Friday 11 January 2019

Fanning The Flames.

F.Anning Discontent: Far-Right politicians like Fraser Anning (above right) are highly-skilled at exploiting racially charged narratives, such as Melbourne's "African Gangs" controversy, to broaden the appeal of Conservative Australia’s anti-immigrant crusade.

FRASER ANNING is one of those political figures who populate the periphery of politics in liberal-democratic states. Opportunistic, scornful of political norms, hard to frighten or shame, the Fraser Annings of this world are frighteningly well-adapted to the politics of cultural resentment and fear. Had the Independent Senator for Queensland been born in late-Nineteenth Century Italy or Germany – instead of mid-Twentieth Century Australia – he  would, almost certainly, have been drawn to Benito Mussolini’s Fascisti or Adolf Hitler’s Nazis.

As it is, he has won notoriety as the sometime ally of leading right-wing Australian politicians Pauline Hanson and Bob Katter. It says something about the man that his current status as an “independent” is largely attributable to even these far-from-moderate parliamentarians finding Anning’s views too extreme – even for them. (Hardly surprising when, in his maiden speech to the Australian Senate, Anning talked about a “final solution” to Australia’s “immigration problem”!)

Anning’s latest provocation was to attend (at the Australian taxpayers’ expense) a United Patriots Front (UPF) rally held in the Melbourne seaside suburb of St Kilda. The UPF is at the extreme end of an ongoing campaign by Australian conservatives (up to and including the ruling Liberal Party) to secure more rigorous policing of the so-called “African Gangs” said to be terrorising Melbourne citizens. The African “gangsters” singled out for particular condemnation by the Right are almost all refugees and/or the children of refugees from war-torn South Sudan.

United Patriots Front leader, Blair Cottrell, addresses anti-immigrant rally at St Kilda Beach, Melbourne, 5 January 2019.

The Right’s fixation on Victoria’s tiny Sudanese community is largely explicable in terms of the extraordinary lengths to which the state’s left-leaning government has gone to minimise the impact (or even the existence) of the “African Gang” problem.

Just how strongly the Left felt about the issue was demonstrated by the noisy protest which took place outside the offices and studios of Channel 7 Melbourne in July 2018. The protesters were incensed by Channel 7’s current affairs show, Sunday Night’s, alleged “race-baiting” coverage of the issue.

The item’s promo was certainly provocative:

“Barely a week goes by when they’re not in the news. African gangs running riot, terrorising, wreaking havoc. Police are hesitant to admit there’s even a problem. The latest attack was just days ago, so what can be done?”

The Left’s response played directly into the Australian Right’s deeply embedded narrative of a culturally-deracinated cosmopolitan elite hellbent on dissolving Australia’s European heritage in a multicultural melting-pot. So powerful is this “progressive” elite said to be that it has the power to suppress coverage of anything which runs counter to the multicultural ideal – even when this activity involves “African gangs running riot, terrorising, wreaking havoc”.

Far-Right politicians like Anning are highly-skilled at exploiting this narrative to broaden the appeal of Conservative Australia’s anti-immigrant crusade. Their job is made easier when even the Right’s bette noir, the publicly-owned (and allegedly left-wing) Australian Broadcasting Corporation, acknowledges that “the Sudanese offender rate is six times higher than their population share”.

Last weekend’s UPF St Kilda rally – itself inspired by the Victorian Police’s decision to prevent UPF leader, Blair Cottrell, from recording the activity of Sudanese youths on the beach – provided Anning with a brown-shirted opportunity to promote his anti-immigrant message by doing little more than simply turning-up.

Cottrell and Anning would have known that, from the moment it was announced on social media, the rally would attract large numbers of left-wing “anti-fascists”, journalists and police. Inevitably, the news media would make a bee-line for the right-wing Queensland Senator and, equally inevitably, he would be ready with a sound-bite:

“There was no racist rally,” Anning informed the news media. “There were decent Australian people who demonstrated their dislike for what the Australian government has done which has allowed these people to come into this country and then bash people at random on the beaches, in their homes.”

Inner-city Melburnians were suitably shocked at this eruption of right-wing extremism on their favourite beach. But, in small-town Australia, in the Bush, Anning’s words would have struck a very different note.

In this setting, Anning, scion of a Queensland farming family notorious for its bloody appropriations of Aboriginal land, could be confident of loud choruses of approval. It’s what the Left knows, but cannot understand. That racism is as Australian as Cricket at the MCG. As welcome as a cold tinny on an incendiary afternoon at St Kilda Beach.

This essay was originally published in The Otago Daily Times and The Greymouth Star of Friday, 11 January 2019.


Guerilla Surgeon said...

"That racism is as Australian as Cricket at the MCG. As welcome as a cold tinny on an incendiary afternoon at St Kilda Beach."

And in New Zealand, often just as welcome – just preceded by a "but". :)

Nick J said...

There's something very Australian about this fellow. I've lived there, constantly visit the place. To see the truth a visit away from the cities into the vastness of a continent is instructive.

Out back race relations still work upon a strict divide, preferably if you are white Aussies the "bungs" are seventh class citizens. The cultural divide is huge but the will to close it is wider. There is no Treaty, few families have "about" blood in the way a large slice of NZ has Maori genes.

Comparing Anning to a European fascist, or alt-Right doesn't ride well with me, he is a real genuine colonial throwback. And outside of the cities he is common as.

aberfoyle said...

Well yes,remember a saying in the seventies,scratch an Aussie,they will bleed South Afrikana!s blood.

The Liberal!s being scorched by their internal leaders continuous shuffling,like this right wing white fright have continued to, not hold back,but push further to their form of hand washed aparthied,using law and order of imported immigrants expulsion for crimes either terrorist or more disconcerting serving a jail term of one year or more.So their opposition mainly like here, the Labor bourgeois,are taking the moral humanitarian high ground in their attacking their opposition.Though this right wing Indi will swing more votes for the Liberals that how many leadership changes.

Anonymous said...

So, you acknowledge that the media is lying about the crime rate of African immigrants?

Unknown said...

In 1986 neoliberal Roger Douglas opened up our doors to every Tom, Dick and Harry and every Tom, Dick and Harry turned up.

Native New Zealanders benefited by getting a broader range of ethnic eateries. But that is the only benefit I can see, and I challenge anyone to name one other.

The problem is nothing will be done about mass migration to New Zealand because the right like the appearance of economic growth and the left are diehard multiculturalists.

Patricia said...

I was in the Australian outback in 1967 when the aborigines were given the vote. I have never forgotten the violent, yes violent, anger expressed by the whites. It was unbelievable. No reasoning was possible. I often wondered whether their views were the same when women were given the vote.

Brendan McNeill said...


I can understand your instinctive dislike for Fraser Anning, yet I wonder if he is simply a product of those Melbourne politicians and community leaders who embrace the progressive multicultural creed, and who are determined to ignore its more obvious failures?

Sudanese immigrants or their children are over represented in various crimes including home invasions, car-jackings and mob violence in Melbourne. Is it fair or reasonable to describe someone who points this out as a ‘brown shirt’? To label those who publicly express concern about these events as ‘far right extremists’?

Is it possible that depositing thousands of Sudanese immigrants into the suburbs of Dandenong, Nobel Park, Springvale and Doveton has the potential to transform them into something that best resembles Sudan more than suburban Australia? Was anyone in these suburbs given the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted this multicultural experiment to take place in their back yard, or was it just imposed upon them?

Yes, Fraser Anning may be stoking ‘fear of the other’ which is not going to be part of the solution. But what is the solution? If a group of immigrants establish a reputation for violent behaviour, having a dislike or fear of them is not entirely irrational or misplaced.

To dismiss residents concerns as racism is an attempt to delegitimise them. That doesn’t seem like a constructive solution either.

John Hurley said...

P58 Kill or be killed

John Hurley said...

Australia once had a white Australia policy. New Zealand was largely the same. Decades later when we vie for "most diverse" and are told "90% want a multicultural society" people like GS and Taika Hows your father can't stop saying "racists as". Why did we bother? The truth is multiculturalism was the left big mistake. The left thing evolutionary psychology is "junk science"

Frank Salter says:
Ethnocentrism is not a White disorder and evidence is emerging that immigrant communities harbour invidious attitude towards Anglo Australians, disparaging their culture and the legitimacy of their central place in national identity.[xxiii]

Young women of Latin and Turkish origin living in Melbourne find it hard to see any Australian culture. Some see a vacuum; others see a bland milieu populated with ‘average-looking’ people. In contrast, they feel that their own migrant cultures are strong. They ‘get through more’. If there is any Australian culture it is, in their opinion, losing ground to migrant cultures.

Larry Mitchell said...

We see Aussies as our brothers and cobbers ... Not!

Australia has. over the last two decades developed an increasingly strident nationalistic jingoism ... and that's not just for their cricket team.

A Big Brother/Little Brother affection by Kiwi's for their antipodean neighbours has been replaced with our realisation that by and large Australians are a bunch of self centred mean spirited bozos.

It may seem a trite example but for years now in trans tasman sporting contests between Aus/Kiwi teams, Australian officials and referees will never give lil brother an even break. They beat upon us, ask any Warrior supporter.

But it is in matters involving race where the gulf between us is greatest. While Waitangi Treaty fairness has flourished here, Australia is still at the largely symbolic "saying sorry" stage in its treatment of their indigenous people.

Their lip service plays against our structural embedded attempts to materially improve the lot of the Maori.

Disappointing really and a sign of their basic national immaturity and misguided airs of superiority.

Time they grew up and adopted a more responsible leadership role in our region, particularly now with us both facing the emergence of Chinese hegemony "down South".

greywarbler said...

White rapaciousness is how it is seen these days by those owning the truth. The lower classes from one society, don't feel fellowship with the ordinary people of another society when invading or colonising. They have risen in the ranks, and are willing to stand on others' shoulders and take their commons as quickly as was done to them in the Old Country. The wealthy may make some concessions to those whose lands they range over but the stories don't indicate enough to balance the negatives. Religion didn't bring a guarantee of fairness.

greywarbler said...

Larry Mitchell mentioned 'saying sorry' by Australians.

Kevin Rudd had a go in 2008 in February.

This was a recent part of the problem.

10 years later a review and a discussion.

Thought Clarke and Dawe in 2008 sent this up a bit.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Sudanese immigrants or their children are over represented in various crimes including home invasions, car-jackings and mob violence in Melbourne."

Funnily enough Brendan, so are Australians, and so are New Zealanders. But Sudanese are also overrepresented in the unemployment statistics, and have a higher proportion of young people – and crimes tend to be committed by young people. So it's not that simple Brendan and while a debate might need to be had about this, as usual your right-wing friends make it all about race. They just using it to stir up ill feeling, and usually avoid mentioning that crime overall is falling in Melbourne. Because that certainly wouldn't fit their narrative would it?

John Hurley said...

Francis Fukuyama is a political scientist at Stanford University. His latest book is “Identity: The Demand for Dignity and the Politics of Resentment,” which came out in September.

Fukuyama: People’s happiness is driven more by relative rather than absolute levels of income and by social recognition. As Adam Smith noted in his “Theory of Moral Sentiments,” the rich man “glories” in his riches while the poor man is invisible to his fellow human beings. Many who voted for populist politicians feel that they have been invisible to elites who are indifferent to their struggles and ready to favor immigrants, minorities and others “less deserving.” This perception is untrue [BS] but nonetheless lies behind much of the anger from members of former majority populations. This is why Brexit voters were willing to risk economic costs as long as they could “get back their country” and why Trump voters are often happy with his confrontational anti-elite rhetoric in the absence of concrete socio-economic gains for themselves.

More broadly, nationalism and politicized religious movements like Islamism are also based on offended dignity. Russia was humiliated by NATO moving east during a period of weakness. China is recovering from its “hundred years of humiliation.” And fighters for the Islamic State believe that they are winning back the dignity of repressed and abused Muslims around the world. All of these movements are obviously willing to sacrifice material interests for the sake of the recovery of group dignity.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"The truth is multiculturalism was the left big mistake. The left thing evolutionary psychology is "junk science"|

A big mistake? That's a very bold statement to make considering you don't tell us what the aims of multiculturalism were, or provide any evidence to what it was supposed to do or what it's failed to do. And let's face it, as far as immigration goes the right is as much at fault as the left, considering its business people who want their cheap labour, and farmers who think that Filipino farmworkers are "great little workers". They don't want to have to obey the laws of supply and demand and increase wages in times of shortage.
And if evolutionary psychology is "junk science" why is it used on this site interminably by conservatives trying to prove that black/brown people are inferior to white people? Or the people of various cultures and ethnicities aren't meant to mix? There seems to be a certain amount of confusion in your mind here, perhaps you would clarify for us?

John Hurley said...

Mark Lopez wrote a history of Australian multiculturalism. What it showed was that a tiny group of people can act like a brain virus and begin wagging the dog. Today Australia's relationship with NZ has cooled because while Brits and South Africans move to the east Indians and Chinese move to the west.

Kathryn Ryan
What is driving this?
Bernard Salt
There has been a fundamental shift in the Australian demography particularly the last 10 years or so preliminary results from the 2016 census released one month ago show something quite unique. The western half of the country (Western Australia, South Australia and the Northern Territories) had quite a strong Anglo base (we draw our migrants from Anglo countries). The eastern side of the nation (particularly Victoria and New South Wales) are more likely to be Indian and Chinese . So the ethnic base (the source from which we are drawing migrants) has shifted in the last decade or so. I will say also the flow of Kiwis has reversed (the earthquake and a renewed energy with New Zealand). So there seems to be an ethnic basis to t(not a parting of the ways) but a slowing of the bond which had been there literally since resettlement.

What is driving the politics?

Well I do think the demographics are important : our shift in focus towards Asia (with the Chinese and the Indians). I don’t think it is so much a rejection of NZ as a pivot towards Asia. There was a shift away from the UK when Britain joined the EU. In some ways you could argue the same is happening here a shift towards Asia: Asian migration, Asian students, Asian implantation [ ?] infact. Our attention has been taken by South East Asia and as a consequence the politics may flow from that shift in thinking.

The idea of New Zealanders being special is disappearing apace (and was only based on a handshake between Whitlam and Kirk in the 1970s) and was always a matter of goodwill.

“politics pushing in that direction”

Who looses? We were once favoured as cousins. It doesn't matter to the highly skilled (anywhere's).But also you talk to people who went to Bali (Kuta - not in Australia but good example) or Noosa 40 years ago and they were less developed (another world). The Australian Productivity Commission noted that there was little to zero benefit to Australians form immigration it had all been captured by the migrants (and building industry). You wouldn't know that from the pro-migration cacophony in the media.

Brendan McNeill said...

Dear GS

I agree with you, Australians and New Zealanders are over represented in crime statistics. Would that it were otherwise. Yes, youth unemployment is a contributing factor, and perhaps racism is one reason why Sudanese youth experience greater unemployment than their fellow Australians - there are likely to be other reasons however including language difficulties, education and skills deficits.

The real issue however is that multiculturalism doesn’t work. It hasn’t worked anywhere. In Europe leaders who have publicly acknowledged its failure include former French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Former British PM David Cameron, and the present German Chancellor Angela Merkel.

Multiculturalism is a uniquely monocultural utopian creed. It is found only in the west amongst the children of the enlightenment who have come to believe in their own moral superiority. It fails to take into account people’s natural desire to retain those elements of their own unique culture that they value and wish to preserve. Immigrant cultural practices can easily conflict with the values and norms of the host culture. The desire to retain these elements of ones own culture is just as true for the Sundanese immigrants as it is for the Australians who are raising concerns.

Importing Sudanese is not the same as importing Italians. The former come from an alien culture with vastly different practices and traditions, whereas the latter share the same European roots as Australians. One finds it relatively easy to integrate, the other not so much.

The difficulty we face is that it is almost impossible to express these realities in public without being called racist, even though we are talking about culture and not about race or ethnicity. Even though we have confirmation of multiculturalism’s failure from leading European politicans. Consequently we continue to celebrate everyone else’s culture, but not our own which is presently viewed negatively, being patriarchal, colonialist, exploitive etc.

This needs to change if we are going to hand on the very real cultural blessings we have inherited to our grandchildren. I am however not optimistic that we have sufficient reserves of cultural confidence to reassert ourselves.

John Hurley said...

GS Multi-culturalism has failed because it drowns the host culture and attempts to create an involuntary superordinate culture based on insipid "our values" and false national identity. It fails because of the speed at which elites have introduced other cultures, and because developed countries don't need a larger crew.
I recall newcomers (I had an Indian next door)and the first Chinese. We welcomed them to "our neighbourhood". At the first sign of large numbers the anti-racists came out in force and shut down debate.
What is becoming accepted now is that people don't melt into a Utopian melting pot. They bring their identities with them. They also bring their "otherings" and chauvinism.
A majority of whites of every stripe voted for Trump because their identity is a great investment.

aberfoyle said...

N.Z.has its own small band of black shirted brothers,similar to England!s Mosley!s of the thirties,who in their thousands marched through the english streets,with support from some well heeled landed gentry.We to in N.Z,also have a well heeled landed gentry who every year bleet about the indigenous the the n.z. workers unemployed and those also employed on casual labour,to work on their farms or orchard fruit plantations,for the picking season.Most if not all these plantations do not provide a per hour pay minimum wage,but what is known as centuries old exploit known as peace work, pick as much as you can, the owner or contractor decides the weight and pay rate.N.Z.workers,stuff that,not even enough to pay the rent,so the opaque black shirts the land owners farmers and growers,lets import,pay them without questions and after the harvests they going back to their (place),we need some permanent,why,our dairy farmers needed long term workers,who work on our farms isolated and do as they are told,some better my friends say, listen better to commands than our best heading dogs,and never question pay rates.

Roly said...

mmmm, Godwin's law proved in the first paragraph is not a good indication of things to come from one of my favorite 'left' leaning writers.

The common refrain when you resort to name calling, is that you've lost. Being right counts for very little if you alienate the people you need to get to the most. Implying they're a Nazi will result in you simply going unheard. The vast majority of progressive writing I have read of late simply dismiss the "other" views as, at best misguided, but more often ignorant, stupid, unimportant and ultimately people to be ignored and overridden.
The insults, delegitimizing, de-platforming etc only reinforces the polarization. Not constructive at all.

on a separate note -how many people on the street in 2019 would know what a Brownshirt is??? Serious question? ("Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" etc...)

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"GS Multi-culturalism has failed because it drowns the host culture"
Does it buggery. Heard it all before. Most people who say this don't know anything about their own culture anyway.
And we've heard it throughout history, going back to the 1300s. But closer to our own time, we heard about Italian Americans, Irish – wherever they went – southern Europeans, Polish, and in New Zealand of course Serbians and Croats and the like – and Steve Jobs's father was Syrian. In fact roughly half of all the Fortune 500 was started by immigrants or their children. I could go on. But eventually they assimilate. Some sooner than others but eventually it happens to all of them, starting with the kids who chafe at the restrictions of their own culture if there are any compared to us. If you allow them to. If you stick them in a ghetto somewhere out of sight and discriminate against them for jobs and the like, well of course they're going to be dissatisfied and less than integrated.
And for a while they might as someone said have lots of kids, but their daughters will say "fuck this I'm not doing it!" And for those of you who prefer anecdotes rather than actual scientific research, look up Shappi Khorsandi – daughter of Iranians who migrated to England, a bisexual solo mum with one child making quite a good living as a comedian. Is she still engaging in overproduction of kids?
Christ sometimes I get so tired of you guys. I'm reminded of the debate between Ken Ham the religious nutcase, and Bill Nye the science guy. Both of them were asked "what would change your mind?" Ken said "Nothing", because he obviously has a book with all the answers – Bill said "evidence".
Oh, and the majority of whites of every stripe that in no way vote for Trump.
There are five major indicators of people who voted for Trump – authoritarianism, a liking for hierarchies, prejudice against minorities, a lack of contact with minorities which contributes to their prejudice against minorities, and a feeling of deprivation – that unworthy people are getting something they're not entitled to. This is hardly people of every stripe. It's the foolish and ignorant.

Nick J said...

John and GS, I don't like link sharing to make a point but you should probably both watch this.

It's from a Republican scholar (classical historian). It's about Trump and about his supporters, and it's not what either side pro or anti tell us. There is a rundown on why people voted especially based upon concerns regarding immigration. If you are opposed to, or you support Trump this is a good start on getting a real picture to base your arguments upon (as opposed to partisan Alice in Wonderland stuff from the msm).

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"there are likely to be other reasons however including language difficulties, education and skills deficits. "

And over policing. But interestingly enough, Sydney has Sudanese migrants as well and they have absolutely no trouble with them. And they are quite proud of that.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Victor Davis Hanson
Whenever anyone uses the acronym MSM in a pejorative way I tend to ignore the rest of what they say. Hanson is a fringe figure when it comes to politics, beloved of Fukayama who as we all know thought history was coming to an end. He makes wild claims about Western military dominance beginning with the ancient Greeks. And forgets all about Asia as many of these classical scholars do, so he's not alone in that. So I have no great regard for his opinion, and I'm not gonna spend an hour and six minutes of my relatively short time left on earth to see his take on Trump and Clinton.
The MSM on the other hand generally does make some effort to fact check their work, and while it's generally run by those on the right, because its profit driven, it Dent get too far from the facts because then they would lose their reputation and become something like Breitbart or Fox News, or Infowars. None of which I would take as a reputable news source.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Godwin's law proved in the first paragraph"
Sometimes you just gotta say "Godwin be damned!"

Are you seriously thinking that the "landed gentry" are willing to talk? Are you suggesting that they are willing to compromise with workers? I would have thought if that was true, they wouldn't be importing Filipinos to work on their farms. They would be raising their wages so that New Zealanders would want to work on them. But there's always that "we can't afford to" and of course people from the Philippines are "great little workers" patronising and racist by itself, but neglecting to mention that of course people who will be sent home with one phone call from their employer would tend to work their arses off. I suggest that calling these people names does absolutely nothing, because they assume they have a right to be in charge of the country and Bugger the rest of us. That's not going to change in the foreseeable future and certainly not by gentle discussions.
Not sure where deplatforming comes in, I'm pretty sure that the farmers that aberfoyle was referring to have plenty of platforms. And if you're referring to the neo-Nazis that were deplatforming – then good. Nobody owes them a platform. That's not what free speech is about.

John Hurley said...

The anti-racism taboo represents the successful institutionalization of liberal and left-modernist ideas, but the scope of the taboo is eroding or under challenge in most Western societies. `We have erected a whole series of taboos that we cannot debate without being immediately described as incendiary,' announced Laurent Wauquiez, aspiring leader of the French centre-right Les Republicans in October 1017. 'The nation, massive immigration, identity, the transmission of values, Wauquiez's attempt to steal the populist right's clothing was a promising technique whose worth has been proven by the success of other centre-right leaders in capturing these voters, including Mark Rutte in the Netherlands, Sebastian Kurz in Austria and Theresa May in Britain. For our purposes, what jumps out is Wauquiez's politicization of the term 'taboo', a frequent refrain of conservative politicians going back to Pim Fortuyn in the Netherlands and William Hague in Britain in the early 2000s. This is true even on the left, where some, like David Blunkett in Britain and Bernie Sanders in America, have criticized political correctness.
Taboos are underpinned by both negative and positive liberalism, While negative liberalism delimits a narrower scope for the anti-racism taboo focusing on verbal attacks on minorities, positive liberalism seeks to expand the definition of racism to protect symbolic policies such a) multiculturalism and large-scale immigration. When politicians decide what to campaign on and voters think about how they'll vote they may suppress their desire for greater ethnic homogeneity to adhere to the antiracism norm. In terms of evolutionary psychology, this pits Whites, tribal drive to protect the group, i.e. the white majority, against their religious instinct to adhere to a sacred anti-racist moral code. Thel result is what social psychologists term the 'dual-process' model, in which decisions are the product of a tension between tribal and moral motivations."
Chapter 8 White Shift by Eric Kaufman

John Hurley said...

And This
The positive feedback loop between left-wing and right-wing radicaIs seems to have begun with left-modernist success in institutionalizing political correctness. This built up a fund of conservative grievances, with surveys showing PC to be unpopular among a majority of Americans. The vanguard of the politically correct movement on college campuses dates from the late 1980s, but has been amplified by social media and online forums since the early 2010's.
Google searches for `racist' and `sexist' begin rising in late 2009, while searches for `white privilege', `whitesplaining', `homophobic', `transphobic' and `microaggression' begin to rise in 2012-13 and take off during 2014-15, prior to Trump's arrival on the scene. Bradley Campbell and Jason Manning document the efflorescence of the new progressive crusade against microaggressions in their 2014 paper and subsequent book[9] Meanwhile, Zach Goldberg's work shows that consumption of social media and online websites soared, and appeared to be exerting a radicalizing effect on liberal whites' opinions on race, sex and gender. In 2008, about 30 per cent of white liberals aind conservatives got their news online, but by 2016 liberals were skewing online, with some 6o per cent acquiring their news content this way compred to only 40 per cent for conservatives and moderates. Meanwhile, the share of white liberals who visited the left-wing sites Buzzfeed or Huffington Post in ANES data jumpcd from 15 to 34 per cent between 2012 and 2016. White liberals who regugrly visited these sites were 6o per cent more likely to view sex and race discrimination than white liberals who didn't.
Social media use was also rising quickly, (from about 45 per cent of respondents to 75 per cent between 2010 and 2016. White liberals who sent Facebook or Twitter posts on any political topic were over twice as likely to perceive racial or sexual discrimination as a problem in America than white liberals who didn't. The combined radicalizing effect of of news and social media is noteworthy. Between 2009 and 2016, the perception that blacks, Hispanics and women were being discriminated against jumped among white liberals during a period when minorities and women were reporting record low (and faIIing) levels of harassment, discrimination and hate crime. In 2009, just 20per cent of white liberals thought there was 'a lot' of or 'a little discrimination against African-Americans, rising to 40 percent in 2012 and nearly 80 per cent in 2016. For discrimination against Hispanics the increase in the same period was from 30 to 42 to 50 per cent. For discrimination against women it rocketed up from 20 percent in 2011 to 25 per cent in 2012 and 45 per cent in 2016. Meanwhile surveys picked up a 50 per cent increase in white liberal support for affirmative action, warmer feelings towards minorities and illegal immigrants, and a cooler attitude towards whites." [100]
In effect, the 2010's represent a renewed period of left-modernist innovation, incubated by near-universal left – liberal hegemony among non-STEM faculty and administrators. Most academics are moderate liberals rather than radical leftists, but in the absence of conservative or libertarian voices willing to stand against left-modernist excess, liberal saturation reduced resistance to the japes of extremist students and professors. Social media and progressive online news acted as a vector, carrying the new left-modernist awakening off-campus much more effectively than was true during the first wave of political correctness of the late 1980s and 1990s.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Jesus wept, is there a point somewhere in this word salad? I'll pick out something that does make some sort of sense though.

"Most academics are moderate liberals rather than radical leftists, but in the absence of conservative or libertarian voices willing to stand against left-modernist excess, liberal saturation reduced resistance to the japes of extremist students and professors."

There is a shitload of conservative voices willing to stand against the so-called "left modernist excess"

The vacuous Jordan Peterson.
The equally vacuous Ben Shapiro.
The ex-neuroscientist and self-described public intellectual – who occasionally makes sense – Sam Harris.
Those two arses that were deplatformed a little while ago whose names I can't remember and can't be bothered looking up they are so worthless.
All so-called cultural warriors who claim to be "silenced" yet we seem to hear a shitload about them somehow. Why do I bother? All this from someone who thinks that Roger Douglas & Co were left-wing.

Brendan McNeill said...

As this post was initially about immigration and integration (well at least that was my take on it), I thought I’d share an experience I had in Dunedin last weekend. I was visiting friends and talking to their two teenagers about their school year just finished. They had performed well academically and are bright, engaging young people.

The conversation drifted to refugees; apparently about 100 Syrian families have been settled in Dunedin since the Syrian war. The teenagers commented that there were several Syrians at their school, but they kept to themselves and refused to learn English because they believed it would make them less Arabic.

While this story is anecdotal, the conversation arose naturally, and there was no prior commentary about immigration, Syrians or refugees either positively or negatively. These young people we simply stating the facts as they observed them.

Now these Syrian young people may eventually change their minds, and decide that English language might be valuable to them living in New Zealand. However where did they get the idea that learning English would be a form of cultural depreciation if not from their families?

We naively think the pull of western materialism is sufficient to seduce all peoples from all religions and all cultures. It’s not.

John Hurley said...

Both Mill and today's cultural left are, on Berlin's definition, positive liberals, because they not only specify that people have freedom, but elevate certain life goals and societal visions over others. It's fine to advocate these goals, but not to use society's liberal institutions to enforce orthodoxy. Once this happens, social sanctions are pressed into service to compel the recalcitrant to support ideas they don't believe in, reducing their negative liberty. Much of the story of Western _liberalism involves a struggle for negative rights and freedoms. The Whigs' battle for freedom from arbitrary arrest and the right to criticize the King in eighteenth-century England; anti-slavery and Catholic rights in the nineteenth century; women's, rights in the early twentieth century; and black and gay rights in the later twentieth century are examples. But positive liberalism, often linked to radical beliefs about the transformation of society, shadowed the pragmatic victories of negative liberalism. The Jacobins' desire to destroy the old religious-aristocratic order during the French Revolution followed in the wake of the Rights of Man. Jacobins' zeal to achieve a purified liberal-egalitarian republic culminated in witch-himts and the guillotine. Anarchism, especially the violent creed known as the `Propaganda of the Deed', hewed to a similar millenarian belief: the ,p,.int-garde could, with an assassination or a bomb, bring about a rcvolution which would create the new heaven-on-earth. Socialism and fascism were fired by similar visions of radical action leading to a secu-p.iradise. In each case, negative liberties were sacrificed on the altar of positive liberalism.
Fascism and socialism lost out after the Second World War, but what of the victor, liberalism? The Allies' victory did enlarge and protect the scope of negative liberty. But alongside this success a positive liberalism was smuggled in which advocated individuality and cosmopolitanism over community. Most, myself included, value individual autonomy, but one has to recognize that not all share this aim. Someone who prefers to wear a veil or dedicate their lives to religion is making a communitarian choice which negative liberalism respects but positive liberalism (whether of the modernist left Or burqa-banning right) does not. This turns sour when those who fail to support a socially dominant positive liberal virtue like pursuing autonomy or preferring diversity are shamed, shunned or persecuted. This is acceptable in a voluntary organization such as Scientology where you know what you're signing up for, but not in a mainstream societal institution like a university, government bureau or large corporation. When mainstream institutions enforce positive liberal goals and punish deviation from sacred values, this shrinks the space for negative freedom in society.
Core Katrina Batten a Ho. Te ne. Guyon Espiner: "You have to keep pushing the uglies"

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Jesus wept Brendan, these people are refugees from Syria! These kids are probably seen things that you couldn't even dream of. They've been traumatised and then shunted to a new country. Okay safe, but you think the things they've been through haven't affected them? Sometimes you just so tone deaf I can't understand it. You see everything in terms of your experience. No empathy like most conservatives.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"Core Katrina Batten a Ho. Te ne. Guyon Espiner: 'You have to keep pushing the uglies'"
maybe pushing them in the direction of learning how to spell basic Maori words?

John Hurley said...

These kids are probably seen things that you couldn't even dream of.
Like 10 siblings and 3 mothers.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"“My grandfather had eight children, my father had four and I have only two,” said Samer Lahham, who runs ecumenical affairs at the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate in the Syrian capital.

“Now maybe after five years each family will have only one because of economic problems, education costs, living costs.”"

I'd normally just dismiss anything you say with "Yes, from the guy who thinks Roger Douglas was left-wing." because you simply don't have any credibility anymore. But I can't resist this. You didn't read that article to the end did you? Because it's mostly about how urbanisation and education reduce the number of children that women have in underdeveloped countries. Something I learned about 55 years ago in fifth form geography. Minutes of innocent amusement thank you.

John Hurley said...

Was Powell racist? Many didn't think so and some today continue to suggest he was right to raise the alarm. Powell's concerns have not gone away, and remain critical to explaining the populist ferment We witness today. In The Trial of Enoch Powell, a television programme aired on Channel 4 on the thirtieth anniversary of his speech, 64 per cent ot the studio audience said he was not racist. This should make those of us who accuse him of racism think harder about what makes him guilty of the charge. Blanket condemnation and Nazi analogies of the kind Benn proffered, are not, in my view - a productive way to make the case – especially in an anti-elitist era. Many have become jaded, and the racist charge is losing force. Benns rhetoric may have helped sideline Powell, but it did not win hearts and minds. Benn and others should have acknowledged some of Powels points while explaining clearly where and why his remarks were racist.

I define racism as an irrational fear or hatred of or predudice against a member of another ethnic group, a violation of citizen's right to equal treatment without regard to race, or a desire for race purity. Violating this norm should disgust us. Powell called Black Britons `wide-grinning pickaninnies', a derogatory term suggesting that blacks are inferior. He spoke of blacks gaining the `whip hand' over whites, a fear-mongering proposition given the tiny numbers and benign intensions of the immigrants. He also called for minorities to be repatriated, clearly revealing that his conception of white British majority ethnicity was closed rathcr than open — based on a desire for race purity, Powell thus preferred exclusion to assimilation as his favoured mecchanism of ethnic boundary maintenance. These facts make him racist.

Yet there are genuine majority grievances buried in Powell's message that are not racist. Powell's mention of neighbourhoods changing beyond recognition raises the valid point that the cultural impact of rapid immigration is perceived as negative by most whites in reception areas. The costs of immigration fall unevenly on the population and those affected feel they have no say in the matter — with injury augmented by the insult of being accused of racism. The government did try to direct more resources to the affected areas. However, it should have tried to win more hearts and minds to the idea of Commonwealth immigration. It might have used an assimilation story to reassure the majority population. Blacks had already been living in Liverpool and other British ports for generations and had readily intermarried into the local white population. The sense that the new waves of migration were small in national terms and could tow as in the past — be absorbed through intermarriage is a message that, as we shall see, could have calmed nerves. At least this would have shown that the government empathized with those concerned about the ethno-cultural impact of immigration. Finally, the government might have planned for immigrant settlement rather than letting this occur in uncontrolled fashion. Ideally, migrants should have been housed in new developments with their own public facilities or in transient areas with prior experience of immigration.

White Shift Eric Kaufman

How refreshing compared to the thundering accusations of the Puritans of Anti-racism?

John Hurley said...

At the height of Powellism, a mere 2 per cent of the population were non-white. My father-in-law, from Wigan in industrial north-west England, recalled that most people in the city around 1950 had never seen a black person and climbed poles to get a glimpse of black American soldiers. Even Powell recognized the localized impact of immigration in his speech. Despite the furore and public support for Powell, immigration was not a pressing issue for most. This highlights the crucial distinction between immigration attitudes and immigration salience. Most white Britons wanted little or no immigration, but aside from a few urban areas the issue was more distant from their everyday concerns than it is today. They had negative attitudes towards immigration, but the issue most likely ranked below other priorities like health care or wages. In the 1964 election, for instance, immigration played a role in just one constituency, Smethwick, near Birmingham. And among MPs only backbenchers from areas directly affected by immigration called for restriction, while those from the vast majority of the country where immigration was minimal followed the Cabinet's lead. Only in 1970, with Powell's intervention, did immigration emerge as an election issue, and even then its impact is disputed." What has changed is not so much opposition to immigration — which is slightly lower than in the 1960s, reflecting broader liberal attitude changes attendant on growth in the university-educated liberal population — but the salience of the issue within the wider UK population. Once a social problem rises up people's list of priorities, it begins to affect election outcomes and structure ideological divisions.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

" ranked below other priorities like health care "
And how would they run the NHS without immigrant doctors? Conservatives very rarely think things through do they? I didn't notice the Tory party making a huge effort to train more doctors and nurses so that they could avoid bringing in migrants. Nostalgia is lovely, but things change. And migrants were brought in because there was a labour shortage. And for fucks sake some of them fought for Britain in World War II, and we maybe owed something.

And where are the "rivers of blood"?

God help us, around 1954 or so two – I think Sikhs – came to the door of my parents village home when my mother and I were the only ones there. She took one look at them and slammed the door and gathered me up and ran to hide. She never seen a black person ever and she just panicked. But she's managed to get used to them, and was happy to have a couple of Polynesian lesbians living next door in her later life.
Oh – I don't know why I bother, you've got no credibility since you called Roger Douglas a left winger.:)

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Dammit, my apologies John Hurley, it's Geoff Fischer who believes that Roger Douglas was left-wing. I shall try to remember for future communications. Your IQ has been restored at least in my perception, although your credibility is still quite low – not as low as it was. :)

Brendan McNeill said...

@GS asks: "And where are the "rivers of blood"?

The Bataclan Paris, Brussels airport, London Tube Station, Madrid commuter train, Manchester Arena, Charlie Hebdo offices, the pavements of Nice, La Rambla, Westminster Bridge, Burke Street Melbourne, various Jewish institutions, schools, museums, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

You obviously have no knowledge of the speech Brendan. And there haven't been rivers of blood in England – and much of what there has been was caused by white people – the IRA. Scraping the bottom of the barrel there I think et cetera et cetera et cetera et cetera et cetera.

Brendan McNeill said...

Dear GS

To the contrary, I’m very familiar with Powells’ speech.

Try telling the families of the 52 killed and 700 victims injured in the 7/7 London tube bombings, perpetrated by second generation Pakistani Muslim immigrants that there are no ‘rivers of blood’ as per Enoch Powell’s speech.

Or if that’s insufficient how about interviewing each family member of the 22 concert goers killed at the Manchester Arena bombing, many of them children, and the 119 who were injured, many seriously by a Libyan Muslim immigrant, and ask them what they think about their children’s rivers of blood. Ask them how ‘diversity’ and multiculturalism is working out for them and their families.

Why do you think ordenary Brits voted for Brexit? Do you think perhaps they have had a guts full of your progressive utopia?

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Jesus wept Brendan rivers of blood. With all due respect to those good people, is hardly rivers of blood. Considering in 1972 350+ people were killed by the IRA. And 270 people were killed in one incident when the Lockerbie plane went down – and that wasn't immigrants. I don't think somehow that 70 people was what Powell meant by rivers of blood. I know you like anecdotes rather than evidence Brendan so here's one. My sister spent quite a number of years in London. Never had the slightest problem with a Muslim immigrant – was on the embankment when the IRA set off a bomb. So try telling that to the victims of Anders Breivik who killed 77 victims in an hour, some of whom were children. Not to mention that terrorism deaths have been going down since the 1980s. Oh dear Brendan sometimes I get tired of the bullshit machine that seems to be conservatism. :)
Why do I think the British people voted for Brexit? Because they hadn't got a clue what they were voting for. None of you conservatives had actually thought through the implications of leaving the EU – or as I suspect is more accurate, ignored them because they were inconvenient. And lied about the benefits. And then lied about lying. And then, instead of helping with the extremely complex negotiations and the adjustment, but it off. So now it's a complete cluster fuck, companies are leaving Britain jobs are going, there are going to be food shortages, and Northern Ireland is probably going to erupt again somehow. That's your conservative utopia.
Not that the EU, being basically run by Germans is a progressive utopia anyway. Sorry Brendan but I'm calling bullshit on everything you say. You haven't got a clue what's going on.

Brendan McNeill said...

Dear GS

It helps to stay within the theme of Chris’s original post, which was the idea that those who complain about their neighbourhood being transformed by a ‘replacement culture’ without their consultation or consent are inherently racist nazis.

It is probable that we share similar views on the IRA, and the atrocities they committed, but that’s not the context of this discussion. I don’t know how many dead bodies it takes to make a ‘river of blood’, and perhaps several dozen doesn’t qualify for readers of the Guardian, et al. but rest assured, it counts for the surviving relatives, it counts for me, and I’m sure it counts for millions of Britons who voted for Brexit; people whom you demean by suggesting they hadn’t thought through the implications of their ‘leave’ vote.

The very fact you cannot recognise their legitimate concerns suggests to me that you are wilfully blind to what has happened to Britain over the last 30 years. There may always be an England, but very soon the only difference between London and Lahore will be the average daily temperature.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

1."inherently racist nazis."
I don't think Chris said this at all. And if you think that I believe it, then you haven't read anything I've written about immigration on this site – or at least not comprehended it.
2. You seem to introduce the theme that Muslims as migrants commit atrocities. I merely mentioned that they are one amongst many groups that have committed terrorist attacks in Europe. Including your people.
3. "Rivers of blood was obviously hyperbole, and therefore subject to interpretation. But Powell obviously meant it to be more than a few hundred people. Because let's face it Brendan, more people are killed in car accidents and in terrorism events in Europe. Indeed, last year more people died of being "struck by inanimate objects" than terrorist incidents.

So I think you're being a little disingenuous there. Actually more than a little, your statements are just as hyperbolic as Powell's.
World War I was Rivers of blood, World War II was Rivers of blood gun deaths in America might be considered Rivers of blood, in 2016 AFAIK there was only one terrorist death in Britain, Joe Cox. Killed by one of your people. Loosely speaking Brendan, of course I'm speaking of right-wing Christians here, not trying to associate you with it in any other way. So Powell was wrong, and I think that pretty much everybody but you and the far right – assuming you are not necessarily one and the same – believes that.
As far as Brexit goes, the general public were lied to. And there was a moral panic. There was the small fib about spending £350 million a year on the NHS rather than sending it to the EU. Whereas it seems the NHS may well be cut drastically after Brexit by Tories. That's going to go over like a lead balloon – even Tory Brits like their NHS. That was the most egregious of the lies, and while some people had grievances – not necessarily legitimate ones – many of them didn't have a clue what they were voting for. Only partly due to the lies, the other part was due to their ignorance. And no one, repeat no one explain to them the complexities of leaving the EU which all you people seem absolutely surprised by now.
God help us all, if everyone had known it was going to be such a complete cock up they might have given up voting altogether. And it's your people's fault, because whenever anybody even so much as mildly said "well how we are going to arrange the exit?" They were jumped on from all sides. And now the pigeons are coming home to roost, and all those Tories are trying to slide out from under responsibility well fuck 'em, it's time they manned up and took responsibility, after all that's what the right is all about isn't it personal responsibility?/Sarc
As far as your last statement goes, a few people keep up the disbelief in global warming there will be no difference in mean temperature between London and Lahore.