Början på ett mediakrig om mångkulturen?

Det anmärkningsvärda är inte vad alla talar om när krisen är ett faktum utan vilka mekanismer som omöjliggör en initierad diskussion långt innan den ens riskerar att uppstå.

För populister är [det] en demokratisk styggelse, att folkets vilja .. negligeras eller motarbetas av jurister, byråkrater och ekonomer som saknar demokratiskt mandat.

För liberaler är tvärtom denna ordning beviset för att demokratin fungerar.

I en liberal demokrati utgör nämligen majoritetsprincipen bara en av de pelare på vilken demokratin vilar ..

Ursprungligen postat av Tobias Hübinette
Maja Hagerman i @DNKultur om extremhögerns och högerpopulismens dominans i den digitala världen & i sociala medier..

Ursprungligen postat av Björn Wiman
Så formas en ny nationalism – och svenskarna måste välja väg. Starkt av @MAJAHAG i @DNKultur

Ursprungligen postat av Delmi [Delegationen för migrationsstudier]
Maja Hagerman: Så formas en ny nationalism – och svenskarna måste välja väg

Among the younger generation, progressivism is flexing its muscles as well. Here’s a short list of people who have felt the effects by being rejected from the sphere of respectability. Universities in particular have experienced shifting norms. The “safe space” ideology, which prizes tolerance and acceptance above dissent and argument, has caused politicians like Ayaan Hirsi Ali to be blocked from speaking on campuses, which should now be safe spaces in and of themselves. But political activism does not a memeplex make. After all, the point of a dominant memeplex is that it is accepted by society at large. The Millennial generation is probably the best example of what happens when progressive values become the new norms. Millennials have a tendency to be apolitical, but as a whole are extremely socially progressive. If you reflect those values, most Millennials will support your actions. If you don’t, most Millennials won’t. If Millennials are roused to action by conservative attacks on our rights (birth control), but acquiesce to progressive ones (banning speakers with the wrong opinions), which side will win out? Not even God is immune. This might be the defining force which has allowed the ideologies above to override concerns about “free speech” or “open debate”.

This is where neoreaction asks an uncomfortable question: what happened to all that freedom?

After all, the goal of liberalism was to create a society where freedom of thought and expression was encouraged. Wasn’t that the point? Weren’t we meant to be beyond having the state impose its values on people? Wasn’t questioning orthodoxy something to be celebrated? With the memeplex idea, it’s easier to understand the shift. When a memeplex becomes culturally dominant, it becomes more and more difficult to empathize with those who disagree with it. After all, those who think or act differently from the memeplex are bad. Now, when society is divided 50-50 between those who believe in traditional Christian morality and those who don’t, each side has a choice: demonize half the population or just say “fine, but you shouldn’t impose that on other people”. If only 5% of the population believes that premarital sex is sinful or that valid marriage must occur between heterosexuals, then it’s easier to demonize them for holding the belief at all even when they pose no threat. When hippies were a derided minority, social progressives believed in freedom of speech at a cultural level, not just a political one. After all, it’s no fun getting fired because you want the troops back from Vietnam. But in our day, progressive rhetoric has changed. Now the goal is to restrict where free speech should apply to the legal minimum. In other words, as a memeplex becomes dominant, freedom becomes less important and uniformity increases. As it becomes institutionalized, it’s necessary to agree with the memeplex in order to be respectable. Even parents face these questions. Parts of the Chinese community in Vancouver have opposed cultural progressive influences in schools. The position of the schools is that children have to learn about things like LGBT issues somehow. The hidden assumption is that these programs will help them learn the right mindset. The good mindset. The mindset of decent and respectable people. Someone’s orthodoxy has to win out.

This is what neoreactionaries mean when we say that social progressivism acts as a religion. As time goes on, certain memes triumph in the culture wars. The first shift in attitudes is slow. The sexual revolution faced tremendous cultural barriers and it took decades to see values change. Gay marriage, on the other hand, was first legalized in 2001 in the Netherlands; only 13 years later it is anathema to oppose it. We live in an age where this paradigm now informs the values of our generation. Its fundamental claims of equality and personal freedom are more or less unquestioned. It informs our actions as well. To support the next big Cause is good, and proof of your tolerance and open-mindedness. To practice a religion with traditional values is acceptable so long as you don’t contradict the overarching narrative. To actually challenge that narrative is something only bigots, reactionaries, and basement dwelling virgins do. (As an aside, a good rule of thumb about what beliefs are respectable is to see which shaming language is okay to use.)

On the “dark web,” an area of the internet that requires special software and authorization codes to enter, suspected Russian hackers openly offer to plant evidence of pedophilia as a way to destroy an enemy.

“I’ll do anything for money,” promised an advertisement placed by a hacker who offered to ruin “your opponents, business or private persons you don’t like. I can ruin them financially and or get them arrested, whatever you like.” Boasting that it was possible to destroy both individuals and businesses, the hacker added, “If you want someone to get known as a child porn user, no problem.” He gave a price, denominated in Bitcoins, of around $600 per job. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/09/wo...rity.html?_r=0

Nej, Sverige kommer inte vara ett U-land år 2030

Uppgiften har cirkulerat i nästan fyra år. På blogg efter blogg har missnöjda patrioter trumpetat ut den braskande rubriken: Sverige faller i FN:s tabell över länder med hög levnadsstandard, och år 2030 kommer vi vara ett U-land.

​Senast är det ett inlägg på den konspiratoriska bloggen speisa.com som fått enorm cirkulation, 17 000 interaktioner på Facebook enligt Sharedcount.com.

”Enligt FN:s prognoser kommer Sverige vara ett mycket fattigare land år 2030, i långt värre skick än någon i den svenska regeringen vill medge”, skriver speisa.com och fortsätter: ”Sveriges vänsteretablissemang och media tycker att en grundpelare i det perfekta samhället är multikulturalism. (…) Svenskar som säger emot detta riskerar att kallas rasister, fascister, ja, till och med nazister.”
[...]
Så att det är fel att säga att Sverige kommer bli ett U-land år 2030?

– Det är uppenbart felaktigt, och en total feltolkning av rapporten, säger Beth Daponte till Viralgranskaren.