1 comment

1. From a Dutch reader of your magazine:
   Timmermans says: Diversity is the destiny of humanity. There is no place on earth where there will be no diversity. Europe is becoming diverse and the only question is how we deal with it. My answer is to ensure that our values determine how we deal with it. And not give up our values by refusing diversity. If we do not, Europe will no longer remain the place of peace and security. Timmermans sees the diversification of the population in Europe as a condition for preventing violence and adds: An absurd and, in fact, simply outrageous proposition. But there is something more to say about this than he does. I’m trying. Diversity is the destiny of humanity, says Timmermans. If so, what is he so worried about? Then he doesn’t have to worry about xenophobes and populists at all? They will naturally be sucked into the maelstrom of human destiny. But apparently Timmermans is concerned about that fate. It is also remarkable that Timmermans does not indicate at all – he does look out – to explain what he means by that diversity. Diversity of languages, skin colors, cultural diversity – what does he mean? He does not want to proclaim the silly statement that all diversity is beautiful and worth pursuing? That would be nonsense. A society with robbers and rapists is much more diverse than a society in which our judiciary and police have succeeded in getting more people neatly within the bounds of the law. In any case, there is one kind of diversity that Timmermans must dislike most, namely the diversity in Europe that is based on the diversity of cultures of the nation states that Timmermans’ EU wants to abolish as quickly as possible. He does not say so, but the kind of diversity that Timmermans has in mind is the diversity that will arise when you deny countries the right to set standards for who they want to include in the national community. Timmermans and his colleagues are against that. He wants everyone who demands that he gets access in a certain country to actually get that access. Whoever denies that is against diversity. And then you go against the fate of humanity. Rational arguments against that open border policy are swept off the table with diversity rhetoric. But also with straightforward threats. Because what is that brutal and intimidating reference to peace and security that would no longer be guaranteed in Europe? Does Timmermans mean that if we want to remain in charge of our own territory, people outside the borders will come to claim their place in our societies by force? And that we should therefore capitulate better in advance? That would be ridiculous. Now it can be said that I am reading things in Timmermans’ misty prose that he did not want to say at all. OK, but what does he want? Does he want something? Or has he just memorized good-sounding terms (diversity, justice, pluralism) and does he lack the rational capacity to build a coherent argument with that? It is not badly analyzed when one writes: Left Europe built a Berlin Wall against criticism with the mantra racism, xenophobia and Islamophobia. We also understand the mechanism of cultural Marxism. That is the phenomenon that the left-wing elite have let the proletariat go as an object of concern to fill the resulting vacuum with self-conceived new pathetic groups. And the new pathetic groups, that is the migrants, the asylum seekers, the newcomers. It is said so: The progressive elites proclaimed the West as a source of disaster; newcomers were pathetic and by definition were right. The woolly piece of text by Timmermans may be unsatisfactory when measured with criteria of stylistic elegance and rational coherence, but it is culturally important. It indicates the decadent culture that has taken hold of the administrative elite in Europe. We put it as follows: Western Europe has decimated its Christian-Jewish identity for the benefit of newcomers. A Leitkultur is missing. Timmermans says that diversity must be determined by our values. But European elites, both political and intellectual, are eroding those values. Diversity therefore remains unguided. Newcomers enter a spiritual void and plant their own values. West European politicians only plant windmills. I totally agree with this. I do have a reservation with regard to that Christian-Jewish identity. I think that the indulgence of Christianity with regard to love for the other is to blame for the idolization of strangers, which our cultural elite suffer from. That Good Samaritan complex is beginning to break us up. With all of Africa like Samaria, Europe is going down. And the sad thing is that our elites do not protest against collective self-destruction. Don’t they see it? Or do they think about the flood after us? We also discuss the arguments of the proponents of the United States of Europe. Wasn’t it also successful in the United States of America? Then why not in Europe. The majority of the EU consists of independent nation states, each with an age-old history, its own language and a distinct identity. We are not people – but many people. The reason why Guy Verhofstadt is just such a diligent advocate of EU thinking is also made clear in Eppink’s book. Belgium is not a nation. It is a negotiating zone of 600 proud municipalities, each steeped in village patriotism where it has still not been possible to turn the Flemish and the Walloon Belgians. People are critical of Timmermans, but our criticism of Juncker is devastating. I have never heard anyone speak so openly about Juncker’s drinking problem. You can find that on the internet, in Tweets and in chat groups, but on paper I had never read: Juncker often appeared before the parliamentary committee to babble before him as an undefined babbler. Since lying was his self-proclaimed use, his words had no weight. When we consider that Juncker’s behavior is invariably referred to as back pain and twitching, this raises the question of the integrity of the other European government leaders. Does it really only keep covering these matters? It is of course sympathetic that Mark Rutte comes to the rescue of a drunk Juncker and then denies the Dutch voter in all colors what is going on here? They also filter Judith Sargentini’s report on Hungary and wonder if the political appointments in Belgium and even the Netherlands are so much better than in Hungary. Rapporteur Sargentini criticizes “anti-Gypsyism” in Hungary. But when the Slovak Roma appeared in Ghent in 1999, they were also banned by the then Verhofstadt government. It is true that Hungary is ignoring EU rules, but what about France that has not been respecting the budgetary standards of the euro zone for 14 years? Is Timmermans and Sargentini not using Hungary as the head of jut because they think that by punishing a small and powerless country they can strengthen their EU disciplinary measures? But I fear the criminal sanction against Hungary will turn out wrong. Resistance to Brussels will grow in Central and Eastern Europe. European unitary thinking must limit critical thinking and stigmatize it as anti-European.