We are the People!

[Nentsia]

This year, there has been a remarkable sighting in my country, the Netherlands. A politician was standing on trial. Geert Wilders, an MP and the leader of the Party For Freedom (PVV), was accused of incitement of hatred and incitement to racism when at a party rally he asked the crowd ''do you want less, or more Moroccans in the country?'', upon which an ecstatic crowd chanted ''less! Less! Less!'', after which Wilders responded with ''then we're gonna arrange that.'' That scene reminded many people of Hitler's beerhall speeches in Germany against the Jews in the 1920's. During the trial it turned out that Wilders had asked the crowd beforehand to respond with ''less''. Thousands of people went to the police to accuse Wilders of inciting hatred - which has been banned since the 1930's in this country. I am not writing this to have a discussion on discrimination or whatever. What I found interesting was Wilders' speech in the courtroom before the judges.

In an fiery speech, Wilders warned the judges that if they convicted him, it would be a defeat for the freedom of expression. ''I ask you in the name of the Dutch: set me free! Set us free!'' Then Wilders carried on, ranting that the prime minister, the government, the office of prosecutors, were all involved in a ''witch hunt'' against Wilders. In the beginning of the speech, Wilders speaks of the 1 million people he allegedly represents. Later on, that number grows to 2 million. Then he warns the judges that if they convict him, they convict ''half of the Dutch people''. Eventually, Wilders' rhetoric suggests that he represents the entire Dutch people. To be clear, his party won 10% of the votes the last parliamentary election, and 13% in the most recent EU parliamentary elections. The largest share of the vote Wilders has ever won is 15%.

A similar rhetorical device, the so-called Pars pro toto, was once used by the Hungarian politician Viktor Orban. When he lost an election, he blatantly exclaimed that ''the nation cannot be in the opposition''. I was myself struck by the words of Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan during the protests at the Taksim Square against his plans to remove the Gezi Park. Erdogan unashamedly declared that those protestors ''were not Turks''. I saw the same mechanism at work when the British EU referendum ended with a 2% victory for the Brexit-camp, upon which a proud Nigel Farage proclaimed that ''the British People'' (singular entity) had rejected the EU, and had taken ''their'' country back, completely ignoring the fact that it was not even half of the British population that voted Brexit. When a British court decided that the Brexit decision had to be passed by the British parliament, an elected representative institution (a sovereign institution in fact), the British newspapers denounced the judges as ''traitors'' and ''enemies of the people'', and supporters of the Bremain camp were denounced in similar fashion as national traitors. When Trump won the US presidential elections, and demonstrations and riots broke out, Trump blatantly argued that the demonstrators were paid by Soros. Meanwhile, Trump's supporters openly demanded the arrest of the other presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton. This follows the same logic, that apparently not everyone belongs to ''the people'' anymore. Political opponents no longer exist: they are enemies in today's Western society.


It strikes me how easily people fall for such demagoguery every time again, which according to Jan Werner Muller - a leading expert from Princeton - is the defining element of ''Populism''. All politicians thrive on conflict, all politician try to appeal to the people, but what sets Populists apart is that the view, and treat, the people as a singular, uniform, and morally superior entity, in opposition to the corrupted groups that dominate and exploit the good, authentic, true people. This ''authentic people'' is usually defined by its enemies who have supposedly exploited and dominated them, usually the ''Elite'', ''criminals'', the ''unemployed'' (profiteers), and ''immigrants'', and usually there is also a foreign power that participates in this oppression of the ''People''. A Populist movement then believes there ~is~ such a thing as ''the People'' (singular), and that it can properly discern the ''common good'' and represent the singular ''will of the people''. The problem with their approach then, is that they develop a movement that treats its supporters and followers as the morally superior ''Will of the People'', while denying the -legitimacy- of political opponents, rejecting them as traitors, servants of the corrupt, enemies of the people, etc.

The principle is so obvious that I cannot get my head around that people do not realize they are being tricked by a demagogue. Although there have been 19th century populists as well, the most famous example is perhaps Juan Domingo Peron in Argentina. As a minister of industry in a military government, Peron discovered the discontent among the Argentine urban masses, particularly the workers. Peron wrestled the workers and Unions support for the Argentine Communist Party away by reforming the labor unions and implementing a social program that improved the conditions of the workers. To a group of people who had previously considered themselves the unheard victim of exploitation and oligarchic corruption, Peron - who praised them as Argentina's heroes and most virtuous people and who seemed to care about their interests, must have been a dream come true. Appealing to the working class, mobilizing a forgotten segment of the electorate, is not Populist. What made Peron the very embodiment of Populism was his equation of his followers (Descamisados) with the Argentine nation and the Argentine common good. Peron presented himself as the sole representative of the Argentine people, implementing the popular will against the corrupting influences of capitalist oligarchs, American imperialism, and Communist traitors.

The inherent authoritarian nature of Peron's populism, by pitting the ''good people'' against its enemies, became apparent when Peron was in power. Populists believe that they alone represent the popular will, thereby they are entitled to everything. In fact, they can even replace democratic institutions because what is more democratic than that the representatives of the Popular Will have everything in their hands? Peron proceeded to fire anyone, including teachers, judges, union leaders, journalists etc, who disagreed with him. The media were censored, opposition rallies were attacked, and opposition leaders were denounced by Peron as traitors. This behaviour leads naturally from the idea that only one movement, or one man even, can represent the unified popular will. The implication is that all forms of dissent are treasonous. The same behaviour has been displayed by other populists in power, such as Hugo Chavez, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and Aleksandr Lukashenko.

Populists however, seldomly managed to win more than 50% of the popular vote. If they are succesful, they manage to mobilize a significant section of the electorate that has been neglected by the established political parties. All populists indulge in large amount of flattering their own followers because they not only believe in the moral superiority of their followers (as opposed to the corrupt other groups) and by constantly repeating the flattery, the populists give their supporters a new sense of confidence. Populists are most succesful if there is a significant group within the electorate that feels neglected (which is not to say dominated). When a populist emerges, that voices their frustration with the groups that have neglected and dominated them (political elites, financial elites, immigrants), and this populist also fuels their self-esteem, he becomes an attractive leader figure for them. The populist element however lies in the Populists' reductionism by presenting their group of followers as the true people, the heart of the nation, and their movement as the single representative of the common interest and the popular will. What follows is a rejection of all outsiders as being traitors, corrupt, agents, all of them somehow linked in a great conspiracy against the true people. The populists do not believe in legitimate differences of opinion. Whoever disagrees with them is either paid by foreign interests, serving a corrupt or criminal elite, or belonging to a treasonous cause or even the enemy of the nation.

Journalists too are by definition liars, for writing critically, judges are accused of partisanship if their verdict opposes the wishes of the populists, and rival political parties are by definition the vehicles of the corrupt elite, designed to mislead the people. And those who vote for them are not part of the honest, hard-working, good, patriotic and proud people: no, they are either paid to vote for the criminals, or they are immigrants and thus part of the conspiracy to enslave the common people, or they are in some other way an accomplice to the evil system. Real voters, of independent thought, of good and honest heart, vote Populist.


One of the most blatant examples of populism was Silvio Berlusconi in Italy. The Milan-based media-tycoon Silvio Berlusconi, whose media channels targeted ''ordinary'' Italians, deliberately decided to buy the football club AC Milan. Berlusconi wanted to use the club for his political career. He pumped millions into the club, and in the subsequent years it became the most succesful football club in the world. Berlusconi used the club to create an aura of success around him. The political party he formed in the early 1990's was literally an Italian football slogan: ''Forza Italia!''

The message of Berlusconi was quite similar to that of Trump in America. What Berlusconi claimed was that he had taken a declining football club, and turned it into the biggest club of the world. He was a succesful Italian - of modest background, and he was going to make Italy a great success. Forza Italia! The fact that he entered an alliance with a movement that still described itself as Fascist and adored Mussolini did not harm Berlusconi's appeal. The reason that it worked was that Berlusconi was the new kid on the block, while the established parties (Social Democrats and Christian Democrats) were being resented after decades of ineffective government, crime, and corruption. Berlusconi positioned himself as an ordinary Italian, who knew who to achieve success. Berlusconi deliberately exploited his reputation of a self-made man by bleeching his teeth, tanning his skin, dying his hair, plastic surgery, wearing expensive jewelry and surrounding himself with young women. One of the tactics of Berlusconi was to denounce the Social Democrats and their coalition partners as Communists, and papers such as The Economist, which criticized Berlusconi as being unfit to rule any country, were denounced as accomplices in a Communist conspiracy to overtake Italy.

Berlusconi used his media empire to convince some 18 million families that watched his channels that Berlusconi would create millions of jobs, reduce crime, increase pensions, and cut taxes. By the end of his term, while enjoying a solid parliamentary majority, Berlusconi had broken all of his promises - except increasing the pensions. The economy was in ruins. The power of the Mafia was slowly recovering under Berlusconi - who enjoyed an interestingly high number of votes from Sicily.

In his governing style, Berlusconi continued to display his populist tendencies: he virtually ruled by decree, ignored the parliament, denounced court judges as Communists because they investigated his corruption affairs, and he preferred to announce his political decisions (such as withdrawing from Iraq) directly in his own TV studios than in parliament. His behaviour followed once again from the erroneous idea that there is such a thing as the Popular Will, and that he could represent it, and therefore there was no need to waste time on debating decisions in parliament. Berlusconi rather presented his decisions directly to the audience in their living room, presenting himself as the effective leader who implements to the popular will, and serves the common interest, without the interference of any bureaucratic or institutional process. A movement that believes that it embodies the popular will sees democratic processes as needlessly sluggish and bureaucratic.

Threatened with electoral defeat in 2005, Berlusconi attempted to change the voting rules, but was defeated in a referendum in 2006. In 2008, the failures of the Social Democrats, helped Berlusconi to become prime minister for a third time. Berlusconi deliberately sided himself with the ordinary people, the true Italians, in opposition to all the corrupted and crooked who had ruined the country over the decades. Everything was blamed on the Communists, and everyone who criticized Berlusconi was accused of being one. Berlusconi once went as far as to claim that the Communists were jealous of him and lacked a good taste in women. Right wing women were more attractive than left wing ones, according to Berlusconi. It became so obvious even, even to Italians, that it became the running gag to reject any criticism as Communism. Berlusconi's friends have later admitted that Berlusconi never had any political visions or ambitions, and that he simply decided to enter politics to protect his business from criminal investigations. Journalists in similar fashion faced the threat of being fired by Berlusconi if they criticized him. Berlusconi nearly controlled all the private tv channels, and when he came to power he held control over the state channels as well. The magistrates and judges who were investigating Berlusconi's corruption, were denied any legitimacy by Berlusconi. In typical Populist fashion, he claimed that they had no right to judge Berlusconi, who was elected by the ''People'' and they were not. Then followed the accusations that they were partisan, communist, or corrupt.

In 2013, Berlusconi's game was over. He was defeated in parliament, his party split, he was forced to resign as prime minister, and the courts convicted him for various crimes such as corruption, and tax fraud. In similar fashion, Hugo Chavez left his country in a state of anarchy after decades of Populist demagoguery - dividing the population into Chavistas and traitors, enemies of the people, agents of the American Imperialists. Chavez' followers seized democratic institutions as their own, censored the media, used state funds to satisfy Chavez' electorate, and currently under Maduro they continue to use all necessary means - even violence - to deny the mounting opposition any influence. Erdogan, appealing to the ''Great Turkish people'', will not hesitate to remove almost a 100,000 people from their professions because they political views have been confined to the realm of ''treason'' by Erdogan. Among them are elected mayors. Erdogan, asked at a political rally of his supporters whether they wanted the death penalty back. When the crowd cheered in favor of the death penalty, Erdogan humbly accepted this as ''the Will of the Turkish People''. For only Erdogan voters belong to the true Turkish nation... the rest are just Kurds, terrorists, PKK, ISIS and whatnot you can think of.

And every time the voters fall for it again. An obvious political opportunist (therefore an outsider, he is a new guy) drops by, denounces the corrupt and evil, and promises to implement the will of the people/nation/workers/hard-working people/common people/etc whom they flatter as being the embodiment of pure morality, goodness etc. And of course the political establishment has no other story than to accuse their new opponent of populism, which then further encourages the public to move toward the populists - for nothing turns the voter more off than arrogance. I needed to get this off my chest. I'm not a politician, so I dont fear the consequences of labelling something populist. I detest Populism not because of its aims, not because it appeals to the people (every politician does and should do), but because it is what one scholar has called ''anti-parliamentarist''. It's not anti-democratic, but it rejects parliamentarism, with its separation of powers, political pluralism, and checks and balances. The Populists, with their firm belief in the supremacy of the unified popular will/common interest, tend to view parliamentarism as useless, and inferior to a direct rule ''of the people'', but never by the people, but through a movement or a single leader. Populists prefer to rule by decree and occasional referendums, but only if the referendum favors their side. It is however the anti-pluralist character that I detest. The ease with which Populists divide our society in ''people'' vs ''elite'', ''good'' vs ''corrupt'', and ''patriot'' vs ''traitor'', makes me itch all over my body. I am also of the People. I've had it happen on this forum here that people, because I disagreed with them, started to insinuate I was either an anti-semite, or against ''the working class'' (honestly wtf..?) or in some other way connected to the liberal establishment because I happened to point out some factual errors being said about the EU.

So as a reminder to everyone in this forum who is inclined to support Populists nowadays, and you are free to do so - Im not judging: please remember than although your great leaders pretend that you have the moral right always on your side and that you therefore can always claim to be correct even if the facts don't support you, please be aware that this does not mean others are having some sort of an evil hidden agenda, even though your leaders claim so. They do that just to get your vote - as every politician is not much more than a salesman of political programs.

[Seperallis]

I always love these essays of yours.

[Nentsia]

Update


(Geert Wilders)

In the wake of the recent terrorist attack in Berlin, one can clearly see the modus operandi of the Populists. Recently, a Tunisian Jihadist hijacked a Polish truck and, as ISIS instructs its followers, turned it into a weapon by running over unsuspecting pedestrians. Needless to say, every sane person is disgusted by such actions.

But what was the response of Frauke Petry, the leader of the populist movement Alternative fur Deutschland? She said that the victims of the terrorist attack, were Angela Merkel's victims. She directly held Angela Merkel responsible for their deaths. In a similar fashion, Geert Wilders - leader of the Dutch populists - tweeted a photoshopped image of Angela Merkel covered in blood. Like Donald Trump, Wilders mainly communicates through Twitter. It was last year actually, during all those terrorist attacks in France, that Wilders already announced that -if- one day a terrorist attack were to take place in the Netherlands, the current prime minister would have the blood on his hands. In the same spirit, Donald Trump, during the US presidential campaign, more then once insinuated that Hillary Clinton cooperated with ISIS, or could at least be held responsible for their existence.

It is not populist to say that existing anti-terrorism polices are not working, and it is not populist to argue that politicians aren't doing enough or are being ineffective. What is populist, however, is to fuel suspicion and conspiracy theories that the political leaders are somehow responsible for such an evil thing as terrorist attacks. Normal politicians would blame the individual who committed the attrocities, and maybe the organization or the ideology that guided their actions. The populists do not make such distinctions. As I tried to explain earlier, they divide their world in ''the People'', or ''Us'', which is morally pure and unified, and the ''Us'' is being threatened/attacked/exploited/dominated/undermined by the Evil ''Other'', which can be pretty much anyone and everyone. The enemies of the People are always multifarious, and they are connected with each other through an enormous web of conspiracies. So the political class, which no longer belongs to ''Us'', is thus working ''against the People'', and is therefore morally complicit with the enemies that attack the People, such as terrorists. It reminds me of the logic that pervaded the USSR during Stalin's Great Purge. Bureaucrats, politicians, officers - anyone who had committed an error in the distant past was suddenly confronted with it and interrogated about it by the NKVD. If their explanations for their errors were not satisfactory, they were found guilty of being an accomplice to the Enemy which had ''infiltrated'' Soviet society - and found guilty of Sabotage or Wrecking, carrying a 25 year forced labor sentence in the Gulag.

If your worldview has become so Manichean to the point that one can almost only think in terms of friend or foe, ally or enemy, then human flaws and errors are quickly interpreted as crimes in themselves, for they at least aid the enemy. The politician, who relies entirely on the work of the security services, becomes equally guilty of the crime of terrorism as the terrorist himself. President Erdogan currently operates in the same fashion in Turkey: elected parliamentary deputies for the Kurdish HDP have been arrested by the orders of Erdogan for their failure to prevent Kurdish extremists from committing terrorist attacks. Their failure, in Erdogan's Manichean worldview, is equal to the crime itself. From there follows Erdogan's logic that all the people he currently has arrested are ''terrorists''. They may have committed no terrorist attacks, they may have no links to terrorist organizations and they might not even have terrorist sympathies. But they did not help to stop the terrorists, and thus they are guilty anyway. Guilty of being an Enemy of the Turkish People.

In the UK, similar rhetoric was being used by UKIP and Brexit supporters, who reasoned that opponents of Brexit thus ''support the EU'', which was reduced to a form of treason. Anti-Brexit was no longer accepted as a valid, legitimate political view by the British populists, it was decisively excluded from ''Us'', rendering it automatically an enemy, the enemy within. Such logic, which denies democratic pluralism - a key element of any democratic society, tragically led to the assassination of the British member of Parliament Jo Cox. She campaigned against Brexit and was stabbed to death by man who had become brainwashed with the idea that she was a danger to the country and would take Britain away from the British people. Before the US elections, when I still thought Clinton would win it - thanks to poor polling by the US media - I joked to my friends that if Clinton would win, she'd be assassinated by some brainwashed Trump-follower. Why? Because Trump had spent an entire year convincing his supporters that Clinton was a criminal, that she was ISIS, that she was ''evil'', that she would destroy the US, that she belonged in jail, etc. This has nothing to do with ''disagreeing'' anymore. These are all incitements to use violence against her. They serve to raise fears and resentment against her, in a way that demands vigilant action to be taken. If it were all true what Trump said about Clinton, we should all quickly murder this evil maniac of a Clinton. And I've seen plenty of interviews with Trump supporters at Trump rallies, dead seriously declaring that if Clinton would win the elections, they planned to ''take her out'', to protect their country. Realizing that it only takes one lunatic to actually do it, I did the math and concluded that Trump was preparing the ground for Clinton's assassination.

For the sake of fairness, it must be noted that it was Trump who faced the most serious assassination attempts. In the Netherlands too, it was in the end the populist (Pim Fortuyn) who was assassinated in 2002. This can in no small part be blamed on the political establishment that, desperate to stop the advance of a populist movement, resorts to demonization, portraying a Trump or a Pim Fortuyn as the next Hitler. And what do we do if we spot Hitler? We put a bullet between his eyes before it's too late.

[Jamzor the Jaxxor]

"You know, there's this region of the world absolutely filled with conflict, violence, and instability. The dominating religion of this region is one which promotes violence against nonbelievers. You know what would be a great idea? Bring in hundreds of thousands of military age, single males from this region and locate them strategically throughout our country."

[Nentsia]

"You know, there's this region of the world absolutely filled with conflict, violence, and instability. The dominating religion of this region is one which promotes violence against nonbelievers. You know what would be a great idea? Bring in hundreds of thousands of military age, single males from this region and locate them strategically throughout our country."

This is precisely the populist rhetoric I mean. Aside from that this kind of logic would have prevented the US from taking up hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors in 1945-48, it makes one false assumption after another - all based on the idea that everyone is screwing Us, the People, over.

''the dominating religion of this region is one which promotes violence against nonbelievers'', seems to suggest as if there is some permanent religious war going on between Muslims and Christians. Thats what ISIS wants you to believe, which is what Al Qaeda tried to ignite with its 2001 attacks, etc. There is no religious war. There is only ISIS, about 20,000 religious lunatics, murdering anyone. They've murdered many more Muslims so far than Christians.

''You know what would be a great idea?'', this is another false sentence, hinting that the governments of Europe actually like to take up refugees. The reality is that the UN treaty, designed in the wake of WWII, obliges governments to give refugees asylum. Nobody likes this situation however. Populists want you to believe that only they are sane and that only they dislike this situation, and that evil Merkel wants to create a country full of refugees.

''Bring in hundreds of thousands of military age, single males from this region and locate them strategically throughout our country.'' Another typical example of Populism. With ''military age'' the hint is given that an army is coming over, while in fact, most of these people are simply fleeing violence themselves. ''Locate them strategically'', more military references to cast vigilant suspicion against a bunch of refugees.

Populism is so obvious that I cannot understand people cannot see through its simple manipulations to get your vote. The content of the message is not even Populist. There are valid reasons to argue that Europe should close its borders to refugees from the Middle East, or at least Syria. But in the formulation above, it casts suspicion against the political leaders as if they willingly sacrifice security just to let in more refugees. The Populist message is that the ''elite'' is aiding the enemy.

[Nentsia]

He was a dandy, a homosexual, he owned two little dogs, he was driven around in an old Jaguar with a driver, a University professor specialized in Marxism, and he was an eloquent, gifted orator. Pim Fortuyn was one of the most remarkable politicians in Dutch history since 1945. He singlehandedly transformed a political climate that had been in existence in the country since at least the 1980's, and without having ever had the chance to participate in the national elections, he changed the country dramatically. Fortuyn's national political career lasted three months. He was shot dead a week before the elections. His legacy continues to be felt throughout the country every day.

In the late 1990's and early 2000's something was changing in the country, and perhaps in Europe. We were going through years of unprecedented prosperity, decadence even, and nothing to worry about... But for some reason, a populist wave was going through Europe already during those years. Front National achieved its first major successes in France, Berlusconi became prime minister of Italy, Jörg Haider and the FPÖ came to power in Austria, and in the Netherlands we had Pim Fortuyn. Like the other populists at the time, Fortuyn wanted to drastically change the political climate in the country, describing the ''political elite'' as a self-interested clique, ignorant of the problems in the society. They were obsessed with sitting out their term in office, and with numbers and statistics about economic growth. But the issues of the common man in the street, the issues of the elderly woman in a hospital, left them entirely cold - so Fortuyn argued.

He began his career as a local politician in Rotterdam, a city with many immigrants, high crime rates, and growing unemployment among the old working class as the Rotterdam harbors were replacing workers with machines. The political party that supposedly cared for these kind of people, the Dutch Labour Party (PvdA), had been in a government coalition with the conservative-liberal VVD since 1994 and had been promoting a program of ruthless privatization and deregulation. The PvdA was one of the first Social democratic parties in Europe to adopt the Third Way position, and its policies inspired Gerhard Schröder (SPD Chancellor of Germany), Tony Blair (Labour PM of Britain), and Bill Clinton, the Democratic president of the US. Throughout the years 1994-2002 then, when this ''red-blue'' or ''purple'' administration was in office, issues such as immigration, healthcare, and social security were deliberately ignored, while there was extra attention for the ''modernization'' of the economy. Where then, could those Rotterdam workers turn to?

One study from 1999 already noted that there was a rise in European populism of movements that confronted the ''politics of pragmatism'' on behalf of ''the man in the street''. The Dutch purple coalition that governed the country between 1994 and 2002 was precisely founded on the principle of pragmatism. Prime minister Kok (dont laugh) spoke of ''losing'' his ''ideological feathers''. His cabinet consisted of his own PvdA, the VVD, and D66 ministers. This is the equivalent of having a Labour-Tory-Libdem coalition in the UK, or a Republican-Democratic administration in the US. It could only function through pragmatism, and it was against this pragmatism - which sacrificed pressing issues for the sake of political peace - that Pim Fortuyn revolted against.


''At your service!''

The Dutch immigration issues had started in 1947, when Indonesia declared its independence from the Kingdom. A bloody war ensued, and, under US pressure, the Dutch accepted Indonesian independence in 1949. The Dutch would later repay the US for that by refusing political and military support for the US in Vietnam. One group in Indonesia, the Moluccans, had fought on the Dutch side - with the false promise they'd be given their own state. Indonesia annexed the Moluccans, and many fled to the Netherlands. In the 1960's the government started to bring in workers from Morocco, ''guest workers'', who were supposed to work here for several years and then return to their homeland. They therefore deliberately imported poorly educated Berbers from Morocco, and never attempted to integrate these people in Dutch society, or even to teach them the language. After several years, the Moroccan workers brought their families to the country as well, and settled here for good. In 1975 Suriname, another Dutch colony, gained its independence. Hundreds of thousands of Surinamese came to the Netherlands. In 1980 a military coup shook up Suriname, and in 1982 a civil war broke out, bringing many more Surinamese to the Netherlands. Antilians also came over, from the Dutch islands in the Caribbean, and throughout the 60's and 70's a lot of Greeks, Italians, Indonesians, Vietnamese, Chinese, Turks - all came to this country. With the Balkan Wars there also came thousands of refugees from Bosnia, Croatia, Serbia, Nagorno-Karabakh (Caucasus), Armenia, and Chechnya.  Two particular groups did not integrate well: the Moroccans and the Antilians. The Moroccans did poorly in education, because their parents had continued to speak Arab with them at home, and often had no job. Moroccan youths dropped out of school, lived on the streets, and was involved in crime. The Antilians had a different story, but same result: broken families, poor education, no jobs, living on the streets, and crime.

The first Dutch anti-immigration parties emerged in the early 1980's, but they were violently attacked by Leftist youths who thought that the Fascists, then still in living memory, were back. In the mid-1990's the first anti-refugee sentiments erupted as the government settled hundreds of Bosnian refugees across the country. By the late 1990's, the first opinions started to emerge in the media that criticized the Dutch open borders, crime among immigrants, and their lack of knowledge of Dutch culture and language. ''Full means full'', was the motto. This was already a country with a relatively large population for a small surface, why bring in more?

Pim Fortuyn mobilized at least 20 years of cropped up indignation with the government's deliberate blindness to all these issues: crime, immigration, healthcare - and above all - the arrogant attitude of the politcal champions of ''pragmatism''. What they called ''pragmatism'', became increasingly seen as cynical political backroom deals, at the expense of the voters.

In 2001, Fortuyn, then already making name for himself as man with unorthodox opinions in conservative newspapers, was elected by a local political party in Rotterdam, which was a typical anti-establishment club operating on a local level. Fortuyn gave an astonishing speech, and with a great sense for theater and drama, he saluted the congress and spoke the words ''At your service!''. Ask any random Dutchman about that line, and they'll still think about Pim Fortuyn. Although he once had been a member of the governing PvdA, he was now presenting himself as its greatest enemy. The PvdA had, in Fortuyn's eyes, betrayed its own voters and members and neglected the interests of the ''common people''. The PvdA's greatest error, in Fortuyn's view, was to give criminal immigrant youths way too many chances. The PvdA had been soft, out of its blind faith in ''multiculturalism'', and now criminal immigrants terrorized Dutch society. What this country needed was firm leadership, a strong hand, tough on crime, and zero tolerance for criminals.

One can guess... a bald man, with a particular hatred of ''socialists'', ''immigrants'', and an un-Dutch preferrence for strong government, was quickly compared to Mussolini - Italy's Fascist dictator. Fortuyn was not a Fascist, not even a nationalist. His stances on immigration came down to higher integration demands, reduction of the number migrants being allowed to enter, and tough policies to reduce crime - especially coming from immigrant criminal gangs. Fortuyn was above all a conservative, who wanted to restore law and order, and discipline in this country. He framed the governing elites as arrogant, sleeping, deaf, and blinded. Above all, he framed them, and the PvdA, as being soft. Soft on crime, soft on immigration, soft on upholding standards in the healthcare system, soft on everything that demanded a firm hand.

On top of that, Fortuyn was a different man compared to the political leaders of the country. The prime minister was old and grey after 2 terms in office, his intended successor was the very embodiment of arrogance. The other politicians were all grey technocrats, who thought that they were the best managers the country had ever had. They were above all boring. Pim Fortuyn was young, he was energetic, eloquent, and provocative. He openly spoke about his visits to gay bars, he wore three-piece suits (unusual in this sobre country), drove a Jaguar, and he was a man with a mission: restore Dutch democracy, give it back to ''the people''.

In this respect, Fortuyn differed from the nationalist populist movements elsewhere in Europe, such as Denmark, Austria, France, and Belgium. His populism drew more on a kind of libertarianism. He wanted to save Dutch democracy from the claws of the old, technocratic, political clique, protect Dutch democratic ''values'' against un-integrated Islam, and restore law and order in those immigrant neighbourhoods where non-immigrants did not dare to walk anymore.

The political establishment, and Leftist commentators, overwhelmed by the sudden wave of support that erupted for Fortuyn, warned the nation for him - accusing him of being a crypto-fascist and a racist. The political establishment despised Fortuyn, and when looking back at the debates on television, one can see the hatred in their eyes upon meeting Fortuyn. But Fortuyn did attract the members of openly Neo-Nazi organizations, he did say things like ''Islam is a barbaric culture'', and he pleaded for the removal of article 1 of the Dutch constitution, which bans racism and discrimination.

At the same time Fortuyn stood up for the interests of the small business owners, which, although traditionally represented by the VVD, were no longer taken care of by this party which had joined the PvdA in its technocratic governance. In March 2002 Fortuyn won the municipal elections of Rotterdam by a landslide, and throughout the country there were calls for Fortuyn to enter national politics - as there were national elections later that year. Fortuyn headed to a TV debate that night with all national political leaders. It would become a historic moment, where one could read the fury off their faces, and they even refused to congratulate Fortuyn with his victory.

Fortuyn later presented his plans for national politics, and promised to put an end to ''a mess after eight purple years'', purple referring to the Red-Blue coalition government. At the presentation, activists threw a cake against his head. Fortuyn appealed to the government to protect him. In early May 2002, a week before the elections, after giving a radio interview and walking to his Jaguar in the parking lot, Fortuyn was shot dead by a leftist activist.

Fortuyn's followers that day quickly concluded ''the bullet came from the Left'', and they held the PvdA and the government responsible. Angry mobs formed throughout the country and began to riot. In the Hague, where there was an emergency session of the government and the parliament, an angry mob tried to storm the parliament.



The cabinet discussed with the most prominent members of Fortuyn's movement, LPF, whether to carry on or to postpone the elections. Everyone agreed it had to continue. The LPF became the second largest party of the country and entered a government coalition together with the Christian Democrats and the VVD. The LPF without Pim Fortuyn however, soon resorted to infighting by the opportunists that had joined the movement. Former business men, arrivistes, and political adventurers dominated the LPF, and they bickered publically with each other over ministries, and even silly things such as a golden spoon with their cup of coffee. Within 87 days the coalition collapsed and new elections were needed. The LPF vanished from the political scene. But politics in the Netherlands has never been the same anymore.

Fortuyn was one of those populists who wanted to shake things up, break the political status quo, and get on with some problems in the country. Since his death, not a single cabinet has managed to complete its term - although the current one (since 2012) may complete its term in early 2017. Even the Left nowadays will admit they miss Fortuyn. For they realize that his death opened the gates for far more extreme populists such as Geert Wilders. Yet no politician has ever dared to call Wilders a Fascist or to hint at that. Fortuyn is always in the back of people's minds in Dutch politics.

And here is a picture of Fortuyn (middle) meeting with the ''political establishment'' on the night of his victory in Rotterdam. The body language says enough.

[Nentsia]

Populism, Nationalism, and Fascism


I'm going to bore you with more words on the Populist phenomenon that I'm mostly trying to understand myself, and writing these things helps myself with that. One question that continues to bother me is the relationship between Populism, Nationalism, and Fascism. We often hear people compare Populists to Hitler or Mussolini (Trump was often a target of analogies with Hitler), the arch-populist Juan Peron is often labelled as a specific kind of ''Latin American Fascism'', and many populists seem to display nationalist tendencies: Peron drew on nationalism, the Venezuelan Accion Democratica, the Peruvian Apristas, the Bolivian MNR - all examples of leftist nationalist Populist movements in Latin America in the 1950's and 60's. Even left wing Socialist populists like Hugo Chavez drew on Venezuelan nationalism quite a lot: he named his ''revolution'' after the founding father of Venezuela, he always waved with a mini version of the Venezuelan constitution, and the most important symbol of his movement were the Venezuelan colors.

In Europe, early 19th century populists like the French Boulangistes in France, to the Front National today drew on nationalism. Geert Wilders in the Netherlands claims to protect Dutch culture and national identity from being destroyed by ''Islamism'', and in similar fashion populists in Belgium, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Italy, Austria, Hungary, Poland, Britain, and Turkey all either draw on regional separatism or nationalism. Are populists, by definition, nationalists? Or is nationalism, by definition, a form of populism?

And does that mean that Fascism, in the forms of Mussolini and Hitler, form a more extreme variant of Populism? By the scholarly definitions of both Fascism and Populism, both phenomena draw upon the principle that a single movement, a single leader even, can instinctively reflect and therefore represent the will of the masses, and is therefore entitled to usurp all power. Both movements tend to strive to what the French philosopher, Claude Lefort, called ''totalitarian unity'', where ''the people'' is represented through one movement, one ideology, and one leader. All forms of division or plurality are viewed with suspicion, or become outright intolerable. Contrary to the Fascists however, few Populists have gone around beating up political enemies or exterminate an entire people. So there are differences, and they are quite fundamental.

One of the reasons, I think, that populism and nationalism so often overlap, is because of our understanding of the concept ''popular sovereignty'' that emerged in the late 18th century enlightenment. This concept lies at the core both of nationalism and populism, which could not have existed if the concept Popular Sovereignty had not been invented. The concept basically holds that within a given state, ultimate power should lie with the people living within that state. Ideally, the people, or most of them, within that state belong to the same ''nation'', because this ethnic or cultural affinity will help cement the individual members to each other and breed a sense of mutual solidarity and belonging. The ideal state then, is a ''nation-state'', rooted in the nation, the people, who are sovereign. The state reflects the interests of the nation. In the ideal world then (by which these philosophers meant Western Europe), all nations are given statehood and live according to their own laws and wishes in a brotherly harmony with other free nation-states. Smaller nations, however, were not yet considered worthy of their own statehood: they were too ''immature'' to run their own affairs and were better off as some autonomous minority in a larger state.

This is where populism and nationalism, and even socialism in some cases, overlap: they want to represent the interests of ''the people'' and after 200 years ''the people'' has become synonymous with ''the nation''. Even when populists like Peron or Trump specifically talk of the ''working class'', they do so with the underlying idea that this specific group forms the national ''heartland'' or the ''core'' of ''the people'', just like 19th century nationalists became particularly obsessed with the lifestyles and interests of the peasantry, which because of its simplicity and poverty, seemed to represent the nation in its purest and most uncorrupted form. In similar fashion then, both populists and nationalists (and sometimes also socialists), are particularly concerned with ''restoring'' purity; cleansing the country of alien influences that have ''corrupted'' national values and morality. Especially regarding the political system, nationalists and populists view it as corrupted and wish to restore it to its former glory by delivering it (through their movement) directly into the hands of ''the people'' again.

But I believe there are differences. For populists, issues like national identity, culture, and immigration, may be a tool to quickly mobilize voters when these issues are particularly important while the political establishment does not dare to properly address them. Nevertheless, Populists will one way or another, always be inclined towards some form of nationalism because they believe that it is the Nation they represent, and they believe that it is the Nation that is under siege from both internal and external threats: foreign powers (American Imperialists/Russia/The West/the EU), a cosmopolitan (de-nationalized) elite (Wall Street/the London City/the international Jewry/Globalization), and the internal enemies that undermine the Nation from below (immigrants, unemployed (profiteers), criminals, internationalists (socialists, liberals, communists).

A nationalist movement is in its turn often inclined towards populism, believing in the moral unity and purity of ''the people'', and claiming to defend its interests against both internal traitors and foreign threats. The difference lies in the ideological department, I think. A purely populist movement is usually ideologically eclectic, for ideology is not its main concern. Its main concern is usually some political issue that the establishment does not address. Populists ~always~ seek to change the political course of the country, and the established parties have become so entrenched in the existing political climate that they do not offer this change as an option in the elections. Populist movements are therefore mobilized around this goal of changing a prevailing political climate, and the content of their ideas is more fluid and reactive. Opponents would call this ''incoherent'', while the populists themselves would argue they simply reflect ''common sense'' or ''what everyone wants, but only they offer''.

Nationalism, until the late 19th century, was primarily the domain of a handful of European intellectuals. The movement began in the early 19th century as a progressive, liberal, and revolutionary movement, advocating the radical message of national self-determination and popular sovereignty. This kind of nationalism reached its peak with the Italian unification wars, the Risorgimento. A different philosophical current within nationalism, invented by German philosophers, represented a more popular oriented and less politically oriented form of nationalism, known as ''Völkisch'' nationalism. Where the liberal nationalists saw the Nation primarily as a political entity, worthy of a set of natural rights, the Völkisch treated the nation as a natural given, a community organically shaped through its common history, experiences, geography and climate, and therefore rooted in tradition and posessing a mystical sense of community and shared instincts. This branch of nationalism in particular cherished the peasantry as the core of the Nation, unaffected by foreign influences, uncorrupted by material wealth, and culturally and morally pure. This Völkisch nationalism, originally Populist in its view of the Nation as a morally superior and unified entity, turned into conservative nationalism by the 1900's, stressing the state (monarchy) and the nation as expressions of history and cultural tradition, and opposing democracy, socialism, Jews and industrialization as threats to national unity and cultural identity. The Nation and state came to stand for the natural or even divine order, and therefore permanence. Ironically enough it was France, not Germany, where this conservative, ethnic nationalism became the most powerful in the 19th century. The Franco-German War and the French political crises of the 1870's and 1880's led to an obsession among right-wing intellectuals and aristocrats with the supposed decline of France, and they stressed the need to take measures against the further national degeneration of France.

In almost all countries, Völkisch nationalism evolved into a justification for war and empire-building. The Völkisch belief in the moral superiority of their Nation, was supplemented by ideas that God had created the Nation and that it therefore had a special divine mission or role in this world to fulfill, such as liberating other peoples and spreading civilization across the globe. Particularly in Poland this was a dominant trend, as Polish nationalists quite literally came to believe that Poland was the ''Christ among Nations''. World Wars, genocides, and De-colonization have contributed to the decline of such overly Messianic nationalisms, but ethnic Nationalism seems resurgent since the end of the Cold War, with the Yugoslav Wars being the most catastrophic outcome of it. Ethnic nationalist movements, such as Front National in France, and Slobodan Milosevic in Serbia, have adopted populist strategies, but always keeping their nationalist program in mind. Front National has been in existence since 1972, and was unique at the time of combining a program that embraced representative democracy with a nationalist agenda of defending French culture against alien influences and representing the interests of the ethnic French people. It remained a marginal party for a decade, until immigration started to become a political issue in the 1980's. Front National was one of the few, or only, political party that both opposed immigration and at the same time distanced itself from anti-democratic Right-wing extremism. Since then, Front National has focussed almost entirely on the topic of immigration, because that is the issue that can mobilize votes. But beyond trying to change France's immigration policy, the Front National has a much broader and defined political ideology and program which makes it a decisively nationalist party. Purely populist movements lack this broader ideology, and if they have one at all, its eclectic and hard to define. Historians are still battling with eachother whether Peronism for example, was more Leftist, Centrist, or Rightist, and in similar fashion people argue whether the Dutch PVV, or Donald Trump in America is Right wing or Left wing. Nationalists are much less difficult to place in the political spectrum, populists will always spark controversy - which is precisely their goal, because they wish to rise above such labels in order to appeal to the entire electorate and cut through established lines of division.

In typical fashion then, Populists manage to attract both leftist and rightist voters. In my own country for example, the populist PVV draws its potential pool of voters from the two extremes of our political spectrum: the liberal-conservative VVD, and the formerly Maoist Socialist Party. In America Donald Trump, although decisively more popular among Republicans, appealed to many people who in the past were Democrats. Donald Trump himself was a former Democratic supporter, and the Republican establishment didn't even recognize him as a Republican. In a similar fashion Juan Peron confused everyone in Argentina. In some cases, populists like Silvio Berlusconi do deliberately side with some political camp, such as ''the Right'' or ''the Left'', but in order to position themselves in opposition to what has been identified as the political color of the establishment. This doesn't mean their policy proposals correspond to it.

Fascism


The relationship between Populism and Fascism is different from that with nationalism. Nationalism has some ideological overlappings with populism, but populism is not hindered by doctrines or ideology, other than that it seeks to reclaim power for the people from a set of internal enemies that have usurped power and wealth at the expense of the true people. Nationalism is ideologically more static, may have populist leanings, and might become politically dominant using a populist strategy. Fascism and populism, are in my view both expressions of the same problem: a democracy in crisis. Both Fascists and populists are reactions to a sense of political failure, and a desire to restore the nation. And they share the same belief that this process of regeneration can be carried out by a natural leader, who ''understands'' what needs to be done. Thats where the similarity basically ends. Fascism is of an entirely different magnitude, and it is essentially a revolt to democracy itself, whereas populists often claim to restore democracy, rather than overthrow it. More importantly, for the Fascists the restoration of global power or lost territories/empires forms the most important goal, whereas most populists couldn't care less about that. Their focus lies on domestic issues.

Fascists have however adopted populist strategies to come to power, such as Hitler. Anti-semitism was not as important in the Nazi election campaigns in the 1920's and 30's as sometimes is believed. The main issue in the Nazi election campaigns was their anger at the corrupt German elite, the treasonous incapacity of the German political elite, and the foreign domination as embodied in the Versailles Treaty. Anti-semitism, if it was touched upon, featured with anti-capitalist sentiments, accusing Jewish bankers and the international Jewish finance elite of robbing and stealing from the German people. Later on, the Jews came to represent the Communist threat, another internationalist enemy that threatened to enslave the German people. The Nazi Party was deliberately elusive: it was named National Socialist to suggest a social program to appeal to workers, yet the ''National'' conveyed the message that it was non-Communist and therefore posed no threat to the German middle class. It adopted a bright red flag, with a symbol that had no particular meaning at all - not in Europe. Its program contained 25 simple points, not particularly different from other nationalist parties in Germany. The party posed as a ''workers' party'', and opposed capitalism, and at the same time praised the middle class, the shopkeepers, and the German farm owners, presenting their party as virulently anti-socialist, anti-communist, and an enemy of the big industry that competed with the small shopkeepers. This was a deliberate strategy of Hitler, who once stated that political ideas only interested him if they were capable of inspiring the masses. Mussolini took a similar stance, and once famously proclaimed that his ''program'' consisted of ''bashing the heads of the Marxists''.

For the Fascists, ideas and political programs were all subordinate to the goal of conquering power. They were obsessed with a Darwinian-inspired fear that their nation was degenerating, and would be too weak to survive the struggle for survival. Anticipating on the next world war (Mussolini reasoned that since eternal peace had never been attained, its a moral duty to prepare for the next war), the Fascists believed their movement was the only one that truly understood what needed to be done to restore, strengthen and prepare their country for next world war. Power belonged to the strong, the weak would perish. All means were permitted to win the support of the masses in order to come to power. Such perverted and fatalistic world views are absent among purely populist movements. Any comparison between Trump and Hitler, for example, is therefore superficial and will not increase our understanding, rather cloud it with irrational fears. It could even, as shown in my previous post, incite people to assassinate populist leaders.

Slobodan Milosevic


One unique case that contains a mixture of all three elements, populism, nationalism, and fascism, is Slobodan Milosevic. After the sudden death of Josip Broz Tito in 1980, the leader of the Yugoslav Socialist Federation, a power struggle followed. The Serbian communists came to dominate the Federation, to the resentment of the other, richer republics such as Slovenia and Croatia. Slobodan Milosevic stood at the head of the Serbian Communists, and his strategy to become the new Tito of Yugoslavia was to transfer more and more federal power and resources to Serbia, where he was firmly in control. His ambition to create a Serbian-led Yugoslavia aroused separatism in Slovenia and Croatia. Croat nationalism in turn, increased fears among Serb communities related to the memories of WWII, during which Croat Fascists had exterminated Serbians with the help of the Nazis.

Amidst this disintegration of Federal Yugoslav authority, democracies emerged in the constituent republics, where local political elites held elections and liberalized the media to validate their nationalist agenda with popular support. In similar fashion, Slobodan Milosevic and his Socialist Party of Serbia dropped all Communist aims and instead promised to restore the territories, power and wealth of the Serbian people that were once taken from them by the Croats and the Muslims. Before this, Milosevic had never displayed any sense of nationalism. He transformed into one almost overnight out of opportunistic reasons. When in 1991 Slovenia declared its independence from Yugoslavia, Milosevic responded by sending the Serbian divisions of the Yugoslav army to prevent it. Several months later, his army invaded Croatia, also a separatist republic. Serbian militias were formed in Croatia to defend the ethnic Serbian communities from Croat aggression. When Bosnia also followed, the Bosnian Serbs in turn separated from Bosnia and declared their wish to unite with ''Greater Serbia''. Milosevic supported the creation of Bosnian-Serb militias and helped them with the systematic ethnic cleansing of the Bosnian territories they believed rightfully belonged to the Serbs. Bosnian muslims were deported, starved inside concentration camps, and women were raped in specially designated rape houses. The Serbs eventually started massacring the Muslim men, culminating in the massacre at Srebrenica where some 7,000 Muslim men, living within a UN compound, were deported and murdered under the eyes of UN peacekeeping forces.

Following NATO bombardments in 1995 a peace accord was made, but in 1998 war erupted again as Serbian militias and armies tried to prevent Albanian separatism in Kosovo, through the use of ethnic cleansing and genocide. The NATO intervened again, directly bombing Belgrade in Serbia. Milosevic subsequently lost the elections in his country of 2000 and was arrested and extradited to the International Criminal Court in The Hague in 2003. He died before ever hearing the verdict. His political opportunism, manipulations, ethnic nationalism, and his appetite for war continues to puzzle scholars. Most scholars however, agree that Milosevic was a genuine narcissist, obsessed with power. Narcissists posess the strange capacity to not just love themselves, but to love their own community as an extension of themselves. In their mind, their own glory and the glory of their community coincide, and they are willing to become careless killers in pursuit of both personal and collective power. For the Serbian people, Milosevic became a natural leader because he, amidst the decline of Yugoslavia, stood for unquestionable loyalty to the Serb people and the promise to advance Serbian interests against both internal and external threats and enemies. Milosevic' populism consisted of the People, which meant the ethnic Serbs, whose interests he claimed to defend against Yugoslavia's internal enemies who were held responsible for its collapse, and against the Western Imperialists who aided the internal enemies. These imperialists were embodied by NATO, the UN, and Western Europe. Milosevic' message basically boiled down to ''We, the Serbs, against the World''.

This typically populist message was supplemented by a large dose of ethnic nationalism, glorifying the Serbian history, stressing the need for cultural, and even racial purity, and particular attention for historical injustices, territorial losses, and warnings for Serbian decline and extinction. The growing Serbian obsession with its decline, and the need for internal cleansing and military conquest to reverse this process, is a key element of Fascism. When war eventually began, it quickly turned into a genocidal one, for the Serb (but also the Croat) forces had become imbued with the idea that Serbian survival depended on the physical and cultural annihilation of the Bosnian muslims.

[Jamzor the Jaxxor]

"You know, there's this region of the world absolutely filled with conflict, violence, and instability. The dominating religion of this region is one which promotes violence against nonbelievers. You know what would be a great idea? Bring in hundreds of thousands of military age, single males from this region and locate them strategically throughout our country."

This is precisely the populist rhetoric I mean. Aside from that this kind of logic would have prevented the US from taking up hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors in 1945-48, it makes one false assumption after another - all based on the idea that everyone is screwing Us, the People, over.

''the dominating religion of this region is one which promotes violence against nonbelievers'', seems to suggest as if there is some permanent religious war going on between Muslims and Christians. Thats what ISIS wants you to believe, which is what Al Qaeda tried to ignite with its 2001 attacks, etc. There is no religious war. There is only ISIS, about 20,000 religious lunatics, murdering anyone. They've murdered many more Muslims so far than Christians.

No, it actually just states a fact. Islam promotes violence in general, but especially against nonbelievers, "hypocrites," and apostates; why do you think so much terrorism comes out of Islam?

''You know what would be a great idea?'', this is another false sentence, hinting that the governments of Europe actually like to take up refugees. The reality is that the UN treaty, designed in the wake of WWII, obliges governments to give refugees asylum. Nobody likes this situation however. Populists want you to believe that only they are sane and that only they dislike this situation, and that evil Merkel wants to create a country full of refugees.

Merkel has been bringing in far more refugees than would be considered necessary. The German government has gone above and beyond its call of duty in this matter, if you actually believe they have a duty to take in these refugees. Most of them aren't actually refugees, by the way. Most of them are simply immigrants.

''Bring in hundreds of thousands of military age, single males from this region and locate them strategically throughout our country.'' Another typical example of Populism. With ''military age'' the hint is given that an army is coming over, while in fact, most of these people are simply fleeing violence themselves. ''Locate them strategically'', more military references to cast vigilant suspicion against a bunch of refugees.

Most of these people are not fleeing violence. A lot of them are coming from countries experiencing economic upswings. This is an army. There are no "poor women and children," it's almost entirely young men. The vast majority are not refugees.

Populism is so obvious that I cannot understand people cannot see through its simple manipulations to get your vote. The content of the message is not even Populist. There are valid reasons to argue that Europe should close its borders to refugees from the Middle East, or at least Syria. But in the formulation above, it casts suspicion against the political leaders as if they willingly sacrifice security just to let in more refugees. The Populist message is that the ''elite'' is aiding the enemy.

In this case, that's exactly what they're doing. They are putting their own people at risk (notice the vast increases in crime and terrorism) for no evident benefit.

[Nentsia]

No, it actually just states a fact. Islam promotes violence in general, but especially against nonbelievers, "hypocrites," and apostates; why do you think so much terrorism comes out of Islam?

Its indeed a fact that Islamic texts promote violence. It is also a fact that the bible promotes genocides. Ill show you the exact texts from the Bible here:

Our Holy Bible
“Avenge the people of Israel on the Midianites. . . .” And Moses said to the people, “Arm men from among you for the war, that they may go against Midian, to execute the Lord’s vengeance. . . .” They warred against Midian, as the Lord commanded Moses, and slew every male. . . . And the people of Israel took captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. All their cities . . . they burned with fire. . . . And Moses was angry with the officers of the army. . . . [He] said to them, “Have you let all the women live? Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the Lord in the matter of Pe’or, and so the plague came to the congregations of the Lord. Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.”

About Canaan:

“both men and women, young and old, oxen, sheep, and asses, with the edge of the sword,” and supposedly ridding the land of Israel of its enemies (Josh. 3–22), Joshua speaks to his people: “For the Lord has driven out before you great and strong nations. . . . Take good heed to yourselves, therefore to love the Lord your God. For if you turn back, and join the remnant of these nations left here among you, and make marriages with them, so that you marry their women and they yours, know assuredly that the Lord your God will not continue to drive out these nations before you; but they shall be a snare and a trap on you, a scourge on your sides, and thorns in your eyes, till you perish from off this good land which the Lord your God has given you” (Josh. 23:9–13).

In different texts from the Bible, God orders the destruction of the Amalekites, and Samuel warns that even their animals must be slaughtered. God becomes furious at King Saul for not killing every single one of them.

Then there is the Biblical story of Jacob's daughter Dinah (Genesis 34). Shechem the Hivite raped her, and then offers to marry her. Jacob comes up with a conspiracy to murder them all. His sons sneak into the Hivite city and kill everyone.

Then there are famous genocides that actually have been committed in the name of Christianity - even against fellow Christians. It already started with the deliberate murdering of Jews living in the Rhine cities in 1096 as the crusaders passed those cities on their journey to the Holy Land. They justified their massacring of the Jews with biblical references. In the early 13th century the Pope authorized a ''crusade'' against the ''Albigensians'', which was a response to 50 years propaganda conducted by genocidal bishops and Frankish knights who had a personal conflict with the Dukes of Toulouse. The Albigensian Crusade resulted in the massacring of the inhabitants of the villages in Southern France, and the seizure of the property of the Duke of Toulouse. Heretics had never actually existed. Armed resistance occurred only when the Crusade was already on its way. In 1572 it was during the ''Night of St. Bartholomew'' that Catholics launched the massacre of Protestants - from which the actual word ''Massacre'' has been derived. The original meaning was French for slaughtering an animal. During the Thirty Years War, which officially lasted from 1618 til 1648 (armed bands continued to roam the countryside for many more years), was a religious war between Protestants and Catholics. In the name of both interpretations of the Bible then, some 17 million people were slaughtered.

I'm not arguing Islamic texts are innocent. My point is that Christianity has produced equally violent texts, and for centuries provided more than potent excuses to slaughter entire populations. The only reason Christians have learned to interpret their religion in a peaceful manner is because our democratic institutions and human rights have become deeply ingrained in our morals and values. The middle east simply lacks this experience with human rights. And its America itself that has not exactly contributed to the democratization of the region, having backed many of the dictators that were toppled in 2011 because of the Cold War. I always wonder how an American-backed dictator is ethically acceptable to Americans, and a Communist one had to be overthrown because of human rights.

As for the other points you make, I'm willing to concede that many of the refugees can technically pass for immigrants, given the fact that they were not in immediate danger anymore upon leaving Syria itself. Then again, the government isn't really in a position to do much. These people simply arrive in the country. To give the basic shelter is not just a matter of decency, its also a matter of security. Or there will be more swarms of frustrated Arabs in the streets at night - and we've seen how well that worked in Cologne last year. The German government is trying to send the immigrants back, but the problem is: the countries where they came from don't take them back. The entire situation is stuck and it sucks. A Populist response is to insinuate there is some kind of conspiracy of the political elite to deliberately keep dangerous and profiteering immigrants in the country. There is just no practical solution at the moment. Germany could close its borders entirely. But the economic damages would be immense, as it is an economic transit country (connecting Rotterdam with the rest of Europe). The waiting lines before the borders would be enormous. The government can rationally calculate how much it would cost to close the border, and how much they would save on taking care of and monitoring immigrants. Apparently, the costs of closing the borders are higher.

[Zabuza825]

I'm sorry but the level of misunderstanding here is ludicrous so I'm going to have to respond.

"You know, there's this region of the world absolutely filled with conflict, violence, and instability. The dominating religion of this region is one which promotes violence against nonbelievers. You know what would be a great idea? Bring in hundreds of thousands of military age, single males from this region and locate them strategically throughout our country."

This is precisely the populist rhetoric I mean. Aside from that this kind of logic would have prevented the US from taking up hundreds of thousands of Jewish Holocaust survivors in 1945-48, it makes one false assumption after another - all based on the idea that everyone is screwing Us, the People, over.

''the dominating religion of this region is one which promotes violence against nonbelievers'', seems to suggest as if there is some permanent religious war going on between Muslims and Christians. Thats what ISIS wants you to believe, which is what Al Qaeda tried to ignite with its 2001 attacks, etc. There is no religious war. There is only ISIS, about 20,000 religious lunatics, murdering anyone. They've murdered many more Muslims so far than Christians.

No, it actually just states a fact. Islam promotes violence in general, but especially against nonbelievers, "hypocrites," and apostates; why do you think so much terrorism comes out of Islam?

It's not Islam that promotes violence, it's the ideology of the people that we call ISIS, or Al Qaeda, or Al Nusra, or Boko Haram, or anyone else. It's not the religion, it's their interpretation of the religion. In the case of Islam, when most people argue that the religion promotes violence their evidence is the blood-curdling verses of the Quran.

However, we can take this to extremes for any religion, if we ignore the historical context during which the texts were written. In the case of Islam, the historical context in which most blood-curdling verses of the Quran were written is simple - war. The entire Muslim community (or "ummah" as Muslims call it) was at war with a lot of their neighbors. As such, those verses reflect this reality.

You can argue similar things about any religion if you remove the context from the holy texts. Every Christian that I know personally are non-violent and peace-loving people. But, they believe in the Bible, yet in Deuteronomy 13 it says, AND I QUOTE, "If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death." I know that none of the Christians I know personally would EVER even consider doing this.

This quote from Deuteronomy was written in a historic context where it made sense, but in modern society it would be appalling. Therefore to condemn all of Christianity for a passage such as this is unfair. When people point out verses of the Quran to claim that Islam promotes violence they are doing the exact same thing to modern Muslims. That's not fair.

I condemn, ISIS, and Al-Qaeda, and Al-Nusra, and Boko Haram. But I also condemn groups like Aum Shinrikyo (for their 1995 Tokyo subway sarin gas attack), or those Buddhists in Burma who want to kill Muslims, or the leaders of the Peoples Temple (that did the Jonestown massacre in the 70's), or the Lord's Resistance Army (remember Kony 2012?). The list can go on and on, probably every religion has it's own version of extremism that commit atrocities. But it's wrong to condemn everyone who follows the broader religion because of the actions of a small minority.

''You know what would be a great idea?'', this is another false sentence, hinting that the governments of Europe actually like to take up refugees. The reality is that the UN treaty, designed in the wake of WWII, obliges governments to give refugees asylum. Nobody likes this situation however. Populists want you to believe that only they are sane and that only they dislike this situation, and that evil Merkel wants to create a country full of refugees.

Merkel has been bringing in far more refugees than would be considered necessary. The German government has gone above and beyond its call of duty in this matter, if you actually believe they have a duty to take in these refugees. Most of them aren't actually refugees, by the way. Most of them are simply immigrants.

How did you get to the conclusion that most of those people aren't refugees but are migrants? The statistics that I've seen make the opposite conclusion. As a matter of fact, take a look at this BBC article (link). The top three countries in this list (Syria, Afghanistan, and Iraq) are all countries that have major problems with terrorism. The other countries on the list have major issues too (Kosovo has tensions between the Albanians and Serbians, Pakistan has terrorism problems, Eritrea has an oppressive government that observers have ranked to be as bad as the government of North Korea, Nigeria is where Boko Haram is based, Iran has the issues with their government, and Ukraine has the crap going on in it's east). The only one I can't explain is Albania, and someone smarter than me will probably do that.

''Bring in hundreds of thousands of military age, single males from this region and locate them strategically throughout our country.'' Another typical example of Populism. With ''military age'' the hint is given that an army is coming over, while in fact, most of these people are simply fleeing violence themselves. ''Locate them strategically'', more military references to cast vigilant suspicion against a bunch of refugees.

Most of these people are not fleeing violence. A lot of them are coming from countries experiencing economic upswings. This is an army. There are no "poor women and children," it's almost entirely young men. The vast majority are not refugees.

I'm not sure how you got to this conclusion either. Leaving aside the "almost entirely young men" (which I don't think is relevant to whether or not they are refugees), in my previous paragraph I brought up statistics that show that the biggest sources of migrants are almost all from countries that have major issues with violence or an oppressive government.

Populism is so obvious that I cannot understand people cannot see through its simple manipulations to get your vote. The content of the message is not even Populist. There are valid reasons to argue that Europe should close its borders to refugees from the Middle East, or at least Syria. But in the formulation above, it casts suspicion against the political leaders as if they willingly sacrifice security just to let in more refugees. The Populist message is that the ''elite'' is aiding the enemy.

In this case, that's exactly what they're doing. They are putting their own people at risk (notice the vast increases in crime and terrorism) for no evident benefit.

I'll leave this to Nents (who is Dutch) to argue against this, if he even wants to. It's not my position to judge as someone who lives in the US.