Twenty years ago, European culture in general, and Dutch culture specifically, was a source of great concern to the minds of many on the American Right. Holland in particular appeared to be a bellwether for a whole host of baleful trends, from secularization to the breakup of the family to full-on sexual permissiveness, which by then had extended to widespread acceptance of nearly every species of human sexual deviancy.
The acceptance of abortion “rights” had gone patently unchallenged for so long that by the late 1990s a child born in the Netherlands could even be terminated outside of the womb in many circumstances; moreover, legally-sanctioned euthanasia of supposed “life unworthy of life” had made a disturbing reappearance in the West for the first time since the surrender of Nazi Germany. Moreover, people all across the continent were starting to get fined or even thrown in jail for expressing politically incorrect opinions under so-called “hate speech” laws.
These controversies made a dramatic impression upon me as a young(er) man when I visited Europe with my family in 1997. During that generally uneventful two-week vacation, things didn’t seem that bad, or really all that different, from life as I knew it in “the States.” Of course, some cultural divergences were notable, as they have always been, but I didn’t sense that I was dwelling among people with radically "other" mores and beliefs. For better or for worse, from my admittedly superficial perspective (one can only soak in so much information in a pleasant fortnight of leisurely travel), there appeared altogether greater cultural continuity with North America than non-continuity.
This, in turn, caused me to ponder a sobering question: Given that the values of Americans didn’t really seem all that conspicuously “other” than those of Europeans, could it be that much longer before these appalling European innovations came to America?
Two decades later, the United States has retained its exceptionalism in various ways. There is still more free speech, more gun-totin’, less socialism, and less secularism in the U.S. than in most of Europe (or in “Europe Jr.”—that is, Canada). On the other hand, sexual libertinism continues apace, as does the ongoing elite-funded, state-approved perversity parade. Yet in the midst of this mixed bag—greater liberty, but more top-down, soft totalitarian enforced conformity) another matter has taken shape and focus in a manner that still remained largely nascent during my family's Euro-tour in ’97.
Things have, of course, turned a corner in one major respect: Third World, nonwhite immigration is now a galvanizing issue, in a manner that was unheard of five years ago, much less two decades in the past.
In ’97, the West certainly had its immigrant enclaves, but it was still overwhelmingly white. Indeed, the “pozz,” as some call it these days, was exclusively a white thing. Of course, that’s because “liberalism,” however it may be defined at any point in its history, for good or for ill, has always been a “white thing.” Whether this proclivity derives from genetics, culture, or some combination of the two, is up for debate; that it is so can scarcely be denied. (See here for an elaboration of this broad point.)
Now one inherent contradiction of the sort of thinking characterized by the “pozz”-fed mentality—more formally known as Cultural Marxism—is that its adherents are as reflexively ethnomasochistic and xenophilic as they are smugly assured of the superiority of their own values. Pozzers, that is, find their own whiteness to be a curse and are forever irritatingly eager to signal how enlightened they are in accepting and promoting a “diverse,” that is, a less white, West.
The problem is that the nonwhites whom they fetishize tend not to dig the “pozz,” especially when it comes to feminism and the promotion of homosexuality and transgenderism, or whatever the latest deviancy-fad might be. In fact, nonwhite cultures are, in their treatment of women and gays. mostly quite objectionable by even moderate Western standards, much less a fully-fledged “pozzed” perspective.
This paradox at the heart of the “pozz”—which endorses an unquestioning inclusivity towards multiculturalism, and employs censorious ostracization of every native Westerner who objects, even in some offhand manner, to the notion of being ethnically replaced by cultural outsiders—can be located in the fact that non-Western cultures are invariably male-chauvinistic and perversity-averse to a far greater degree than even the most repulsively sexist and violently homo-hating cultural Westerner.
Back in 1997, returning from my Euro-vacation, I recall wondering what would ultimately “give,” if demographic trends continued. At that time, the “Camp of the Saints” scenario was still a futuristic fever dream. At some point, though, it seemed to me that SWPL-liberals would have to make a choice: enforced feminism and homosexual acceptance… or enforced positivity towards the retrograde, reactionary mores of the liberal-fetishized immigrants’ traditional Islamism. There couldn’t be both, at least not occupying the same public space.
Now, of course, I no longer wonder about how this pozz-paradox will resolve. It has been overwhelmingly decided—by whom, exactly, I can’t say I know—that the West must accept an innumerable incoming tide of Third World migrants and “refugees.”
A blind eye has deliberately been turned to the violent and misogynistic behavior indulged in by many of these people—who also seem, for some reason, to overwhelmingly be men, instead of families—and one is commonly smeared as a “Nazi” if one so much as notices that the participants in atrocities like Cologne, or Paris, or Brussels, or… London, are always of a certain non-Western ethnic makeup and theological mindset. Rapes of women and children are ignored by those who are supposed to be concerned about “rape culture,” since it would ostensibly be racist and hateful to draw anyone’s attention to those hordes of badly-behaving brown-skinned men. Violence against gays are only discussed if the gay-bashers in question don’t hew to the Muhammadan mindset; Muslim-on-gay attacks, meanwhile, all but get the all-clear.
This incredible turn of events—whereby a rampant rash of crimes go under-reported, if not entirely un-reported, out of a mandated, and entirely one-way “sensitivity” to the doings of a favored, fetishized minority group—signifies to anyone paying attention that Islamic immigrant-indulgence trumps all. Feminists and homo-trans activists must get on board with the notion of welcoming huge populations of people with values directly antithetical to theirs, or else be cast into ideological exile and be perpetually reviled as moral lepers for the rest of their days.
As the establishment Left has coalesced around this frankly untenable and insurmountable contradiction, the now-upsurging Right has likewise switched priorities. Twenty years ago, conservatives fretted over the spiritual decline of the West, as represented by the collapse of Christianity and the concomitant rise of sexual permissiveness and decadent deviancy; now, however, “hard-Right” politicians like Geert Wilders openly support all of the nasty, ghastly immoral “innovations” of post-modern Holland, and his “Right-wing” supporters bat nary an eye since at least he’s a nativist of a sort who opposes mass immigration.
Can such a stance be justified, merely in terms of “existential priorities” (“i.e., we have to survive before we can give significant thought to improving our moral standing? Or does this stated position amount to mere cop-out, and set a dangerous precedent to boot.