Your Ad Here
2013 February 13 Wednesday
The False Assumption Of Common Cultural Glue

Muslim Patrols are carving out Muslim areas in British cities where you better not act in un-Muslim ways (say wear a skirt rather than a total tent). Jane Kelly is leaving London because she says "I feel like a stranger where I live". From Norway Jens-Martin Eriksen and Frederik Stjernfelt say Multiculturalism has created separate societies within the same territory.

Last summer, the director of Norway’s Trondheim Museum of Art, Pontus Kyander, decided that the museum should no longer fly the Norwegian flag. He argued that a nation’s flag is no longer a collective symbol that unites all citizens. On the contrary, it was divisive—rallying only ethnic Norwegians and Christians, while excluding the country’s newer inhabitants, who often profess a different faith. Kyander suggested that other symbols must be found, which could unite people across religions, ethnicities, cultures, and nationalities.

What if no common cultural glue exists? Ask the fans of multiculturalism.

What if Kyander is right that no common cultural glue exists, not only in Norway, but also in other European countries—and they eventually break up into separate nations, no longer defined by territory, but by religious and moral values? In such split societies, the original populations would live with their customs and norms, separated from others—usually Muslim immigrants—who inhabit a world of their own. What symbol could incarnate the values that keep such distinct communities together? And what kind of community, if any, is left in a multiculturalist society that no longer shares culture, religion, nationality, or language?

In Sydney Australia A Muslim housing development is planned.

Birmingham England is no longer British. Read the comments at that page.

Share |      By Randall Parker at 2013 February 13 09:05 PM 


Comments
Mthson said at February 13, 2013 11:09 PM:

I suspect the Scandinavians with the strongest temperaments left long ago as Vikings, same as that the bravest Englishmen left for the colonies.

The only ones who are left are the descendants of the guys who stayed home to weave with the womenfolk.


Watch The 13th Warrior to see what Scandinavians were like before they turned into a society run by the pusillanimous.

Horrific Prophet said at February 13, 2013 11:32 PM:


The article about Birmingham says that in that neighborhoods Muslims "can exist without any contact" with the non-Muslim secular society.

So be it. But note carefully that without the generous welfare support from the British taxpayers, they would not have been able to avoid any contact with the rest of the society (i.e. without giving anything in return for the taxpayer support).

The key event will be this: at some point, even the Scandinavians will refuse to continue providing their taxable income support those who give nothing in return. This may happen within a few decades, and at that precise moment, a major civil war would follow.

SOBL1 said at February 14, 2013 5:23 AM:

....but we can't ever mention Enoch Powell and the wrods 'correct' or 'right' without first spending two paragraphs saying how his speech made everyone upset and causes pain to even bring up. It causes stress to the media and left since Powell was right and represented a large number of Brits.

chris said at February 14, 2013 6:09 AM:

"I suspect the Scandinavians with the strongest temperaments left long ago as Vikings, same as that the bravest Englishmen left for the colonies.

The only ones who are left are the descendants of the guys who stayed home to weave with the womenfolk."

On the plus side feminism means only the most aggressive and testosterone-charged of men get the women and so in the future the Scandinavians might produce more vikings, (assuming it is the most aggressive and testosterone-charged of the Scandinavians that get all the women.)

James Bowery said at February 14, 2013 8:20 AM:

https://www.google.com/search?q=scandinavia+rape

JayMan said at February 14, 2013 12:14 PM:

@Mthson:

"I suspect the Scandinavians with the strongest temperaments left long ago as Vikings, same as that the bravest Englishmen left for the colonies.
The only ones who are left are the descendants of the guys who stayed home to weave with the womenfolk."

If that were true, the places that received the colonists (Iceland in the case of Vikings, The U.S. and Canada in the case of British settlers) would be aggressive and anti-foreigner. They clearly aren't.

NW Europeans are today different from their medieval ancestors because of evolution. See here, here and here.

Mthson said at February 14, 2013 2:58 PM:

Jayman,

I think selective pressure in migrations is likely to be one of many factors here. It's similar to Richard Lynn's suggestion in Race Differences in Intelligence that when given a choice, smarter Jews chose to emmigrate to the US rather than Israel, and that's one of the reasons Jewish Americans have a higher average IQ than Jewish Israelis.


All whites might be softer today than their ancestors, but Scandinavians are some of the softest white people in the world. And Brit youth are mostly either very soft, or uniquely chav-like in a way that's hard to find in the colonies. Chavs (classless hooligans who stab people in pubs) are probably the descendants of the Brits who were poor but didn't have enough imagination to pursue adventure and better opportunities in the colonies.

Contrast Scandinavia with this apparently middle-class, non-hooligan Aussie kid punching through a windshield with his bare hands, and then raging again days later when confronted by journalists. There's nobody like that in Scandinavia, where everybody is on the opposite side of the spectrum, in the "just rape the women and leave us alone" genetic group.

This is consistent with Australia greater resistance against low-IQ-immigration national decline, even if they're still losing the battle. We don't have data for this selective migration argument, but it would be testable with the right studies.

Tom said at February 14, 2013 3:46 PM:

"Scandinavians are some of the softest white people in the world"

Except Anders Breivik is Scandinavian. I don't see how you can say that Scandinavians are the "softest white people in the world" when there's been nothing comparable to Breivik in other white countries.

Tom said at February 14, 2013 4:10 PM:

To claim that people are "soft" in the context of overwhelming political, legal, police, military force arrayed against them is bizarre. If you're completely surrounded by an enemy army, not engaging the army is not a sign of "softness". It's a matter of practical strategy.

When such overwhelming force is suspended or made non-viable, such as during natural disasters, different strategies are possible. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, white men in New Orleans were able to hunt blacks:

http://www.thenation.com/article/katrinas-hidden-race-war

James said at February 14, 2013 4:43 PM:

A flag with no offensive symbols or colors would be plain white. It is no accident that this is the flag of surrender.

Tom said at February 14, 2013 5:24 PM:

"If that were true, the places that received the colonists (Iceland in the case of Vikings, The U.S. and Canada in the case of British settlers) would be aggressive and anti-foreigner. They clearly aren't.

NW Europeans are today different from their medieval ancestors because of evolution."

Except lynching, race riots, anti-busing riots, anti-integration sentiment, anti-immigration sentiment, etc. existed in recent memory. And anti-immigration sentiment still persists. Whites have consistently expressed that they are against immigration.

To claim otherwise and to claim that this is due to "evolution" is absurd. What has really happened is that overwhelming political, legal, police, military force have been arrayed against such sentiment and kept them suppressed. And they've been diverted to approved outlets such as being against "Islamism" and killing people overseas in the "War on Terror".

Check it Out said at February 14, 2013 6:30 PM:

Money and high living standards tend to keep a society glued even if is culturally or ethnically diverse. I don't see how we can make somebody become ethnically different, however I do agree that religions divide within a nation so I think we should start by banning all forms of public religious practices, rituals and ceremonies, if humans still can't get rid of toxic dogma and faith.

shiva1008 said at February 14, 2013 6:50 PM:

> On the plus side feminism means only the most aggressive and testosterone-charged of men get the women and so in the future the Scandinavians might produce more vikings, (assuming it is the most aggressive and testosterone-charged of the Scandinavians that get all the women.)

Extroversion is a better predictor of mating success than masculinity. There are many effeminate types of guys who are successful with women. A typical blue collar, or paleoconservative white collar, high-T guy can be off-putting to women if he doesn't buy into their liberal conventions. There may be some primal attraction there, but if they can't get past the social interface then it's a no-go.

JayMan said at February 14, 2013 7:47 PM:

@Mthson:

"Contrast Scandinavia with this apparently middle-class, non-hooligan Aussie kid punching through a windshield with his bare hands, and then raging again days later when confronted by journalists. There's nobody like that in Scandinavia, where everybody is on the opposite side of the spectrum, in the "just rape the women and leave us alone" genetic group.

This is consistent with Australia greater resistance against low-IQ-immigration national decline, even if they're still losing the battle. We don't have data for this selective migration argument, but it would be testable with the right studies."

Australia received a large share of Celtic Britons, who, being more inbred, were a lot less like the outbred Germanics.

JayMan said at February 14, 2013 7:52 PM:

@Tom:

"Except lynching, race riots, anti-busing riots, anti-integration sentiment, anti-immigration sentiment, etc. existed in recent memory. And anti-immigration sentiment still persists. Whites have consistently expressed that they are against immigration.

To claim otherwise and to claim that this is due to 'evolution' is absurd."

It is (in good part) due to evolution. Those things happened in the American South, which was populated by more inbred, clannish people that in the Old North (see Albion's Seed, or the upcoming post I'm writing on the topic).

Tom said at February 14, 2013 8:16 PM:

"It is (in good part) due to evolution. Those things happened in the American South, which was populated by more inbred, clannish people that in the Old North (see Albion's Seed, or the upcoming post I'm writing on the topic)."

No, this isn't true. The North was more racialist and anti-immigration. Anti-immigration legislation such as the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was spearhead by Northerners. Racialism, social Darwinism, eugenics, Nordicism, etc. were popular in the North.

The difference is that the North was suppressed earlier than the South was. Immigrants took over Northern urban political machines.

SOBL1 said at February 14, 2013 9:15 PM:

@Tom - Spot on comments (tennis crowd clap). Jayman obviously hadn't read de Tocqueville's commentary on how racist Northerners were despite the close to zero presence of blacks in 1830. Jayman might be going to college in Boston, so maybe he can ask around if there were some anti-busing riots there in the '70s. I heard there might be TV newsreels of how insane it was. Might be something there for him to do a study on, maybe run some genetic testing of the rioters.

Jayman, maybe you need to step back a second before you respond as it sounds like you are as committed to your belief being the answer to anything as much as the blank slaters are. Reflexively invoking genes at every turn is just like blank slaters continuously finding new environmental and social excuses for scial dysfunction and poor academic performance.

chris said at February 14, 2013 9:57 PM:

"Extroversion is a better predictor of mating success than masculinity. There are many effeminate types of guys who are successful with women. A typical blue collar, or paleoconservative white collar, high-T guy can be off-putting to women if he doesn't buy into their liberal conventions. There may be some primal attraction there, but if they can't get past the social interface then it's a no-go."

The modern mating lek is the nightclub and bar. Effeminate types don't do well there.

Peter the Shark said at February 15, 2013 3:46 AM:

"If that were true, the places that received the colonists (Iceland in the case of Vikings, The U.S. and Canada in the case of British settlers) would be aggressive and anti-foreigner"

Except the most agressive Vikings didn't go to Iceland to be sheep farmers - they carved out kingdoms for themselves in places like Northern England, Normandy, Sicily and Kievan Rus. Certainly the Normans, and their direct descendants the English aristocracy, stayed very aggressive for centuries until the gene pools became too diluted. The same is true of the Russian nobility.

JayMan said at February 15, 2013 8:44 AM:

@Tom:

"'It is (in good part) due to evolution. Those things happened in the American South, which was populated by more inbred, clannish people that in the Old North (see Albion's Seed, or the upcoming post I'm writing on the topic).'

No, this isn't true."

What, specifically, do you mean by "this"? If you're trying to contradict me, please be clear on what, exactly, you're arguing.

My point is that the broad differences between White Americans in different parts of the country, particular with regard to how they respond to non-Whites, has something to do with differences in the founding stock of these places. If you are arguing otherwise, you have a rather large hill to climb.

"The North was more racialist and anti-immigration. Anti-immigration legislation such as the Johnson-Reed Act of 1924 was spearhead by Northerners."

Johnson and Reed were congressmen in the North, but are you sure of their ancestry? Both seem to come from Scotch-Irish strongholds...

"Racialism, social Darwinism, eugenics, Nordicism, etc. were popular in the North."

Yankees, the descendants of the Puritans, long held xenophobic attitudes and viewed themselves to be superior to others (which, in many ways, they still do today). This doesn't demonstrate that there aren't significant differences between them and American Southerners.

"The difference is that the North was suppressed earlier than the South was. Immigrants took over Northern urban political machines."

Nope.

JayMan said at February 15, 2013 8:58 AM:

@SOBL1:

"Jayman, maybe you need to step back a second before you respond as it sounds like you are as committed to your belief being the answer to anything as much as the blank slaters are. Reflexively invoking genes at every turn is just like blank slaters continuously finding new environmental and social excuses for scial dysfunction and poor academic performance."

All human behavioral traits are heritable. Where else should I start?

It's amazing how HBD'ers condemn those who deny the implications of evolution when it comes to humans yet fail to recognize these same realities when it contradicts their worldview.

"Jayman obviously hadn't read de Tocqueville's commentary on how racist Northerners were despite the close to zero presence of blacks in 1830."

See above about the xenophobic nature of the Puritans.

SOBL1 said at February 15, 2013 9:24 AM:

I'm not denying HBD, but Tom's comments are valid and seem more big picture than just knee jerk spouting genetic stuff at each turn. I'm a nature has more of an effect than nurture guy (like 75% na vs. 35% nu), and I read your post. I'm pretty sure this part leaves me OK as your 2nd law leaves door open for some nurture but shows it has a small effect that is lower than the genetic component.

"2.Second Law. The effect of being raised in the same family is smaller than the effect of genes.
3.Third Law. A substantial portion of the variation in complex human behavioral traits is not accounted for by the effects of genes or families."

So some human behavior is not accounted for in the genes.

JayMan said at February 15, 2013 9:45 AM:

@SOBL1:

"So some human behavior is not accounted for in the genes."

Some of the variation in human behavior is not accounted for by the genes. It's important to be clear on this point.

"I'm not denying HBD, but Tom's comments are valid and seem more big picture than just knee jerk spouting genetic stuff at each turn."

The reality of HBD means that differences between human groups separated by time and/or space, even groups of the same race in the same country may (and almost always do) have something to do with genes. Note that something to do with genes is very different from everything to do with genes. Often (as I noted in my post), people view heredity as an "all or nothing" enterprise when it's far from this.

SOBL1 said at February 15, 2013 10:01 AM:

I forgot to put on my autistic lawyer cap, but yes, I meant the variation on behavior across different groups of people.

Tom said at February 15, 2013 5:43 PM:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA78#v=onepage&q&f=false

Patrician Anti-Semitism

"For the New England brahmins, the Jew served as a symbol of the greed and corruption of the new order. By assailing Jews, they attacked the industrialists, financiers, and railroad barons who were displacing them in the nation's political and economic life. This fear was expressed in a stream of anti-Semitic writings and speeches on the part of New England's leading public figures and intellectuals during the late nineteenth century."

...

"These themes were echoed by other New England patricians, including Henry James who used Jewish characters to symbolize greed and the decline of society. Similarly, Henry Adams's brother, Brooks, in his 1896 work, The Law of Civilization and Decay, demonstrated that throughout history Jews had used their money and financial acumen as instruments of exploitation, domination, and oppression. In the United States and Britain, productive industrial capitalism had been replaced by parasitic finance capitalism, symbolized by the Jewish usurer. This became a common theme in the literary and scholarly works of the New England patricians and other upper-class intellectuals. The Jew was attacked as the representative of a materialistic society with no values or culture."

Immigration Restriction

"From the patrician perspective, not only was the Jew was a symbol of the corruption of America's new ruling class, but the Jew symbolized the decay of American values in another was as well. To the patricians, Jewish immigrants, along with other newcomers from Southern and Eastern Europe, represented a threat to American culture, society, and the Anglo-Saxon race."

...

"One major vehicle for this aspect of the patrician attack on the industrialist regime was the Immigration Restriction League. The League was founded in 1894 by a trio of New England bluebloods - Charles Warren, Robert Ward, and Prescott Farnsworth Hall - and a group of their Harvard classmates. The League quickly promoted the creation of affiliates throughout the nation, often making use of the Harvard alumni network and other organizations of transplanted New Englanders."

...

"Among the League's most important intellectual spokesman was Edward Ross, one of the pioneers of American sociology. In his widely read 1914 work, The Old World and the New, Ross explains the importance of protecting Anglo-Saxon Americanism against pollution through immigration."

Populist-Patrician Alliance?

"The initial support for immigration restriction was provided mainly by the political spokesman of the Northeastern upper classes. However, the vague outlines of an alliance began to develop around the issue of immigration--and on opposition to the industrialist order more generally--between the Brahmins and the political representatives of the South and rural West."

...

"For a brief moment at the turn of the century, what might have seemed to be an improbable alliance between agrarian radicals and patricians, an American coalition of the top and bottom, was a possibility. The two groups were divided by an enormous cultural chasm, but, nevertheless, shared a common hatred for the new capitalist order and the forces that it was bringing to power. "

Tom said at February 15, 2013 5:52 PM:

Urban political machines and a new progressive state attacked and displaced the WASP elite in the North and imposed its views before spreading to the rest of the country:

http://books.google.com/books?id=FHgM9NjYQ6EC&lpg=PP1&pg=PA91#v=onepage&q&f=false

"The political system that had emerged in the United States at the turn of the century was one that deprived Jews of access to economic and political power and to social standing. Not surprisingly, Jews were attracted to political movements that opposed that regime. Working-class Jews espoused socialism. Many middle- and upper-class Jews, on the other hand, supported Progressivism. The Progressives were a heterogeneous group of politicians that included diverse individuals as Robert LaFollette of Wisconsin, Hiram Johnson of California, Albert Cummins of Iowa, William U'Ren of Oregon, Woodrow Wilson of New Jersey, and Theodore Roosevelt of New York, tied together by a network of organizations such as the National Municipal League and publications such as the National Municipal Review.

As Martin Shefter has noted, Progressives were united less by ideology than by a common place in the political system. In the wake of the election of 1896, the great majority of states and the national government, as well, came to be governed by one-party systems. The Progressive movement linked politicians who found their careers blocked by the leadership of the dominant party, with groups and forces that did not enjoy the favor of or access to the locally dominant party - shippers in states where that party was tied to a railroad, firms that sold in national markets in cities where the party machine was tied to businesses that sold in local markets, and so forth."

...

"Because it not only attacked a regime that excluded them but also advocated the principles of merit, rule by experts, and careers open to talent, and sought the creation of a powerful state that could enforce these norms, Jews supported the Progressive movement."

ErisGuy said at February 16, 2013 4:00 AM:

If Kyander is representative of Norway’s people and government, then “Norway” (an obsolete symbol) will richly deserve whatever happens to it. I hope to celebrate when that day comes. And before you reply: remember, I want for Kyander and his people what they want for themselves. We divide only on whether it is good (his opinion) or bad (my opinion).

rob said at February 19, 2013 4:00 PM:

Tom, interesting book there. I love Ginsberg's insinuation that while other Progressives were just greedy social climbers looking for power, Jewish Progressives were in because of their commitment to "principles of merit, rule by experts, and careers open to talent." Very Jewish. Even when they try self-examination they're hilariously bad it.


Post a comment
Comments:
Name (not anon or anonymous):
Email Address:
URL:
Remember info?

      
 
Web parapundit.com
Go Read More Posts On ParaPundit
Site Traffic Info
The contents of this site are copyright ©