Början på ett mediakrig om mångkulturen?

Den ungerske premiärministern Viktor Orbán går till allt hårdare attack mot Bryssel och menar att EU:s byråkrater hindrar ungrarna från att hantera migration och islam på det sätt de anser bäst.

Under ett tal i ungerska Tusnádfürdő i förra veckan slog Ungerns nationalkonservative premiärminister Viktor Orbán fast att en de viktigaste uppgifterna det kommande året är att ”gemensamt definiera på en europeisk nivå vad det är vi måste slåss mot”. Själv är han övertygad om att ha hittat vad det är som måste bekämpas.

– Migration utgör ett hot, ökar terrorism och ökar brottslighet. Massmigration förstör nationell kultur. Om vi inte accepterar denna uppfattning, om detta inte blir den europeiska samsynen kommer vi inte att kunna agera mot detta hot, sade Viktor Orbán.

Under fjolårets flyktingkris tog sig många migranter via Ungern norrut mot bland annat Sverige och Tyskland, men många sökte även asyl i Ungern. Landet svarade med att bygga ett staket, tårgas, kalla in armén och kritiserades för en inhuman behandling av migranter.

– Gränsskydd – i synnerhet när vi måste bygga ett staket och internera personer – är något som är svårt att rättfärdiga ur ett estetiskt perspektiv. Men lita på mig, men kan inte skydda gränserna – och därmed oss själva, med blommor och gosiga leksaker, sade Orbán som dock tillade att man måste göra en åtskillnad på migration och migranter för att inte ungrarna ska ses som ”ett hjärtlöst folk”.

– Men som sagt, migration kommer att förgöra oss. Och migration förkroppsligas av migranter. Vi måste därför, hur mycket vi än sympatiserar med dem och ser dem som offer, stoppa dem vid vår gräns och vi måste göra det tydligt att enligt våra lagar måste de som anländer olagligt sättas i fängelse eller utvisas från Ungern. Det finns ingen annan vänligare form av försvar.

För konsensuskulturens baksida är avsaknaden av civilkurage. Sverige behöver mer av Amineh Kakabaveh och Finn Bengtsson.

Vi behöver mindre från dem som sitter stilla i båten tills den välter, som Anna Kinberg-Batra eller Stefan Löfven. Sverige behöver mer civilkurage. För vi rusade under vårt konsensusbetingade paraply gemensamt rakt in i muren.

Många är ansvariga för något nu de flesta inser blev totalt galet. Många må ha sansat sig och delvis ändrat kurs. Men det är så dags nu, syltryggar.

Utländska medier tolkar Malmöskott som terror

[...] Internationella medier, särskilt brittiska tabloider som Daily Mirror och australiska tidningar och tv-kanaler, hänger på. Frågan som överskuggar all rapportering är om det har hänt igen; om Malmö, liksom Nice och München de senaste veckorna, drabbats av ett terrordåd. http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ska...ionella-medier

I svenska medier är tonen mer sansad. Med stor sannolikhet beror det på den geografiska närheten, menar både Mats Karlsson, chef på Malmöpolisen och Jesper Falkheimer, professor i medie- och kommunikationsvetenskap vid Lunds universitet.

– Däremot innebär den sortens rapportering en fara för journalistiken. Även om de här medierna finns långt borta, så är det etablerade medier, och risken finns att förtroendet för traditionella kanaler urholkas, säger Jesper Falkheimer. http://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/ska...ionella-medier

The shift that Goodhart notes among the Left-leaning British elite is related to the shift toward “emancipative” values described by Welzel. Parochialism is bad and universalism is good. Goodhart quotes George Monbiot, a leading figure of the British Left:

Internationalism…tells us that someone living in Kinshasa is of no less worth than someone living in Kensington…. Patriotism, if it means anything, tells us we should favour the interests of British people [before the Congolese]. How do you reconcile this choice with liberalism? How…do you distinguish it from racism?

Monbiot’s claim that patriotism is indistinguishable from racism illustrates the universalism that has characterized elements of the globalist Left in many Western nations for several decades.
[...]
Nationalists see patriotism as a virtue; they think their country and its culture are unique and worth preserving. This is a real moral commitment, not a pose to cover up racist bigotry. Some nationalists do believe that their country is better than all others, and some nationalisms are plainly illiberal and overtly racist. But as many defenders of patriotism have pointed out, you love your spouse because she or he is yours, not because you think your spouse is superior to all others. Nationalists feel a bond with their country, and they believe that this bond imposes moral obligations both ways: Citizens have a duty to love and serve their country, and governments are duty bound to protect their own people. Governments should place their citizens interests above the interests of people in other countries.

There is nothing necessarily racist or base about this arrangement or social contract. Having a shared sense of identity, norms, and history generally promotes trust. Having no such shared sense leads to the condition that the sociologist Émile Durkheim described as “anomie” or normlessness. Societies with high trust, or high social capital, produce many beneficial outcomes for their citizens: lower crime rates, lower transaction costs for businesses, higher levels of prosperity, and a propensity toward generosity, among others. A liberal nationalist can reasonably argue that the debate over immigration policy in Europe is not a case of what is moral versus what is base, but a case of two clashing moral visions, incommensurate (à la Isaiah Berlin). The trick, from this point of view, is figuring out how to balance reasonable concerns about the integrity of one’s own community with the obligation to welcome strangers, particularly strangers in dire need.

So how have nationalists and globalists responded to the European immigration crisis? For the past year or two we’ve all seen shocking images of refugees washing up alive and dead on European beaches, marching in long lines across south eastern Europe, scaling fences, filling train stations, and hiding and dying in trucks and train tunnels. If you’re a European globalist, you were probably thrilled in August 2015 when Angela Merkel announced Germany’s open-door policy to refugees and asylum seekers. There are millions of people in need, and (according to some globalists) national borders are arbitrary and immoral.
[...]
But if you are a European nationalist, watching the nightly news may have felt like watching the spread of the Zika virus, moving steadily northward from the chaos zones of southwest Asia and north Africa. Only a few right-wing nationalist leaders tried to stop it, such as Victor Orban in Hungary. The globalist elite seemed to be cheering the human tidal wave onward, welcoming it into the heart of Europe, and then demanding that every country accept and resettle a large number of refugees.

And these demands, epicentered in Brussels, came after decades of debate in which nationalists had been arguing that Europe has already been too open and had already taken in so many Muslim immigrants that the cultures and traditions of European societies were threatened. Long before the flow of Syrian asylum seekers arrived in Europe there were initiatives to ban minarets in Switzerland and burkas in France. There were riots in Arab neighborhoods of Paris and Marseilles, and attacks on Jews and synagogues throughout Europe. There were hidden terrorist cells that planned and executed the attacks of September 11 in the United States, attacks on trains and buses in Madrid and London, and the slaughter of the Charlie Hebdo staff in Paris.

By the summer of 2015 the nationalist side was already at the boiling point, shouting “enough is enough, close the tap,” when the globalists proclaimed, “let us open the floodgates, it’s the compassionate thing to do, and if you oppose us you are a racist.” Might that not provoke even fairly reasonable people to rage? Might that not make many of them more receptive to arguments, ideas, and political parties that lean toward the illiberal side of nationalism and that were considered taboo just a few years earlier?
[...]
But if we want to understand the recent rise of right-wing populist movements, then “racism” can’t be the stopping point; it must be the beginning of the inquiry.

Among the most important guides in this inquiry is the political scientist Karen Stenner. In 2005 Stenner published a book called The Authoritarian Dynamic, an academic work full of graphs, descriptions of regression analyses, and discussions of scholarly disputes over the nature of authoritarianism. (It therefore has not had a wide readership.) Her core finding is that authoritarianism is not a stable personality trait. It is rather a psychological predisposition to become intolerant when the person perceives a certain kind of threat. It’s as though some people have a button on their foreheads, and when the button is pushed, they suddenly become intensely focused on defending their in-group, kicking out foreigners and non-conformists, and stamping out dissent within the group. At those times they are more attracted to strongmen and the use of force. At other times, when they perceive no such threat, they are not unusually intolerant. So the key is to understand what pushes that button.
[...]
So authoritarians are not being selfish. They are not trying to protect their wallets or even their families. They are trying to protect their group or society. Some authoritarians see their race or bloodline as the thing to be protected, and these people make up the deeply racist subset of right-wing populist movements, including the fringe that is sometimes attracted to neo-Nazism. They would not even accept immigrants who fully assimilated to the culture. But more typically, in modern Europe and America, it is the nation and its culture that nationalists want to preserve.
[...]
So now we can see why immigration—particularly the recent surge in Muslim immigration from Syria—has caused such powerfully polarized reactions in so many European countries, and even in the United States where the number of Muslim immigrants is low. Muslim Middle Eastern immigrants are seen by nationalists as posing a far greater threat of terrorism than are immigrants from any other region or religion. But Stenner invites us to look past the security threat and examine the normative threat. Islam asks adherents to live in ways that can make assimilation into secular egalitarian Western societies more difficult compared to other groups. (The same can be said for Orthodox Jews, and Stenner’s authoritarian dynamic can help explain why we are seeing a resurgence of right-wing anti-Semitism in the United States.) Muslims don’t just observe different customs in their private lives; they often request and receive accommodations in law and policy from their host countries, particularly in matters related to gender. Some of the most pitched battles of recent decades in France and other European countries have been fought over the veiling and covering of women, and the related need for privacy and gender segregation. For example, some public swimming pools in Sweden now offer times of day when only women are allowed to swim. This runs contrary to strong Swedish values regarding gender equality and non-differentiation.

So whether you are a status quo conservative concerned about rapid change or an authoritarian who is hypersensitive to normative threat, high levels of Muslim immigration into your Western nation are likely to threaten your core moral concerns. But as soon as you speak up to voice those concerns, globalists will scorn you as a racist and a rube. When the globalists—even those who run the center-right parties in your country—come down on you like that, where can you turn? The answer, increasingly, is to the far right-wing nationalist parties in Europe, and to Donald Trump, who just engineered a hostile takeover of the Republican Party in America.
[...]
If this argument is correct, then it leads to a clear set of policy prescriptions for globalists. First and foremost: Think carefully about the way your country handles immigration and try to manage it in a way that is less likely to provoke an authoritarian reaction. Pay attention to three key variables: the percentage of foreign-born residents at any given time, the degree of moral difference of each incoming group, and the degree of assimilation being achieved by each group’s children.
[...]
All the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors.

– Det handlar om representation av alla färger, former och funktioner, förklarar Agri Ibrahim, från intresseorganisationen Pride of Color.

Han exemplifierar med att det i videon till årets Pridelåt ”Kärleken är vi”, skriven av Camilla Läckberg och framförd av Evelina Olsén, enbart visas upp kärlek mellan vita människor.

– Den borde heta ”Kärleken är vit”, säger han.

Det är aldrig enkelt att ena människor. Det har också Stockholm Pride fått erfara i år. Vid en incident på Kulturhuset i onsdags visade en rasifierad queerperson upp en skylt med ett antirasistisk budskap för ett antal män som hen ansåg vara rasister. Vakterna såg till att avlägsna hbtq-personen, medan männen fick stanna i lokalen. Något som bland andra Andrés Esteche, ordförande i RFSL Stockholm reagerade starkt på.

– Säkerheten riktades mot queerpersoner som reagerat mot rasister. Detta kommer att få konsekvenser. Om inte vakterna avskedas flyttar vi all vår verksamhet härifrån, förklarade han.

– Stockholm Pride har haft en dialog med olika inblandade aktörer under gårdagen och i dag för att lyssna och samtala om hur trygga rum ytterligare kan säkerställas i framtiden, skriver han i ett sms till SvD.

Andrés Esteche berättar om den rädsla han och andra hbtq-personer lever med. Om utsattheten och hur det känns att bli hatad. Att trakasserierna från den svenska extremhögern fortsätter och att alltsammans dessutom eskalerat efter attacken mot en gayklubb i Orlando, Florida, då 49 människor fick sätta livet till.

Ett samhälle som formas av trummor och visselpipor kan bara förändras åt ett håll. Där idiotin tillåts regera blir det alltid fel och en medveten självmordsdans gör aldrig saken bättre. Alla kommer att lida i slutänden på ett eller annat sätt. Varför sker spektaklet Stockholm pride och varför är stödet från etablissemanget inklusive samtliga riksdagspartier reservationslös? Vad är syftet egentligen?
/.../
Hbtq-rörelsen vill i sin kulturbolsjevikiska aspekt ändra mentaliteten, tankeverksamheten och självbilden hos en befolkning som redan befinner sig i en allvarlig identitetskris mitt i en hotande omvärldssituation. Sätt situationen i perspektiv av en utsatt befolkning i ett land som koloniseras av främlingar och som blir förrådda av sina politiska ledare, som saknar militär kapacitet och som lyder under EU och den globala finansmarknaden.

Pay attention to three key variables: the percentage of foreign-born residents at any given time, the degree of moral difference of each incoming group, and the degree of assimilation being achieved by each group’s children.

But whenever a country has historically high levels of immigration, from countries with very different moralities, and without a strong and successful assimilationist program, it is virtually certain that there will be an authoritarian counter-reaction, and you can expect many status quo conservatives to support it.

All the available evidence indicates that exposure to difference, talking about difference, and applauding difference—the hallmarks of liberal democracy—are the surest ways to aggravate those who are innately intolerant, and to guarantee the increased expression of their predispositions in manifestly intolerant attitudes and behaviors. Paradoxically, then, it would seem that we can best limit intolerance of difference by parading, talking about, and applauding our sameness…. Ultimately, nothing inspires greater tolerance from the intolerant than an abundance of common and unifying beliefs, practices, rituals, institutions, and processes. And regrettably, nothing is more certain to provoke increased expression of their latent predispositions than the likes of “multicultural education,” bilingual policies, and nonassimilation.

If the story I have told here is correct, then the globalists could easily speak, act, and legislate in ways that drain passions and votes away from nationalist parties, but this would require some deep rethinking about the value of national identities and cohesive moral communities. It would require abandoning the multicultural approach to immigration and embracing assimilation.

The great question for Western nations after 2016 may be this: How do we reap the gains of global cooperation in trade, culture, education, human rights, and environmental protection while respecting—rather than diluting or crushing—the world’s many local, national, and other “parochial” identities, each with its own traditions and moral order? In what kind of world can globalists and nationalists live together in peace?

De är frustrerade. De är övergivna. De är oroade. Så låter det ofta när Trump talar om "folket". Oavsett om det är medvetet eller inte har Trump kommit att bli en identitetspolitiker för de vita.

Årets tema – ”Vem bestämmer?” – har orsakat diskussioner om den sexuella maktordningen, vad som egentligen är en familj och även ifrågasatt normerna i den egna communityn.

Mycket har syftat till att synliggöra alla grupper under hbtq-paraplyet, även de som saknar en egen bokstav, som de asexuella, inter- eller pansexuella. Och samtidigt lyfta alla dem som känner sig bekväma med fler än en bokstav, med olika hudfärger och kulturella identiteter.

– Det handlar om representation av alla färger, former och funktioner, förklarar Agri Ibrahim, från intresseorganisationen Pride of Color.

Vid en incident på Kulturhuset i onsdags visade en rasifierad queerperson upp en skylt med ett antirasistisk budskap för ett antal män som hen ansåg vara rasister. Vakterna såg till att avlägsna hbtq-personen, medan männen fick stanna i lokalen. Något som bland andra Andrés Esteche, ordförande i RFSL Stockholm reagerade starkt på.
– Säkerheten riktades mot queerpersoner som reagerat mot rasister. Detta kommer att få konsekvenser. Om inte vakterna avskedas flyttar vi all vår verksamhet härifrån, förklarade han.

På fredagen träffades representanter för Stockholms stad och RFSL. Christian Valtersson, ordförande i Stockholm Pride, säger att man velat reda ut vad som inträffade under incidenten på onsdagen.

– Stockholm Pride har haft en dialog med olika inblandade aktörer under gårdagen och i dag för att lyssna och samtala om hur trygga rum ytterligare kan säkerställas i framtiden, skriver han i ett sms till SvD.