult crowd with the lie in their delusion. Without actually mentioning mass-immigration, but hinting that this is the reason why Jews no longer may have a future in the Netherlands, the multi-cult is confronted with an image of itself that utterly belies their high-minded ideals. Rather then saving Anne Frank, they have let let so many of her sworn enemies in, that she must now (yet again) contemplate leaving her home for safer havens.
In their zeal to protect and cater to the one minority chosen to play the part of surrogate-Jews to the left’s surrogate-resistance, they turned a blind eye to the abuse that their protectees are inflicting on the very same Jews the left (vicariously) wants so much to rescue from the forces of evil. But today Frits Bolkestein showed the left: The forces of evil, it is them. They are the perpetrators of the very same crime for which they blamed their parents and grand-parents: Passivity, complacency, unwillingness to recognize what is going on or to do something about it.
The main difference between them and their (grand-)parents is of course that at the time, what was happening was so grandiose, so evil it defied comprehension. Up until WW2 the concept of industrialized killing of men, women and children solely based on their ethnicity and/or religion was, quite literally, unthinkable. Common citizens during WW2 at least had that excuse. The contemporary left does not have such an excuse, which makes the Bolkestein statement hurt all the more. How do they explain their stunning naiveté? What is their excuse?
The genius of Bolkesteins statements is in the fact that is renders utterly useless the lefts most potent weapon: Accusations of racism. Pointing squarely to Dutch and imported muslims being responsible for the increase in anti-Semitism would have immediately switched the establishment in ‘protector-mode’. Mr Bolkestein would have been served up as yet another grumpy old white male blaming the coloured new-comer for society’s ills.
Instead, Bolkestein highlighted the ultimate consequence of the lefts one-sided obsession with immigration and racism: There being no room in the Netherlands for Jews. All of a sudden the issue is not an easily dismissed old white guy ranting against muslim new-comers. Instead the issue is muslim new-comers and their belligerent attitude towards the archetype of vulnerable minorities in the Netherlands.
Racism cannot be wielded as a weapon here. If it were, it would fully expose the logical inconsistencies of multi-culturalism. The pet minority of the multi-cult is actually doing to Dutch Jews what the left all too often accuses Geert Wilders of wanting to do to muslims. Recognizing the blatant anti-Semitism the muslim minority in Holland regularly engages in would shake the foundations on which the multi-cult faith is based. The whole thing would come down like a house of cards (which eventually, inevitably it will anyway). And without racism as a weapon the multi-culturalists are impotent.
That may be the most important lesson to learn from Mr. Bolkestein: Without ‘racism’ the multi-cultural left has nothing to say. When racism cannot be brought to bear the huffing and puffing indignation of the multi-cult instantly evaporates, leaving only a little embarrassed muttering. Mr. Bolkestein is showing us how to fight the multi-cult. By turning their self-awarded moral superiority against themselves: If you are so moral, how come an entire people have to flee our lands as they had to once before? It is a lesson worth remembering.