Descent

[egb_hibs]

Interesting article here by Julie Bindel*, leftist superdyke and a million miles from a jew loving right winger, on Norway, which is in the process of ending.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/dispatches-december-12-norways-problem-with-anti-semitism-julie-bindel

To which an interesting counterpoint is to be found in a Nick Cohen column in the same mag - this time on Norway's betrayal of a muslim woman vilified for her western ways.

http://standpointmag.co.uk/television-december-the-cowardice-of-the-liberal-press-nick-cohen-deeyah

All reminiscent of what's going on in Sweden, which we discussed before, which is also ending, the city of Malmo in particular.

It's probably too late for these countries to have a long term future in their current form; let's hope they're not canaries in the mine.



* Maybe not so surprising. Jewish (see Cohen) and homosexual writers are prevalent amongst the few who dare speak out. I guess they are particularly aware of what they are going to lose.

 

[vasco de gama]

I don't really follow everything that you are saying in your post although I can surmise from knowing your standpoint (geddit?) that you are maybe implying the 'multicultural experiment' is ending and we will see division and loss of cultures that presumably runs counter to what the original exponents of multiculturalism intended (my emphasis on the original intent -not sure if you would except it as your own belief in the original intent). I may be totally wide of the mark by all of this though.

Anyways- the first article was really interesting. I found the statistics on the number of jews in Norway really something to ponder on and also the view that those remaining were increasingly 'hiding' their Jewishness and distancing themselves from the main Jewish centres of culture (whatever a 'main' organisation can even be in such a small number). It seems highly likely that either through this apparent fear and continued elements of Zionist polcy the existence of Jews does seem to be on the point of total colapse in many countries - I also don't think it was too much of a stretch for her to evoke the term pogrom.

I find the idea of toleration so distressing. 2 places I've visited in recent years, Marrakesh and Amsterdam, show a lot of evidence of times in the past when Jews, Christians and Muslims did manage to live in a fairly tolerant way - there are still considerable Jewish artifacts all over Marrakesh for example. Obviously there was also a lot of intolerance in these 2 cities as well over the years, but I actually think that nowadays we are almost at some kind of nadir of tolerance of the other all over the globe. I find this soooo distressing because I'm a child of the british 1970s when we were constantly fed the horror stories of Nazi intolerance, Racist intolerance in the USA and South Africa / Rhodesia etc and I was lead to believe that we were on the brink of overcoming all these ridiculous hatreds. Naive thinking I know but I can't take away my past hopes and beliefs.

The second article didn't impress me nearly so much. I feel Cohen is agenda lead here and fails to recognise the many "leftist" organizations and publications that have for years rallied against arranged marriages, female circumcision etc.

 

[egb_hibs]

I mean Norway is ending - in it's current form, of a liberal social democracy.

I don't think we're at a nadir of tolerance. Historical 'tolerance' was based on dhimmitude, and rosy views are related to the anti-western (and falling over ourselves to find the positives in everyone else) view of history propagated by the establishment.

That said we do have unique circumstances today - there is little historical basis to believe multi-cult can work in a democracy, especially with the host culture committing hari kiri, but we went for it anyway.

We'll be ok, the Norway's of the world are finished.

 

[Green Sleeves]

Norway is ending?

Some facts: 90% of Norwegians are on salaries of fifty grand or less therefore Norway has less inequality than any other country in the world. The social cohesion that comes with greater equality is reflected by Norway consistently measured as being one of the most happy countries on Earth.

Norway has genuine local democracy with power in hands of local communities. It has an education system we can only dream of. It has control of its own oil and gas natural resources and has built up the largest sovereign oil fund in rhe world - wealth that is owned by the people.

There are no utopias on this planet, Norway has social problems like everywhere else. But Norway is a model social democracy and one an Independent Scotland could follow.

Rumours of its death as a tolerant social democracy are not so much greatly exagerated but are Despatches From Planet Gaga.

 

[Gareth]

Not sure of your arguments re the supposed incompatibility of democracy and multiculturalism. I do hope this isn't a Goodhart 'too diverse' or Melanie Philips 'Londonistan' perspective as their infamous pieces weren't based on any evidence, but a mix of hunch in the former and bigotry in the latter. Even Putnams use of stats in the US which would be used to try and support that view have been a bit controversial with other work using the same figures but coming to very different conclusions.
Nevertheless, moving on from your apocalyptic view of modern Scandinavia, to the links. I had a quick look at Bindels article, won't read the self aggrandising w**k stain Cohen after the 10th version of was I wrong on Iraq, of course not.
The first thing that occurs to me is the conflation of Israeli and Jewish in the article, as well as in the reports the article refers to. For example, almost two-thirds of respondents agree with the statement: "I am disappointed in the way the Jews, with their particular history, treat the Palestinians". The Jews dont treat the Palestinians in any way good or bad, Israel does and if a survey is using this language its a piss poor survey. But this conflation of Jews and Israel is made equally if not even more by the 'friends of Israel'. When you describe every aspect of anti-Israeli behaviour as anti-semitic you muddy the waters and can end up contributing to any tendency to use the word Jewish instead of Israel. To cure the patient the patient must be killed. Before you know it heh ho people even mildly critical of Israel are in the anti-semitic pot. This is hugely dangerous.
Some of the other views are disturbing though and it would be interesting to see some proper analysis of both the views of significant parts of Norwegian society and where they come from e.g. any links with political or media discourse.

 

[egb_hibs]

Norway is ending?

Some facts: 90% of Norwegians are on salaries of fifty grand or less therefore Norway has less inequality than any other country in the world. The social cohesion that comes with greater equality is reflected by Norway consistently measured as being one of the most happy countries on Earth.

Norway has genuine local democracy with power in hands of local communities. It has an education system we can only dream of. It has control of its own oil and gas natural resources and has built up the largest sovereign oil fund in rhe world - wealth that is owned by the people.

There are no utopias on this planet, Norway has social problems like everywhere else. But Norway is a model social democracy and one an Independent Scotland could follow.

Rumours of its death as a tolerant social democracy are not so much greatly exagerated but are Despatches From Planet Gaga.

Lots of folks thought we we'd never had it so good, even in 2008. They thought it was gaga to suggest anything contrary to the popular narrative, and what appeared to be the case at the point in time.

I'll address your points further in reply to Gareth so as there is only one reply for either of you to respond to if you choose to.

That said, do you have any view on the article and subject that are the basis of the thread?

 

[egb_hibs]

Not sure of your arguments re the supposed incompatibility of democracy and multiculturalism. I do hope this isn't a Goodhart 'too diverse' or Melanie Philips 'Londonistan' perspective as their infamous pieces weren't based on any evidence, but a mix of hunch in the former and bigotry in the latter. Even Putnams use of stats in the US which would be used to try and support that view have been a bit controversial with other work using the same figures but coming to very different conclusions.

I don't know who Goodhart is, and it's sure not based on Melanie Phillips.

My view is a synthesis based on innumerable sources I've picked up info from over the years, from accounts of life in scandinavia, to articles on it's economy. The one 'high street' book on demographic changes I would recommend is 'Reflections on the Revolution in Europe'.

Anyhow, I've seen little in any of this - including this article which shows Norwegian cultural confidence in retreat - to suspect that Norway can buck;

- The principles of democracy, which depend on a cultural consensus
- The record of trying to create democracies and / or free societies across the world and throughout history where this element has been missing; from the engineering of greek democracy, to the difficulties importing it into tribal societies in africa or the arab world, to the balkans, to our current adventures in iraq.

Norway's enviable socio-economic set-up kind of depends on people being norwegian; to approach generous welfare settlements with an approach and influenced by social attitudes which spring from norwegian culture. It would not work here, never mind when importing lots of people from completely different contexts. Scandinavian governments have rapidly found hugely disproportionate chunks of welfare spending now goes on tiny immigrant elements. Meanwhile, Norway's comfortable liberal consensus is ill equipped to deal with cultural challenges, hence cowardice in the face of radical islamism. These trends are not going to reverse any time soon.

Perhaps you have evidence that would suggest otherwise. I've given my reasoning when the onus is on those conducting or supporting an experiment to give reason why we should not find it dangerous.

Nevertheless, moving on from your apocalyptic view of modern Scandinavia, to the links. I had a quick look at Bindels article, won't read the self aggrandising w**k stain Cohen after the 10th version of was I wrong on Iraq, of course not.

Cohen does seem to have been generally despatched beyond the pale with the special fervour the left reserves for heretics.

The first thing that occurs to me is the conflation of Israeli and Jewish in the article, as well as in the reports the article refers to. For example, almost two-thirds of respondents agree with the statement: "I am disappointed in the way the Jews, with their particular history, treat the Palestinians". The Jews dont treat the Palestinians in any way good or bad, Israel does and if a survey is using this language its a piss poor survey. But this conflation of Jews and Israel is made equally if not even more by the 'friends of Israel'. When you describe every aspect of anti-Israeli behaviour as anti-semitic you muddy the waters and can end up contributing to any tendency to use the word Jewish instead of Israel. To cure the patient the patient must be killed. Before you know it heh ho people even mildly critical of Israel are in the anti-semitic pot. This is hugely dangerous.
Some of the other views are disturbing though and it would be interesting to see some proper analysis of both the views of significant parts of Norwegian society and where they come from e.g. any links with political or media discourse.

Disturbing they are. I suspect that you would be sceptical of the EDLs claims to oppose islamism specifically, and I wonder why your approach is so different in giving benefit of the doubt to those specifically responding to statements about jews, never mind rationalising the excesses of 'anti zionism'.

But let's leave that aside as we can agree some of the rest is unambiguously disturbing. However to me, not surprising. Because it seems to me wholly consistent with a process that is gaining momentum. I honestly think your instinct (from pure motives) to downplay veiled and manipulated language, lays you open to being more surprised as things heat up. In fact it is all happening right in front of us.

 

[Gareth]

I don't know who Goodhart is, and it's sure not based on Melanie Phillips.

My view is a synthesis based on innumerable sources I've picked up info from over the years, from accounts of life in scandinavia, to articles on it's economy. The one 'high street' book on demographic changes I would recommend is 'Reflections on the Revolution in Europe'..

Goodhart wrote an article that Brown and Blunkett loved called 'too diverse' which make a number of the same assumptions you're getting at. It led to the whole nonsense around citizenship tests and the like. I'd actually read extracts from Caldwells book and found it unconvincing to say the least. Well written but with the starting point that Muslim immigration is a problem rather than that being conclusions to research. The demographic book I'd recommend is the imaginary timebomb.

Anyhow, I've seen little in any of this - including this article which shows Norwegian cultural confidence in retreat - to suspect that Norway can buck;
- The principles of democracy, which depend on a cultural consensus
- The record of trying to create democracies and / or free societies across the world and throughout history where this element has been missing; from the engineering of greek democracy, to the difficulties importing it into tribal societies in africa or the arab world, to the balkans, to our current adventures in iraq...

I've seen no actual research that suggests either a breakdown in Norwegian society, certainly no greater than that experienced by other countries during recessionary times but which lacked large-scale migration.
I'm also not convinced on the need for cultural consensus for democracy beyond a consensus that consent is an important principle. Britain, for example, has had many periods where there was a lack of 'consensus' evident in class conflict.
Re the final point, have I imagined this or did you not argue a counter posing view to that in the past, against the view that certain countries or regions are incapable of being democracies.
One of the main problems I see is the very artificial nature of many 'nations' whereby very different cultures have been thrown together in a fairly random manner and expected to quickly become one, mostly by colonial powers. Even countries like Italy are not 'natural' states if such a thing exists and the north south ruptures are still evident.

Norway's enviable socio-economic set-up kind of depends on people being norwegian; to approach generous welfare settlements with an approach and influenced by social attitudes which spring from norwegian culture. It would not work here, never mind when importing lots of people from completely different contexts. Scandinavian governments have rapidly found hugely disproportionate chunks of welfare spending now goes on tiny immigrant elements. Meanwhile, Norway's comfortable liberal consensus is ill equipped to deal with cultural challenges, hence cowardice in the face of radical islamism. These trends are not going to reverse any time soon.

Thats one perspective. I wonder if an alternative might be that the challenge to any Norwegian socio-economic model comes from globalising pressures of neo-liberalism, meaning that the well-off there are essentially becoming more selfish and looking for ways to preserve their own wealth at the expense of the poor, an issue as you say with re to that model. This last bit is supposition on my part.

Perhaps you have evidence that would suggest otherwise. I've given my reasoning when the onus is on those conducting or supporting an experiment to give reason why we should not find it dangerous.

Human movement isn't 'an experiment' though. Its been the one constant in human geographic history, hugely pre-dating nation states. Some of Danny Dorlings work would refute it, as would some of Elie Vasta's research, although the latter is less empirical. A lot of the post Putnam work (and even some of his own) on social capital would also refute the ideas that diversity necessarily reduces social solidarity or social cohesion.

Cohen does seem to have been generally despatched beyond the pale with the special fervour the left reserves for heretics..

He's not been dispatched, he's just a mono-themed bore and not an especially good writer either.

Disturbing they are. I suspect that you would be sceptical of the EDLs claims to oppose islamism specifically, and I wonder why your approach is so different in giving benefit of the doubt to those specifically responding to statements about jews, never mind rationalising the excesses of 'anti zionism'...

Because as I said much of the discourse promoted by real anti-Semites and friends of Israel has deliberately conflated the terms. Unless there was a good methodological reasons for using the term Jew in the context in which it was used in that survey then the survey design is questionable to say the least, and I speak as someone who has had a hand in designing a number of large surveys.

But let's leave that aside as we can agree some of the rest is unambiguously disturbing. However to me, not surprising. Because it seems to me wholly consistent with a process that is gaining momentum. I honestly think your instinct (from pure motives) to downplay veiled and manipulated language, lays you open to being more surprised as things heat up. In fact it is all happening right in front of us.

I'm never all that surprised when thing 'heat up' as you put it and coming from the exact same background as Bindel (that is one side Jewish one side catholic, not lesbian) I would never downplay what I consider to be real anti-Semitism. I have different causal links from yours though. I've said to you before that I think the equating of all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism muddies the waters and obscures real anti-Semitism and it is that which is hugely dangerous. It unwittingly puts anyone critical of Israel in with some pretty horrible company and might, just might make them actually think they are anti-Semites. Its a view I still hold

 

[gun ainm]

I get the feeling that your predictions are based too much in a distillation of the written word (from sources that might even suit your bias) and not in actual direct experience - I have never been to Norway unfortunately but I do have cousins from there and I don't recognise (nor would i think would they) the picture you paint - yes there might be a reappraisal of the welfare system and immigration policy going on (as is the case across western Europe in these austere times) but for me it seems you want to believe in the doomsday scenario a bit too much? you appear not to have accounted for the possibility of a non linear path, seemingly you've merely extrapolated a trend (based on very limited information that's not contextualized) and taken it to the nth degree? as for the article i don't think you'd find much difference in the UK to be honest, there's a conflation of terms that's not helpful and it really only reports a minority of views that may or may not reveal an undercurrent of antisemitism in Norweigan society (as there no doubt is prejudice of all kinds everywhere). that is not to downplay it in any way before you jump all over that statement it is merely to place it in context. anyway to envoke mein kampf seems a tad excessive?

 

[egb_hibs]

I will reply another time to points made. But let me assure you R - I do not want to believe in a doomsday scenario. It makes me very sad. Like you, and I believe like Gareth, I have kids who will inherit this world. I sometimes wonder if some of our unsustainable behaviours are related to the increase in people who so not. Both in print and in person I have encountered people who eventually admit that they too are pessimistic about the long game but rip people who voice that expressly because in the short game it suits us nicely and they don't really give a shit about what happens after they're gone - indeed find it bonkers to do so.

 

[egb_hibs]

Goodhart wrote an article that Brown and Blunkett loved called 'too diverse' which make a number of the same assumptions you're getting at. It led to the whole nonsense around citizenship tests and the like. I'd actually read extracts from Caldwells book and found it unconvincing to say the least. Well written but with the starting point that Muslim immigration is a problem rather than that being conclusions to research. The demographic book I'd recommend is the imaginary timebomb.

As I recall it asks the question whether europe can remain the same if the people in it are (culturally) different. That seems a reasonable question to me. On what grounds would your starting point be other than it being a potential problem? History and logic suggest that is likely.

I've seen no actual research that suggests either a breakdown in Norwegian society, certainly no greater than that experienced by other countries during recessionary times but which lacked large-scale migration.

Oh it's still a fine view from the deck right now, but it's holed below the waterline I reckon. A lot of research is only done after the fact, unfortunately. In addition, the whole western world is in profound denial at the moment. Our way life is unsustainable in many ways - with left and right cherry picking the bits that suit them and refusing to contemplate the whole picture.

I'm also not convinced on the need for cultural consensus for democracy beyond a consensus that consent is an important principle. Britain, for example, has had many periods where there was a lack of 'consensus' evident in class conflict.

I don't mean everybody agreeing on everything, I mean a broad base of shared assumptions. It's paradoxical to posit democracy without that. I don't think there's any record of it ever existing without that.

Re the final point, have I imagined this or did you not argue a counter posing view to that in the past, against the view that certain countries or regions are incapable of being democracies.

I possibly have been too idealistic about the possibilities for democracy in the past. It's far from obvious that liberal democracy has appeal outside the western world.

One of the main problems I see is the very artificial nature of many 'nations' whereby very different cultures have been thrown together in a fairly random manner and expected to quickly become one, mostly by colonial powers. Even countries like Italy are not 'natural' states if such a thing exists and the north south ruptures are still evident.

Exactly; nation states that are not embodiment of cultural / ethnic nations are indeed artificial and volatile with it. Even with so much in common, north and south of italy are still in tension, as you note. Ditto the regions of spain. If these things are still pulling apart with all that similarity and after decades or centuries of shared history, then why on earth would we expect radically different cultural assumptions to coexist in any scenario other than when one set is a tiny minority?

That’s one perspective. I wonder if an alternative might be that the challenge to any Norwegian socio-economic model comes from globalising pressures of neo-liberalism, meaning that the well-off there are essentially becoming more selfish and looking for ways to preserve their own wealth at the expense of the poor, an issue as you say with re to that model. This last bit is supposition on my part.

Sure. But these things are not divisible. I don't think neo liberalism in itself is the issue, it's the culture and values of those within that system that determine how they operate. It's little surprise that an increase in individualism and a breakdown in social solidarity has accompanied erosions of common culture, repudiation of binding notions like patriotism and decline of others such as religion.

Human movement isn't 'an experiment' though. Its been the one constant in human geographic history, hugely pre-dating nation states. Some of Danny Dorlings work would refute it, as would some of Elie Vasta's research, although the latter is less empirical. A lot of the post Putnam work (and even some of his own) on social capital would also refute the ideas that diversity necessarily reduces social solidarity or social cohesion.

There's not a historical parallel for what is happening in europe just now. And the closest comparators do not suggest a happy ending.

He's not been dispatched, he's just a mono-themed bore and not an especially good writer either.

He's far from mono themed in my experience. And he is also a lot less 'hive minded' than many of his peers, being prepared to dissent from group-think more than most. In other cases he's entirely predictable - his narky metropolitan antitheism for example - but the vitriol directed at him is quite telling I think; he calls out a lot of the contradictions of today's bourgeois left.

Because as I said much of the discourse promoted by real anti-Semites and friends of Israel has deliberately conflated the terms. Unless there was a good methodological reasons for using the term Jew in the context in which it was used in that survey then the survey design is questionable to say the least, and I speak as someone who has had a hand in designing a number of large surveys.

But isn't that the point? We have come to a pass where the questions are being put - whether the pathologies are in the mind of the questioners or answerers, they are out there. And the article paints a wider context which doesn't suggest the survey is an aberration.

I'm never all that surprised when thing 'heat up' as you put it and coming from the exact same background as Bindel (that is one side Jewish one side catholic, not lesbian) I would never downplay what I consider to be real anti-Semitism. I have different causal links from yours though. I've said to you before that I think the equating of all criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism muddies the waters and obscures real anti-Semitism and it is that which is hugely dangerous. It unwittingly puts anyone critical of Israel in with some pretty horrible company and might, just might make them actually think they are anti-Semites. Its a view I still hold

Well you know what I think; that the attention israel gets is wholly disproportionate and not sufficiently explained by an even handed appraisal of the situation in palestine versus other events in the world. It is also pretty clear that many are not so careful in their distinctions as you are. Meanwhile, it is common to label as islamophobic, people with hugely more grounds for concerns with islam, than the average brit has in relation israel.

I fear for the jews of europe and israel this century. Embedded in my op is a link to a previous thread called 'the jews of malmo' (links don't seem particularly visible to me, so i'm not sure if it's highlighted on your screen) about jewish flight from that benighted city. However you consider any given situation, do you honestly not detect a general momentum gathering?

 

[Gareth]

As I recall it asks the question whether europe can remain the same if the people in it are (culturally) different. That seems a reasonable question to me. On what grounds would your starting point be other than it being a potential problem? History and logic suggest that is likely.

It was specifically about the UK. The problem as I see it is that it was taken as being a hugely important think piece, and if thats all it is then all fine and well but, and this is important, it was one mans musings and not something based on any research. Thats why I call it a hunch. On the other hand theres loads of think pieces and empirical research that refutes the hunches but theyve had less air play.

Oh it's still a fine view from the deck right now, but it's holed below the waterline I reckon. A lot of research is only done after the fact, unfortunately. In addition, the whole western world is in profound denial at the moment. Our way life is unsustainable in many ways - with left and right cherry picking the bits that suit them and refusing to contemplate the whole picture..

Thats fine but that too is both based on hunch and based on a particular political perspective. It also assumes a static socio-political situation rather than the more fluid world we now live in. I agree re sustainability. Ive said to you before a system thats based on perpetual growth will grind to a halt, and that ignores environmental unsustainability. Economics is key!

I don't mean everybody agreeing on everything, I mean a broad base of shared assumptions. It's paradoxical to posit democracy without that. I don't think there's any record of it ever existing without that.

Im not sure what these shared assumptions are though. And re history, liberal democracy is a pretty new entity. In the present we have masses of nation states where broadly speaking there is a comfortable cohabitation of democracy and some element of multiculturalism. Now you see that collapsing around you and you see that as being about newcomers not assimilating. Me, Im not so sure. Most research suggests that migrant communities do indeed take on many of the values of the host culture through various forms of acculturation.
I also think the stresses and strains on our models come from numerous sources but its easier to place blame on the most visible manifestation of globalising pressures. Heaven Crawley at Swansea Uni has done a lot of work on this and she posits that anti-immigration attitudes are more about disenchantment with globalisation and the political system but are played out in migration politics.

I possibly have been too idealistic about the possibilities for democracy in the past. It's far from obvious that liberal democracy has appeal outside the western world..

Fair enough. You know my view on our form of democracy. I think democracy is only sustainable if its more profound and becomes more than consent once every few years.

Exactly; nation states that are not embodiment of cultural / ethnic nations are indeed artificial and volatile with it. Even with so much in common, north and south of italy are still in tension, as you note. Ditto the regions of spain. If these things are still pulling apart with all that similarity and after decades or centuries of shared history, then why on earth would we expect radically different cultural assumptions to coexist in any scenario other than when one set is a tiny minority?..

But cultural acculturation is visible across nation states so Im far from convinced that there are immutable cultural assumptions that never the twain shall meet. You seem to view culture as more static than I do.
The Catalan issue with the rest of Spain isnt about defining Catalan in a narrow way so as to exclude different cultures, its about Catalonias relationship with the rest of Spain. Italys north south problem is about power and wealth, not about different and incompatible cultural assumptions.

Sure. But these things are not divisible. I don't think neo liberalism in itself is the issue, it's the culture and values of those within that system that determine how they operate. It's little surprise that an increase in individualism and a breakdown in social solidarity has accompanied erosions of common culture, repudiation of binding notions like patriotism and decline of others such as religion..

However, you still seem to view a predicted breakdown in the Norwegian socio-economic model as being about migration rather than the economics of Norwegian elites. As would be expected from someone with my politics I think the economics is key and leads and frames all else.

There's not a historical parallel for what is happening in europe just now. And the closest comparators do not suggest a happy ending.

You asked for evidence otherwise and Ive given you some.

He's far from mono themed in my experience. And he is also a lot less 'hive minded' than many of his peers, being prepared to dissent from group-think more than most. In other cases he's entirely predictable - his narky metropolitan antitheism for example - but the vitriol directed at him is quite telling I think; he calls out a lot of the contradictions of today's bourgeois left..

I always found him very mono-themed and he is the epitome of the bourgeois liberal. And as I said, I dont think hes a talented writer either.

But isn't that the point? We have come to a pass where the questions are being put - whether the pathologies are in the mind of the questioners or answerers, they are out there. And the article paints a wider context which doesn't suggest the survey is an aberration...

First, I didnt think the article was that convincing in anything it was trying to show. Secondly the construction of questions is important. Id be interested who conducted that research and why they chose to use the conflation of terms that they did. And as I said, much of the blame for any conflation of terms lies at the door of Israel and its supporters who have tried to present Israels views as representative of world Jewry. It isnt! There is panic among some zionist organisations in the US re the huge drop in identification with Israel among young US jews.

Well you know what I think; that the attention israel gets is wholly disproportionate and not sufficiently explained by an even handed appraisal of the situation in palestine versus other events in the world. It is also pretty clear that many are not so careful in their distinctions as you are. Meanwhile, it is common to label as islamophobic, people with hugely more grounds for concerns with islam, than the average brit has in relation israel..

I agree many are not careful, and that many certainly includes the Israeli Government. But its also why I get so agitated by accusations of anti-semitism to any critics of Israel. It can lead to surveys using conflated terms and unwittingly (most of the time) places non anti semites into the antisemtic camp. Its a construction that all commentary on Israel then gets tied up in. And its dangerous.

I fear for the jews of europe and israel this century. Embedded in my op is a link to a previous thread called 'the jews of malmo' (links don't seem particularly visible to me, so i'm not sure if it's highlighted on your screen) about jewish flight from that benighted city. However you consider any given situation, do you honestly not detect a general momentum gathering?

Didnt see the Malmo thing. I was at a conference in Malmo a couple of years ago and it felt far from being a benighted city. The fear I have re Jews in Europe is that they become a focus of attack because people take the frame given to them that all Jews support what Israel does and that the two are therefore interchangeable. That could, though I dont think it will, lead to the clashes of Israel-Palestine being played out in Europe.
Id certainly worry for the existence of Israel if they maintain their current trajectory. That too is unsustainable. You asked on another thread whether people thought Palestinians would stop firing rockets if Israel stopped bombing Gaza. If there was relative peace the occupation would still remain. It is the occupation that dictates in my view. Incidentally, do read the article on Camp David.

 

[egb_hibs]

It was specifically about the UK.

Not if we're talking about the same thing

The problem as I see it is that it was taken as being a hugely important think piece, and if thats all it is then all fine and well but, and this is important, it was one mans musings and not something based on any research. Thats why I call it a hunch. On the other hand theres loads of think pieces and empirical research that refutes the hunches but theyve had less air play.

I'm not sure about that; we're peppered with pro multi cult narratives. I'm not aware of any evidence based arguments that we should have faith in it. I'm not sure how you could produce one because I'm not aware of any historical precedent for it being a success.

Thats fine but that too is both based on hunch and based on a particular political perspective. It also assumes a static socio-political situation rather than the more fluid world we now live in.

On the contrary, I assume it's entirely fluid, which is why I think that things as they are now, will end. It seems to me that those who disregard the consequences of what we're doing are the ones making false assumptions about some kind of essential stasis or enduring settlement.

I agree re sustainability. Ive said to you before a system thats based on perpetual growth will grind to a halt,

Which is why welfarism is doomed. It is predicated on perpetual and exponential population growth and is thus just about the most unsustainable system imaginable. Mass immigration is one technique to address the failure of that ultimate mechanic, but that just undoes the system in other ways.

and that ignores environmental unsustainability. Economics is key!

I think environmental concerns are real, but I think they get attention out of proportion of where they sit amongst impending threats. I think this is precisely because they are a comforting distraction from much more troubling issues, and ones in which we are all implicated.

Im not sure what these shared assumptions are though. And re history, liberal democracy is a pretty new entity. In the present we have masses of nation states where broadly speaking there is a comfortable cohabitation of democracy and some element of multiculturalism. Now you see that collapsing around you and you see that as being about newcomers not assimilating. Me, Im not so sure.

Important point; I think it's happening anyway - the injection of large numbers of people with a very strong culture is just an accelerant. Even without that the collapse of common values is leading to political intrusion into spaces it doesn't belong, much more profound antagonisms as world views rather than economic views come into play. Moreover, as you have noted, selfish and atomisation proliferate as cultural binders fray.

Liberal democracy is indeed a new thing, and it's by no means clear it is very durable. We're certainly testing that.

Most research suggests that migrant communities do indeed take on many of the values of the host culture through various forms of acculturation.

What are the values of the host culture in the case of the UK or Norway?

What may be the case in, say, the US, will be different here. What are british values now?

I also think the stresses and strains on our models come from numerous sources but its easier to place blame on the most visible manifestation of globalising pressures. Heaven Crawley at Swansea Uni has done a lot of work on this and she posits that anti-immigration attitudes are more about disenchantment with globalisation and the political system but are played out in migration politics.

Maybe so, I'm not talking about immigration generally though. I'm talking about the juxtaposing of two distinct cultures which are markedly different. In fact the one we are importing in large numbers is the one which over history has defined the boundaries of europe which shrank before it.

Fair enough. You know my view on our form of democracy. I think democracy is only sustainable if its more profound and becomes more than consent once every few years.

Well let's not go into that one, we've enough on our plate

But cultural acculturation is visible across nation states so Im far from convinced that there are immutable cultural assumptions that never the twain shall meet. You seem to view culture as more static than I do.
The Catalan issue with the rest of Spain isnt about defining Catalan in a narrow way so as to exclude different cultures, its about Catalonias relationship with the rest of Spain. Italys north south problem is about power and wealth, not about different and incompatible cultural assumptions.

This is my point; these nations are straining to hold together / pull apart despite fractional cultural differences.

However, you still seem to view a predicted breakdown in the Norwegian socio-economic model as being about migration rather than the economics of Norwegian elites. As would be expected from someone with my politics I think the economics is key and leads and frames all else.

I think that's reductionist. But I put it to you that you cannot have all these things at once; a more social-democratic model, multi culturalism, social liberalism, a free society. They are not compatible.

You asked for evidence otherwise and Ive given you some.

I'm not sure you have.

Where is there evidence of social democracy, freedom and multi culturalism ever having proved a durable mix. Or even multi culturalism and any social model other than imperialism?

I always found him very mono-themed and he is the epitome of the bourgeois liberal. And as I said, I dont think hes a talented writer either.



First, I didnt think the article was that convincing in anything it was trying to show. Secondly the construction of questions is important. Id be interested who conducted that research and why they chose to use the conflation of terms that they did. And as I said, much of the blame for any conflation of terms lies at the door of Israel and its supporters who have tried to present Israels views as representative of world Jewry. It isnt!

The construction of questions is indeed important. But we have to ask why they are being constructed that way.

There is panic among some zionist organisations in the US re the huge drop in identification with Israel among young US jews.

If all is economics, this too must be a product of neo liberalism? I think it's more complex, but I do think it's part of the atomisation that you would hold to be a consequence of neo liberal economics, and which I would view to be a product of cultural which mixed with neo liberal economics produces avaricious capitalism.

I agree many are not careful, and that many certainly includes the Israeli Government. But its also why I get so agitated by accusations of anti-semitism to any critics of Israel. It can lead to surveys using conflated terms and unwittingly (most of the time) places non anti semites into the antisemtic camp. Its a construction that all commentary on Israel then gets tied up in. And its dangerous.

Why is your first instinct to shift the blame to israel? To use an example at hand, the people of this continent have been bombed by muslims. Our co-religionists, fellow secularists, gays, trade unionists etc have been massacred, oppressed and chased out across the entire muslim world. And we don't obsess about muslims as we do about israel, and anyone who does focus on the subject is at risk of charges of islamophobia.

The focus on israel remains entirely disproportionate, and inexplicable based on the facts.

We harass jews, and exclude them from public and intellectual forums - noone does this to professing socialists because of north korea and cuba. We don't do it to chinese because of tibet. In the UK we don't do it to irish people or catholics because of northern ireland (the few who do being recognised by most as bigots).

There is something more going on.

Didnt see the Malmo thing. I was at a conference in Malmo a couple of years ago and it felt far from being a benighted city.

Sweden is seeing rocketing rates of violence, and malmo is particularly bad, with jews fleeing the city.

The fear I have re Jews in Europe is that they become a focus of attack because people take the frame given to them that all Jews support what Israel does and that the two are therefore interchangeable. That could, though I dont think it will, lead to the clashes of Israel-Palestine being played out in Europe.

Lucky for some that persecution of christians, secularists, gays, trade unionists in the islamic world isn't played out in europe.

Why should we be importing people that take out events in other parts of the world on our jewish population?

Id certainly worry for the existence of Israel if they maintain their current trajectory. That too is unsustainable. You asked on another thread whether people thought Palestinians would stop firing rockets if Israel stopped bombing Gaza. If there was relative peace the occupation would still remain. It is the occupation that dictates in my view. Incidentally, do read the article on Camp David.

What do you mean by the occupation though? I read the article and found it to be extremely jaundiced against an israel, who gave all they could (by the writers admission), but blaming their negotiation techniques for the failure and positing all kinds of other unsubstantiated things.

It is unreasonable to expect israel to have to provide the means of it's own extermination in order for it to be accepted. And that is too often what is advanced.

 

[Gareth]

Not if we're talking about the same thing .

David Goodhart, too diverse?

I'm not sure about that; we're peppered with pro multi cult narratives. I'm not aware of any evidence based arguments that we should have faith in it. I'm not sure how you could produce one because I'm not aware of any historical precedent for it being a success. .

Why does evidence have to be historical? Why not the present?

On the contrary, I assume it's entirely fluid, which is why I think that things as they are now, will end. It seems to me that those who disregard the consequences of what we're doing are the ones making false assumptions about some kind of essential stasis or enduring settlement. .

I dont think too many people disregard consequences. They just see consequences differently, and perhaps also dont think there is a particularly rational alternative that doesnt also carry with it consequences.

Which is why welfarism is doomed. It is predicated on perpetual and exponential population growth and is thus just about the most unsustainable system imaginable. Mass immigration is one technique to address the failure of that ultimate mechanic, but that just undoes the system in other ways. .

Im never quite sure what you mean by terms like welfarism as its a contested term. If you mean the existence of a welfare state I disagree. Going back to the previous point there is little doubt that the consequences of the abolition of the welfare state would have very grave consequences and the social upheaval would be dramatic.

environmental concerns are real, but I think they get attention out of proportion of where they sit amongst impending threats. I think this is precisely because they are a comforting distraction from much more troubling issues, and ones in which we are all implicated. .

I dont think theres much comfort in environmental threats. Far from being a distraction its an integral part of the socio-economic risks that face us. Any solutions have to address a multitude of these things simultaneously.

Important point; I think it's happening anyway - the injection of large numbers of people with a very strong culture is just an accelerant. Even without that the collapse of common values is leading to political intrusion into spaces it doesn't belong, much more profound antagonisms as world views rather than economic views come into play. Moreover, as you have noted, selfish and atomisation proliferate as cultural binders fray. .

So let me get this right. The collapse of western liberal democracy is not about culture, migration, multiculturalism or numbers but all of them are contributors? I think you overstate the historical existence of common values. Many of those values were top down imposed values and so were not really shared rather than forced.

Liberal democracy is indeed a new thing, and it's by no means clear it is very durable. We're certainly testing that. .

Well, I for one hope we can one day move from liberal democracy to something much more profoundly democratic.
Most research suggests that migrant communities do indeed take on many of the values of the host culture through various forms of acculturation.

What may be the case in, say, the US, will be different here. What are british values now? .

Im not sure what Id say British values are, if indeed they are definable, but then Im not the one claiming the assumed values of newcomers are incompatible with them. What I do think it that the evidence shows huge levels of acculturation, and have done so throughout Britains migratory history, at least with regard to inward migration.

Maybe so, I'm not talking about immigration generally though. I'm talking about the juxtaposing of two distinct cultures which are markedly different. In fact the one we are importing in large numbers is the one which over history has defined the boundaries of europe which shrank before it. .

So migration is ok as long as they are not.what?

Well let's not go into that one, we've enough on our plate .

Fair dos

This is my point; these nations are straining to hold together / pull apart despite fractional cultural differences. .

But not due to cultural dissonance, but due to economics and power.

I think that's reductionist. But I put it to you that you cannot have all these things at once; a more social-democratic model, multi culturalism, social liberalism, a free society. They are not compatible. .

I dont think its reductionist at all. Again theres masses of research to show that the economic system and the assumptions it both has and projects sets much of, in fact most of, the social and political landscape. This has been true going back to pre-industrialisation.

Where is there evidence of social democracy, freedom and multi culturalism ever having proved a durable mix. Or even multi culturalism and any social model other than imperialism? .

You might simply look around Europe over the past 50 years or so. Social upheaval in that period has probably been lower than at any other 50-year period for centuries. Now you might think its being challenged now but the challenges are far less in my view that in other historical periods on this continent.

The construction of questions is indeed important. But we have to ask why they are being constructed that way. .

Indeed, I thought that was what Id been asking!

If all is economics, this too must be a product of neo liberalism? I think it's more complex, but I do think it's part of the atomisation that you would hold to be a consequence of neo liberal economics, and which I would view to be a product of cultural which mixed with neo liberal economics produces avaricious capitalism. .

Well the analysis Ive read of it posits that the liberalism of US Jews now overrides the attachments to what more are seeing as an illiberal state.

Why is your first instinct to shift the blame to israel? To use an example at hand, the people of this continent have been bombed by muslims. Our co-religionists, fellow secularists, gays, trade unionists etc have been massacred, oppressed and chased out across the entire muslim world. And we don't obsess about muslims as we do about israel, and anyone who does focus on the subject is at risk of charges of islamophobia. .

Shift the blame from where? Im talking about problems in terminology and so Israel and most Zionist organisations who deliberately conflate terms like Israeli and Jew are part of the problem.
Re muslim states, as Ive said before we dont see supportive op eds and political parties having labour friends of saudi etc. My own view has always been that Britain has been far too close to despotic regimes across the muslim world and have given de facto consent to what they do. I think similarly successive UK governments have supported Israel regardless of whatever they do. In the past you would have called this realpolitik. Me, I was never comfortable with that.
I also think theres extra attention on Israel because of the strategic importance of where it is. And finally Europe in particular has paid more attention and given more leeway due to 2nd world war guilt.

The focus on israel remains entirely disproportionate, and inexplicable based on the facts. .

Depends which facts, the longest occupation in modern history? The most UN resolutions flouted?

We harass jews, and exclude them from public and intellectual forums - noone does this to professing socialists because of north korea and cuba. We don't do it to chinese because of tibet. In the UK we don't do it to irish people or catholics because of northern ireland (the few who do being recognised by most as bigots). .

No we dont. There are calls in Universities to exclude ISRAELI academics from forums. There goes that terminology issue again. Most of the disinvestment advocates actually argue only for boycotts related to the occupation.

Sweden is seeing rocketing rates of violence, and malmo is particularly bad, with jews fleeing the city. .

If thats true thats very very sad. Its a cracking city.

Lucky for some that persecution of christians, secularists, gays, trade unionists in the islamic world isn't played out in europe. .

Yep, and there appears little inclination either. Maybe some issues around both acculturation and power?

Why should we be importing people that take out events in other parts of the world on our jewish population? .

Were not importing people that take out events in other parts of the world on our jewish population. But events do have an impact beyond the borders of where they happen. Its inevitable.

What do you mean by the occupation though? I read the article and found it to be extremely jaundiced against an israel, who gave all they could (by the writers admission), but blaming their negotiation techniques for the failure and positing all kinds of other unsubstantiated things. .

Well its gone from full military occupation to a less direct but no less profound form. Israel retains the right to do just about anything in the occupied territories. It denies any access to water resources, to power supplies, to basic medical supplies.
I hate to say this but I think its your view that is jaundiced. The camp david article was full of fact in terms of negotiating positions and these had a profound impact on the talks. The fact that Barak never actually made the offer we are told Arafat rejected is significant no?

It is unreasonable to expect israel to have to provide the means of it's own extermination in order for it to be accepted. And that is too often what is advanced. .

Thats hyperbole. I dont see anyone arguing for a right for Palestinians to develop WMD. I dont see anyone arguing for a right for Palestinians to control Israels water supply. What is being advanced by supporters of a viable Palestine that would lead to Israels extermination? (poor choice of word incidentally). Its actually those arguing for Israel to make peace that are presenting a more viable future for Israel. The status quo is not tenable.

this has turned into a marathon and i'm off line for the rest of today and the weekend so think i'll leave it there