Women & gays: understand how much they hate you

By skepticlawyer

I have taken a few pops at feminism of late, because I don’t think it’s doing its core job: defending the civil rights of women and girls. However, sniping from the sidelines is only useful up to a point.

Here I am in the Weekend Australian modelling how I think feminism ought to be done.

I thought those who argued Manchester was an attack on women and girls having fun had a point, and should not have been scoffed at. Most of them, however, refused to bell the cat.

I indulged in no such refusal.

Islamists do not “hate our freedom” in a nice, uncomplicated way. Would that it were so; they would be easier to fight. They hate women and gays; it is our freedom they especially hate. Even unto little girls.

The monster that lay in wait in the Manchester Arena foyer really did believe Ariana Grande was a “Dangerous Woman”. In his mind, dangerous because she deals with the devil (and doesn’t just sing about it), her fans are “hoes”, she is “uncovered meat”. She is dangerous because she is free, because she owns herself, because she has a huge voice, because no man possesses her. And because she is loved by legions of little girls and teenagers (and not a few gay lads) who wish to emulate her.

Islamic extremism is religion made in hell for male losers, men who cannot get women like Grande or any of her fans to sleep with them. It is a war on women who choose their own way. “You choose not to sleep with me, not to obey me, so I will kill you.”

For that reason, opposition to Islamism must not only be in the name of civilisation or of liberty, but also of libertinism. In the name of women who like to be sexy (and who don’t think “sexy” means “sexist”), of the glistening gay boys in their underwear on a Mardi Gras float, or the Frenchman bleeding yellow on the cover of Charlie Hebdo: “They may have guns, but fuck them, we have champagne.”

Even in its more modest forms, Islam spends an inordinate amount of time inveighing against the empire of the senses in the name of the next world, rather than seeking to live in the only world we have. The only world we know we have for certain.

It is still at the stage of moral ­development where it wishes to substitute its choices for yours and mine. That’s why in some majority-Muslim countries apostates — those who choose their own way — are killed.

As they say, read the whole thing.

Note: this is paywalled, although links sometimes work when you click them. This particular outlet pays its writers properly, so the paywall is worth it if you want more good writing.

Manchester, my second home

By Legal Eagle

[Cartoon by UK Daily Telegraph cartoonist, Blower]

It was an exodus, a journey to the land of our forebears. And then I got there and I thought, “Why the bloody hell did we bother? I can see why my ancestors left.”

You see, I’m Australian, but my family and I lived in Manchester from 1991 to 1994. I completed my high schooling there.

For the first year, I was miserable, as miserable as I’d ever been in my life. The rain poured, and I never saw the sun. The clouds were so low it felt as if I could reach up and touch them. People had difficulty understanding my accent, and I couldn’t understand them. It didn’t help that my sister was hit and injured by a car outside school on our second day at our new school, and that I blamed myself for not looking after her better. Also, it’s pretty bloody hard to move countries and schools when you’re fourteen years old, I can tell you that now. Particularly when you go to a selective school and discover that you’re behind everyone else, when you’d been able to sail through with no effort and study in Australia. I studied hard and fast to catch up, and it was the making of me.

The turning point came when I went back to Australia. I made the classic expat mistake – told everyone I was coming back – and I spent the whole time booked up with catch ups. Me being me, I ended up exhausted, had an asthma attack and spent an evening in casualty. “This wouldn’t happen if I were back in Australia,” I thought. And then I realised I was back in Australia. I couldn’t blame everything bad that happened on Manchester. When I went back, I looked at my second home with new and appreciative eyes.

Yes, it had been hard to make friends, but they were friends for life, loyal and true. The warmth of Mancunians, the courage and the sheer bloody-mindedness. I loved them, and I still do. Manchester was where I learned to be comfortable in my own skin. I began to see a peculiar kind of beauty in the industrial landscapes, in the grey skies, in the bleak architecture. We drove through Moss Side, an inner city suburb of Manchester, and home to the infamous Hulme Crescents, a 1970s experiment in architecture which was demolished shortly after I arrived there.

One of the buildings in Moss Side had “This is the end” spraypainted on a wall. I was horrified, and looked back at the building.

The Hulme estate in Moss Side.

[The Hulme estate in Moss Side.]

Then I saw the punchline. “This is the other end”, the graffiti proclaimed.

That’s Manchester for you. Humour in the midst of desolation and urban decay. A certain cheek and creativity.

Manchester was also where I was first introduced to terrorism. In 1992, the Provisional IRA bombed the city centre. I was horrified. Everyone at school shrugged. “It’s just the IRA again.”

The next year, the Provisional IRA killed two children in Warrington, near Manchester, after they placed small bombs in rubbish bins outside McDonalds. The children were killed as they fled the first bomb, running into the path of the second. I was horrified by the cruelty of the deaths…but the fact that there was a bombing shocked me less now. I’d realised that this was how life went. Then the Provisional IRA bombed Bishopsgate in London. I don’t recall that I was particularly shocked by this point. I didn’t take special precautions, and I still went into the city and to London regardless. I felt fatalistic. If my time was up, it was up. You can’t let these people stop you from living a normal life. Of course, ironically, the Orange and the Green meets in me. It’s largely ceased to matter in Australia, although it still mattered when my Catholic grandmother married my Anglican grandfather many moons ago.

I left England in 1994, and missed the Provisional IRA’s last hurrah. They bombed the middle of Manchester in 1996 and blew the centre out of it (including the terribly ugly Arndale Centre). When I went back in 2013, I found a city transformed. The 1960s architecture had been destroyed, and replaced by a stylish modern city. Part of me was glad, but part of me was nostalgic as well – this wasn’t the place I knew.

But it still is the place I knew. Recent events have confirmed that. Terror has again touched the heart of Manchester, after a suicide bomber attacked concertgoers at Manchester Arena as they left an Ariana Grande concert. Many of the dead were teenagers, or parents waiting to pick up their children. I cannot imagine how someone could do this. But…local homeless men ran to assist the wounded children. Taxi drivers gave free rides, religious leaders offered food, hotels and residents opened their doors, people gave blood and emergency and medical services worked tirelessly. The generosity and spirit of Mancunians was astounding.

The bomber appears to have been born in Manchester (shortly after I left, so I’ve been gone a long time) to a family of Libyan origin, and to have been motivated by Islamism. I’m always disappointed by the debate which arises after an event like this. Whenever an act of terrorism occurs, one side of politics protest, “The perpetrator was mentally ill, a lone wolf!” and the other side of politics protest, “The perpetrator was motivated by a poisonous ideology, and others who espoused it!” And then, when the identity of the terrorist changes, each side of politics changes their tune. To be honest, I think that the answer is (c) all of the above, plus a bit more. The people who perpetrate such killings are people who look to harm others, as a way of venting their hatred. And they find the excuse for doing so in different places, depending on religion and politics. What worries me after an event like this (a school shooting, a terrorist incident, a rampage) is the way in which the person gains notoriety post mortem. I don’t want him to take up any space in my mind. For once, I agree with Donald Trump – this guy was a loser, a pathetic schmuck who struck out at children and teenagers to express his hatred of their joie de vivre.

I don’t want to think about this perpetrator any more, although I acknowledge that we will have to think about the way in which young men in particular find excuses for this kind of depraved act. I want to focus on the spirit of the city I love. Manchester, you’re my second home. I love your people, and you will survive, as you have survived before.

Yeah, nah, Trump isn’t Hitler

By skepticlawyer

I dislike it when people hyperventilate over politics and political leaders, particularly when there’s an attempt to make a given politician seem better or worse than he or she is in reality.

For that reason, I’ve become very wary of the constant breaking news about Trump’s alleged Russian links, his vulnerability to impeachment, and his sacking of Comey.

The reason I’m wary is because the hyperbole has become so ridiculous I feel as though I’m losing my moorings, and with them my ability to assess coolly and clearly what is actually going on.

Maybe Trump has done enough wrong to be impeached. Maybe he hasn’t. The point is I don’t know, and because of the histrionics, I’m no longer able to make a reasonable, measured assessment.

This hyperventilation has its origins – going back to the moment when Trump threw his hat in the ring for the GOP nomination – in constant comparisons of him to Hitler.

At first I paid attention to the people making this claim, as some were my friends and others were people I respected. However, I have come to the view that the Hitler comparisons are not only wrong but odious, and for that reason I wrote this piece for the Cato Institute.

I owe a debt of gratitude to Cato Unbound’s Jason Kuznicki, who got me thinking about this issue, and who is quoted in the piece. Originally it was going to be for the Speccie, but then I discovered I needed another 500 words, which the Speccie didn’t have to spare. Excerpt:

So why do people insist on comparing their opponents to Hitler? One suggestion I’ve had is “because it feels so satisfying.” However, masturbation is also satisfying and we’ve managed to keep that out of the nation’s newspapers for the most part. Wheeling out the ultimate Big Bad is a Big Thing, a phenomenon deserving of closer examination.

To my mind, part of the problem is that political polarisation in liberal democracies means while we no longer agree on what is good and right, we do agree on what is bad or evil. Hitler is definitely bad and evil, ergo calling a political opponent a Nazi or comparing a politician to Hitler is a shorthand way of consigning him or her to a sort of moral outer darkness. You’d never apply the Hitler epithet to someone with whom you disagreed, but otherwise thought was basically sound.

If you want to figure out the significance of the golfing cat and his swastika pin flag, you’ll have to read the whole thing.

A Roman Industrial Revolution?

By skepticlawyer

Kingdom of the Wicked is set in a Roman Empire that’s had an industrial revolution, something long considered plausible by economic historians. There are all sorts of theories as to why it didn’t actually happen, although the presence of chattel slavery looms large. The Roman society I’ve depicted has abolished slavery; I’ll be frank and admit I did this to make the economics work.

This very fine essay by economist Mark Koyama is an excellent introduction to some of the ideas I drew upon when I was writing the book. It has the benefit of including lots of links to other people’s research, and is well worth your time. Excerpt:

How advanced was the Roman economy? Specifically, how did it compare to the economy of Europe in late medieval or early modern times? Was the Roman economy only as developed as that of Europe circa 1300 or was it as advanced as that of western Europe on the eve of the Industrial Revolution in say 1700?

This question is not mere idle speculation. It matters for our understanding of the causes of long-run economic growth whether an industrial revolution could have happened in Song China or ancient Rome. This type of counterfactual history is crucial for pinning down the causal mechanisms responsible for sustained growth, especially as historians like Bas van Bavel are now proposing explicitly cyclical accounts of growth in societies as varied as early medieval Iraq and the Dutch Republic (see The Invisible Hand? (OUP, 2016))

Temin’s GDP estimates suggest that Roman Italy had comparable per capita income to the Dutch Republic in 1600. The Empire as a whole, he suggests, may have been comparable to Europe in 1700 (Temin 2013, 261).

As they say, read the whole thing.

Well, we’re back

By skepticlawyer

Many moons ago, Katy Barnett (Legal Eagle), Lorenzo M Warby (Lorenzo), and I (skepticlawyer, aka Helen Dale) ran quite a popular blog from this site. Apart from Lorenzo’s sterling efforts, the blog has fallen by the wayside, and we kind of forgot its Facebook ‘fan’ page existed.

However, since all three of us have got books either published or being published, we’ve decided to repurpose the Facebook page and reanimate the blog as quasi author page and general sandpit for the three of us and those who like to read our stuff.

By way of background, my first novel – the one the won the Miles Franklin and caused a massive stink at the time – has been re-issued, while my second novel (in two parts) will be published in October this year. I’ll be doing an Australian author tour to support it. I’m so keen for you to read it I’ve even volunteered to go on Q&A. Yes really.

I’ve had quite a bit of stuff published around the reissue – you can read all about it in The AustralianThe Sydney Morning HeraldThe Daily TelegraphQuillette or you can have a listen to this interview on ABC Radio.

Katy and Lorenzo have books coming out next year. They’ll make announcements here and on the Facebook page in due course.

Because my publisher (Ligature) does the most gorgeous cover art, I’ve decided to put the cover design up for Kingdom of the Wicked, my second novel, to illustrate this post.

The depths of Palestinian dysfunction

By Lorenzo

We are about three years away from the centenary of the (third) Palestine Arab Conference in December 1920 which demanded an end to Jewish migration into Palestine and just under three years from the centenary of the April 1920 Nebi Musa riots, the first fatal clash between Jews and Arabs in Palestine on the matter of Jewish migration and Zionism. (Though the March 1920 Battle of Tel Hai might also be regarded as the first clash.)

We are about four years away from the centenary of the appointment of Amin al-Husseini as Mufti (later Grand Mufti) of Jerusalem whose policy of total rejection of any negotiation with Jews, any acceptance of Jewish migration, or even the legitimacy of Jewish residence in Palestine, set the basis for Palestinian politics until the Oslo Accords (which, it turned out, involved negotiations with Israel but not any substantive movement on the other rejections).

Almost 100 years later, the politics of Amin al-Husseini are almost entirely replicated in the politics of Hamas. An almost century which saw the almost three decades before the establishment of Israel, the two decades of Israel existing up to the 1967 war, the decades of the Israeli occupation of Gaza (until 2005) and the West Bank (with partial Israeli withdrawal in 1994). Yet Palestinian politics based explicitly on Islam is back where it started from. This does not suggest that Israeli policy and actions has much purchase on the underlying patterns of Palestinian politics.

The stream of Palestinian action represented by Fatah is different in aspects of its political rhetoric, as it has a history of using much more secular rhetoric based on Arab nationalism with elements of revolutionary socialism. But the difference is merely in the rhetoric, not the underlying politics. Even there, Amin al-Husseini also talked in pan-Arab terms, being involved in such politics before he took up the Palestinian cause. (Or, more accurately, the anti-Zionist cause, as the Palestinian identity has been created in the course of opposition to Zionism.) Claims that the public statements of Fatah aimed at Western audiences show some sort of acceptance of Israel, and any substantial Jewish presence in Israel-Palestine, are belied by what is taught in Palestinian schools and pushed in Palestinian media.

The Oslo disaster

Moreover, as Efraim Karsh points out, the Oslo Accords have been a disaster for both Israel and Palestinians. The level of violence since the Accords has been much higher than during the Israeli occupation of 1967-1993, the standard of living of Palestinians has become much lower than it was under the Israeli occupation, and Palestinians suffer under much more corrupt administration than they did under Israeli occupation. As both Fatah and Hamas have stopped having elections, while the Israelis permitted local elections, even democracy was better under Israeli occupation. Meanwhile, since the Accords, Israel has had more killing of its civilians, its security situation has worsened and its politics has been destabilised.

Indeed, with the sole exception of the peace treaty with Egyptevery time Israel has withdrawn from territory (Southern Lebanon, Gaza, West Bank) its civilians have been attacked from that territory. Why would any more territorial withdrawals remotely seem like a good idea? Not to most Israelis any more, according to opinion polls.

The only even vaguely plausible basis for that being a good idea, would be if it brought peace. But that requires Palestinian acceptance of that such a peace, and there is no evidence whatever for that being a remotely plausible outcome. Indeed, apart from various statements aimed at Western opinion, the evidence is clearly against it. Not only the experience up to this time, but also the patterns of Palestinian opinion and the wider history of the Islamic Middle East.

Palestinian opinion

Regarding said opinion, a series of statistically reliable opinion polls of Palestinian opinion are available, though mostly in Arabic. Fortunately, political scientist Daniel Polisar has pored over those opinion poll results, distilling the results into two online essays, here and here.

So, what do Palestinians think the aims of Israel are?

On over two dozen occasions since 2009, PSR fieldworkers asked West Bank and Gaza residents, “What do you think are the aspirations of Israel for the long run?” With clock-like consistency, the options espoused by most of the parties represented in the Israeli Knesset and by consistent majorities of Israelis—namely, that Israel is seeking “withdrawal from all [or part] of the territories it occupied in 1967”—are chosen least often. More popular is the belief, held by one-fifth of Palestinians, that Israel’s goal is “Annexation of the West Bank while denying political rights of Palestinian citizens.” But the view commanding an absolute majority in all 25 polls, at an average of 59 percent, is that Israel’s aspirations are “Extending the borders of the state of Israel to cover all the area between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea and expelling its Arab citizens.”

Assuming one takes respondents at their word, three of every five Palestinians living next door to Israel believe its aspirations are to reconquer the Gaza Strip and the Arab-populated areas of the West Bank, annex them, and expel the more than four million Arab residents currently living there plus the 1.7 million Arab citizens of Israel. And this, despite the fact that in the past quarter-century, not a single Israeli Knesset member, respected public figure, or major media personality has advocated such a view in public or is reliably claimed to have expressed it in private.

What is their opinion of Jews?

In 2009, the Pew Research Center asked publics in two dozen countries how they viewed Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Regarding Jews, 94 percent of Palestinians reported a “very unfavorable” opinion. (Only 23 percent reported a very unfavorable opinion of Christians.) In this respect, Palestinian views are par for the course in the Arab world: between 92 and 95 percent of Lebanese, Egyptians, and Jordanians also expressed very unfavorable opinions of Jews. Two years later, Pew repeated the questions and achieved comparable results. In the latter survey, Pew also asked whether some religions were more prone than others to violence. More than half of Palestinians averred that this is the case, and of these, 88 percent fingered Judaism as the most violent. (The other choices were Islam, Christianity, and Hinduism.)

Let us remember what 1300 years of Islamic doctrine and practice held–that it was a cosmic insult, literally against God, to treat Jews as the political equals of believers. This outlook was based profoundly on Islam’s deep civilisational principle of Muslim supremacy, as embedded in law and in cultural practice; something deemed to be ordained by God. Such supremacy is explicitly the doctrine of Hamas.

The persistent refusal to grapple with the reality that Islam is a different civilisation, with profoundly different basic ideas and cultural and institutional legacy, is at the heart of much Western delusion about Middle Eastern politics and society in general and the Israel-Palestine dispute in particular. An essay, by a former Chief Justice of Saudi Arabia on jihad, apparently written between 1974 and 1981, on the nature and significance of jihad within Islamic law (pdf) provides a case in point. Nothing even remotely like it would be produced by any Western former chief justice.

(As an aside, that so many Western commentators still do not understand that Islamic martyrdom–killing non-believers in pursuit of Sharia rule–is both the best, in the sense of highest status, the only guaranteed path to Paradise, and wipes away all sins and transgressions, is a pointed and repetitive example of such failure to inform oneself. Such a killer’s previous impious behaviour does not in any way undermine the Islamic nature of such acts; on the contrary, it is precisely the putative ability of martyrdom to put all such past transgressions to naught which makes it attractive to “bad” Muslims: and pointing to such past transgressions as some evidence of it not being an “Islamic” act just parades one’s own wilful ignorance.)

Palestinian politics

Muslim supremacy was also the outlook explicitly adopted, and sought to be acted upon, by the founder of Palestinian political movement, Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem when he began Palestinian rejectionism in 1921, that:

demands that Palestinians (and beyond them, Arabs and Muslims) repudiate every aspect of Zionism: deny Jewish ties to the land of Israel, fight Jewish ownership of that land, refuse to recognize Jewish political power, refuse to trade with Zionists, murder Zionists where possible, and ally with any foreign power, including Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, to eradicate Zionism.

Hamas just represents a return to the original ideas motivating Palestinian politics. Hardly surprising, as they come from the same original sources and core ideas.

The only possible path to peace under the politics of the Grand Mufti and of Hamas is the destruction of any element of Jewish organised politics and the Jews accepting powerless subordination to believers. If that is the dominant Palestinian path to peace, then there is no path to peace available to Israel, no concession or cunning policy trick which will allow peace, on any terms remotely likely to be acceptable to Israelis.

So, what about “secular” Palestinian opinion, as represented by Fatah and the PLO? It and its supporters are products of the same cultural nexus, the same civilisation. It may have adopted a rhetorical Marxism–so, instead of Israel being destroyed because it is Jewish, Israel needed to be destroyed because it was it’s a colonial imperialist project–but the declared aim didn’t change. Hardly surprising given that it and its supporters are products of the same culture and civilisation and Fatah and the PLO never repudiated the Grand Mufti.

Thus, organised Palestinian politics have swung from the Jews should be destroyed because they’re being outrageously uppity (1921-48), to Israel should be destroyed because it’s Jewish, to Israel should be destroyed be it’s a colonial imperialist project, and back to Israel should be destroyed because it’s Jewish.

The notion that the experience of defeat, humiliation and partial dispossession has somehow convinced Palestinians to embrace an entirely foreign view of Jews as their moral and political equals, in contradiction to 13 centuries of Islamic doctrine and practice, is not something that has manifested in any way in organised Palestinian politics. On the contrary, preaching, rhetoric, schooling and public culture within Palestinian Territories all point to the opposite–that they have systematically “doubled down” on the notion that the entire experience is a cosmic insult to be rectified at some future time when Jews will again be restored to their proper status as the powerless subordinates of their cosmic betters. As expatriate Iranian journalist Amir Taheri points out, this “nexus” of beliefs is very powerful and deeply resistant to change:

As far as I know, one question has yet to be asked of Palestinians:

Which would you prefer: (1) to see a Palestinian state on the map? (2) to see Israel wiped off the map?

To judge by non-scientific, anecdotal evidence, most Palestinians want both. And this underscores the reality that no progress will be possible until and unless “Palestine” becomes a pragmatic political project rather than a religious-ideological cause célèbre. Until that day dawns, in poll after poll, the Palestinian nexus will continue to provide answers of the type that Daniel Polisar has analyzed with great talent and acumen.

But attending to such facts requires treating Islam as really being a different civilisation with different underlying ideas, history and cultural legacies. Palestinians are not WEIRD (Western Educated Industrialised Rich Democratic), not remotely. But treating them, by default, as if they are by not seriously examining Palestinian politics, opinion, schooling, preaching, media (or treating it as just blank-slate reaction to what Israelis do) is both congenial and reassuring to many Westerners.

So, organised Palestinian politics is a bust in permitting a path to peace–which is why it has never been achieved, despite the fact that potential agreements have always been available. Available, that is, if one was willing to treat Jews as political equals; and that insult of equality was and remains a step way too far.

Palestinian opinion (2)

If organised Palestinian politics is a bust, perhaps there is some good news within Palestinian public opinion?

Not so much. Consider questions about who is to blame for various problems plaguing Palestinians:

Over the years, there were also many questions posed about problems for which Israel wasn’t listed as a possible culprit; on these, respondents assigned blame to their government, to leading figures and parties, or to society as a whole. But when Israel was offered as an option, both where its culpability could plausibly be claimed and where doing so was farfetched in the extreme, more Palestinians passed responsibility to Israel than opted for any other answer. Whatever else this might say, it indicates a tendency to ascribe to Israel greater power than it actually wields—along with intentions so diabolical as to lead it to act in ways detrimental to the Jewish state’s own interests, so long as this will cause suffering to Palestinians.

How could one possibly contemplate final peace with a state so malign? (Or a frame of mind which has failed to notice that they were actually better off under direct Israeli rule: but the cosmic insult of equality is too strong.)

Particularly as Palestinian opinion overwhelmingly denies Jews have any links to the land of Israel. Moreover:

This denial of Jewish roots and rights might help explain why Palestinians are skeptical that Israel, not yet three-quarters of a century old, will continue to exist as a Jewish state, or perhaps at all, in another generation. In 2011, the Greenberg poll asked Palestinians to choose which statement is more accurate: “I am certain Israel will exist 25 years from now as a Jewish state with a Jewish majority” or “I am not so certain . . . .” Over 60 percent doubted Israel would continue to exist as a Jewish state. In the 2015 Washington Institute poll, a similar question was asked, with different wording and a lengthened time horizon. In response, only a quarter of Palestinians believed Israel would continue to exist as a Jewish state “in another 30 or 40 years.” A comparable number thought it would exist as a bi-national state of Jews and Palestinians, while close to half said Israel would no longer exist either “because Arab or Muslim resistance will destroy it” or “because it will collapse from internal contradictions.”

In sum, when the Palestinians look at Israel, they see a country of enormous power and influence that has done great harm to them, that seeks to displace them entirely from historical Palestine, and whose people are deficient as individuals and also lacking any collective rights to the land in general or to Jerusalem in particular.

Why make peace (in contradiction of fundamental religious and cultural principles) with a malign state which, if one hangs onto one’s hate for long enough, will just go away? Faced with this systematic rejection, it is hardly surprising that endless negotiations never end up with anything other than temporary truce agreements and provisional arrangements. For reasons which are not amenable to Israeli policy levers.

It is also hardly surprising that Palestinian opinion strongly supports violence against Israel and Jews, and has a completely one-sided notion of what constitutes terrorism:

When asked hypothetically if Israel’s use of chemical or biological weapons against Palestinians would constitute terror, 93 percent said yes, but when the identical question was posed regarding the use of such weapons of mass destruction by Palestinians against Israelis, only 25 percent responded affirmatively.

Indeed, Palestinians are much more positive towards Muslim terrorism in general than other Arabs:

Also in the same survey, Palestinians were asked whether “The destruction of the Twin Towers in New York City by people suspected to be members of Bin Laden’s organization” was terrorism. Only 41 percent were willing to say yes; 53 percent rejected the term. The same pattern crops up in surveys conducted between 2006 and 2009 by the Arab Barometer project, in which Palestinians consistently distinguished themselves from other Arabs in rejecting the term terrorism for such jihadist operations as the “Madrid train explosions” (March 2004, 191 killed) and the “London underground explosions” (July 2005, 52 dead). In both cases, a majority of Palestinians averred these were not acts of terror, whereas comparable figures in the other Arab publics ranged from 17 percent down to 2 percent. …

Though the level of support varied widely among countries and across time, one constant is that the Palestinians were always the leaders in seeing suicide bombings and similar attacks as justified. On average, 59 percent saw them as being justified often or sometimes; no other Arab or Muslim public came close.

Violence against Israel is seen as effective:

Similarly, Israeli decisions to pull out of previously held territory have been seen by Palestinians as a consequence of their “armed resistance” and not as a function of Israeli strategic interests, international pressure, or other factors. This was pointedly true regarding the decision by the government of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to leave the Gaza Strip. When asked by PSR in September 2005, a month after the pullout, what was “the single most important factor” in the Israeli decision, 57 percent chose “attacks by Palestinian resistance.” Time and again in polls before and after the pullout, three-quarters on average would tell PSR they saw “Sharon’s plan to evacuate the Israeli settlements from Gaza as a victory for the Palestinian armed resistance against Israel.” …

West Bank and Gaza residents were asked: “Do you think that when Palestinians use violence that injures and kills Israeli civilians this makes the Israelis more willing or less willing to make compromises?” Sixty-four percent opted for “more willing,”and only 17 percent for “less willing.”

Why make peace with a malign state against basic religious and cultural principles when violence continues to work? More to the point, if you are Israel, how do you negotiate any peace if every Israeli concession is seen as a sign of weakness, a presaging of Israel’s eventual collapse and destruction? (Remember the history of Israeli withdrawals.)

Nor is it surprising that perpetrators of violence are valorised:

In the poll, a substantial majority, 61 percent, thought it morally “right” to “nam[e] streets after Palestinian suicide bombers like Dalal al-Maghrabi who killed Israeli civilians within Israel.”

There is support, according to various opinion polls, among Palestinians for various potential package deals and compromises, as David Pollock explains here. The bad news is that they fall into the temporary truce agreements and provisional arrangements category (which have always been sanctioned by Islamic doctrine), being allied to a strong belief that Israel will collapse or be destroyed.

The refusal of the Palestinian leadership to agree to recognise Israel as a Jewish state or to give up the right of return makes complete sense in this context.

Paid to be dysfunctional

As Israeli journalist Haviv Rettig Gur points out, the view of Palestinians as a powerless put-upon people also serves Palestinian interests, both in avoiding the burdens of responsibility and in selling a “blame Israel’ narrative to everyone else. (Which Western progressivists are all too willing to buy.)

The West, via UNWRA (which has an annual budget of over a US$1bn), pays billions of dollars and euros for the Palestinians to remain dysfunctional. The trick is done by a definition of refugee that only applies to Palestinians–to be a Palestinian “refugee” one has to have been resident for two years up to 1948 in the territories became Israel, or be a descendant of same. Palestinians are thus the world’s only hereditary refugees. As hereditary refugees, they receive said billions in euros and dollars from the West. If the same definition of refugee as applies to everyone else was applied to Palestinians, not only would stop feeding into Palestinian view of unique victimhood, it would also force them to start collectively working for a living–which would make cooperation with Israel much more attractive.

If the US and the EU were serious about promoting Israel-Palestinian peace, they would do that immediately, at least in their own policy (getting the UN General Assembly to agree may be more difficult). If commentators on Israel-Palestinian peace were serious, they would advocate that. The seriousness of such efforts and commentary can be judged by whether they are even remotely aware of the issue, and the deeply perverse incentives this funding creates (which looms a great deal larger in Palestinian economies than does US aid to Israel in the Israeli economy).

That, after provoking conflict with Israel, Hamas received billions in pledges of rebuilding money is another case of Palestinians being paid to be dysfunctional, to be shielded from the consequences of their actions and attitudes.

The West (and particularly Europe) pays the Palestinians to have no incentive to adjust their attitudes, or make peace, and then wonders why Israel is resistant to their perspectives.

Palestinian popular rejectionism

As Daniel Polisar points out in his second online essay, while there has sometimes been Palestinian majority polling support for a two-state solution, it presumes the content of such an agreement to be such as to well beyond what any Israeli Government is likely to agree to. Support for a binational state is much lower. Moreover, even if not explicitly offered the option, a significant (and rising) minority opts for an Islamic/Palestinian state on the entire territory of Israel-Palestine as a write-in response. When explicitly offered the option, support is much higher (and far higher than the equivalent view among Israelis: but Palestinian opinion has always been more extreme, and Palestinian politics more violent, than Israeli opinion and politics), with an Palestinian state “from the river to the sea” being much the preferred option again and again. Unsurprisingly, a 2015 opinion poll found that:

A tiny minority, 12 percent, said “Both Jews and Palestinians have rights to the land.” An overwhelming majority, including 81 percent of West Bankers and 88 percent of Gazans, answered unequivocally that “This is all Palestinian land and Jews have no rights to it.”

So, even when we seem to be in the realm of compromise, the nexus fights back. This us-or-them mentality is nicely expressed by opinion poll results:

[In 2003] Only 17 percent of Palestinians believed Israel’s existence was compatible with the realization of their rights and needs, while 80 percent believed it incompatible. The identical question was asked in 2007, with similar results: 77 percent of Palestinians believed they could not achieve their national rights or meet their needs as long as Israel existed.

Opposition to Israel’s right to exist is overwhelming, and most so among young Palestinians, the product of the Palestinian education systems:

Indeed, when JMCC asked Palestinians in 1995, “Do you think Israel has the right to exist?,” 65 percent said no. In February 2007, Near East Consulting (NEC), a Ramallah-based survey research firm that differs from its peers in using telephone surveys rather than face-to-face interviews, asked the same question and reported that 75 percent of respondents answered in the negative. NEC asked the question again in May of that year and again the same percentage disagreed. Tellingly, the percentage of naysayers was highest among the young, reaching 92 percent among Palestinians between ages eighteen and twenty-four.

Israeli scepticism about any putative peace process appears well grounded (as, for that matter, does scepticism regarding the establishment of a Palestinian state). Conversely, Western commentary which presumes some changes in Israeli policy would allow peace to be achieved appears deeply delusional. Israel can decide what it wants all it likes; short of simply expelling all the Palestinians from their borders, it is not in Israel’s power to achieve any stable arrangement, merely varying degrees of tolerable ones. Particularly as the overwhelmingly preferred Palestinian outcome remains to expel all the Jews.

Historical roots

We need to be quite clear that Palestinian attitudes do not spring from some reaction to Zionism but from much deeper sources. Under Western pressure, the Ottoman Empire in the later C19th began to move to equal legal rights and standing for Muslims and non-Muslims. The result were periodic “equal rights” massacres (such as Aleppo in 1850 and in Damascus in 1860), where, although often in part sparked by other factors, believers would also become homicidally enraged over the loss of (superior) status that equality with non-Muslims entailed.

Armenian dead, Erzurum, 1895.

This was a pattern the Ottoman state itself eventually embraced, as Muslims became an increasing majority within the shrinking Empire, with the Hamidian massacres of the 1890s, the Adana massacre of 1909 and the Armenian, Greek-Pontic and Assyrian genocides of the Great War. The pattern continued in Arab states in the interwar period, with various massacres of non-Muslim groups, such as the Simele massacre of 1933.

The massacres of Jews in Mandatory Palestine did not come out of nowhere. The Jews did show a willingness to kill back. One sometimes get utterly misleading claims that Palestinian terrorism represents “asymmetric warfare”. That is nonsense on stilts–killing Jews was engaged in decades before Israel was born, when Muslims were a majority in Mandatory Palestine. Indeed, as noted above, we are approaching the centenary of the tactic in Israel-Palestine.

The agitation against Zionism did represent a shift in the pattern of massacre elsewhere in the Muslim Middle East–Jews became increasing targets, when Christians had mainly been the victims up to then, culminating in the Farhud pogrom in Baghdad. So, when antipathy to the actions of Christian Powers was the issue, local Christians were massacred. Once Zionism came along, more local Jews were massacred–which was actually a gain, in a sense, as Jewish populations were smaller and more urbanised, so such massacres involved less actual killings.

Palestinian politics helped build Israel

In a way, Israel owes the Grand Mufti a debt: his homicidal enmity, and his ability to inspire and motivate support, was so clear that any Jews in Mandatory Palestine who had doubted the need for a Jewish state did so no longer. But his benefits to Israel extended beyond that. By absolutely confirming what their own local experience showed them, he and his movement greatly encouraged Jews from all over the Middle East to flee to the new country of Israel. Indeed, once Israel was established, and the prevailing Arab attitude to Jews being effective political actors was continually demonstrated, Middle Eastern Jews embraced Zionism much more thoroughly than European Jews did, with about two-thirds of them fleeing to Israel (the rest mainly fled to France and the US, leaving behind tiny remnants of communities with a longer history in the region than Islam) and did so without any local horror remotely on the scale of the Holocaust. (Though the various Ottoman genocides were powerful indicators in their own right, along with the responses to the creation of Israel.)

Of course, seeing Zionism as including any sort of response to Arab actions rather gets in the way of various progressivist pieties.

The modernising threat

Decades prior to the establishment of Israel, the Mufti, and the movement he led, responded to the new arrivals with a level of virulent contempt and violence wildly in excess of anything represented by current European populist nationalists towards Muslim migrants into Europe. And Mandatory Palestine in the 1920s was not remotely an over-populated place. The newcomers brought capital, labour, skills which resulted in an expanding economy that then drew people in from the rest of the Middle East–an unknown proportion of contemporary Palestinians only have any connection to Palestine because the Jews moved in.

Kibbutz, 1941.

But the newcomers also brought in modernisation; including beliefs about democracy and equal rights, about expanded possibilities for women. They were an affront to the traditionalist landlord class, with its debt bondage, and the associated clerical establishment, at so many levels. Deeply embedded notions of Muslim supremacy were a convenient lever to try and keep the modern world out–and fear and hatred of modernity is something Jew-hatred has had a strong association with over the last two centuries. Trying to fit some anti-colonialist story over the top of Palestinian, Arab and Muslim Jew-hatred obscures way more than it reveals.

Moreover, as the history of equal rights massacres in the Ottoman Empire, and the Hamidian massacres and the Armenian, Pontic-Greek and Assyrian genocides, the various minority massacres of the interwar years, including the Farhud, the Lebanese Civil War, the Algerian Civil War, the contemporary history of Iraq, Syria and Libya all attest, abandoning the Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) would be a suicidally stupid choice on the part of Israelis. Yet the elimination of the IDF is clearly a core Palestinian aim.

The case of Lebanon, originally a somewhat Christian-dominated state which failed to provoke remotely the same enmity as Israel, provides a revealing contrast: though set up as a multi-communal or confessional state with the Christian community in first position, Lebanon was not explicitly a Christian state, it did not involve non-Muslims moving into Muslim lands (in contradiction of the “proper” direction of history), the Christians were not bringing modernity with them and it all ended in civil war anyway, with peace only being achieved on the basis of a state weak enough not to be threatening but also too weak to perform basic functions.

Lebanon was also set up during the heyday of Arab nationalism, when Arab Christians in particular were at the forefront of an ideology which pushed the common status of Muslims and Christian Arabs as Arabs, hence Lebanon’s role as a founder-member of the Arab League. As Arab nationalism tied itself to confrontation with Israel (which failed) and very strongly state-centred economic policies (which also largely failed) it has lost most of its popular and institutional base, while Arab Christians have found that agreeing with Muslim Arabs to exclude the Jews from Arab identity has, in the longer term, just meant they became next on the hit list, hence the steady emigration of Christians from Arab lands.

Population exchanges, 1920s.

The role of blaming Israel as scapegoat had wide appeal in the Arab Middle East. Especially as, that a bunch of refugee Jews built a prosperous democracy not only showed up Arab failures, it is a cosmic insult. Hence the continuing refusal of Arab to accept “the Zionist entity” and the efforts of Arab regimes to divert popular attention and anger to the Zionists and the Jews (though that has proved a fading game). Hence also leaving the Palestinians as stateless sticks to beat Israel with.

The great success of Israel of taking in so many refugees and building a successful society, democracy and state has, ironically, obscured both the flight of Jews from Muslim countries and that so many Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern, not European, origin. But is has also obscured that the Palestinians are the only case of people in a C20th population exchange who were not taken in and absorbed by their ethno-religious confreres. Any claim that it is Palestinian dispossession which drives Arab attitudes to Israel is disproved by the treatment of Palestinians by Arab countries. It is easier for a Palestinian to become a citizen of Western settler societies Canada, USA and Australia than of most Arab countries. (Kuwait, for example, expelled its Palestinian residents without any blowback.)

Europe in the late 1940s; mostly not voluntary moves (particularly the Germans).

There is a great deal to Ruth R. Wisse’s point that Zionism is unexceptional, it is anti-Zionism which is exceptional. Indeed, anti-Zionism is pervaded by exceptionalism–the Palestinians as permanent and hereditary refugees, as stateless sticks to beat Israel is rather than being accepted as citizens of Arab states, to be paid to be dysfunctional, as agentless victims who have no responsibility for the failure to achieve piece, as morally counting only when harmed by Israel.

Whatever the merit of separating anti-Zionism from anti-Semitism in the West, it has always been a distinction without a difference in the Arab world–which was anti-Zionist because it was pervaded with Jew-hatred. While European anti-Semitic tropes have found ready acceptance in the Arab world–most obviously, The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (whose first Arab translation was by an Arab Christian in the 1920s)–this was a Jew-hatred founded in Muslim supremacism: anything which implied that Jews had equal moral and political standing with believers was a cosmic insult. Which the existence of Israel most emphatically did entail, but so did implying Jews had any right to live in Israel.
The exceptionalism goes all the way back to end of the Israeli War for Independence, as Einat Wilf reminds us:

In the negotiations following the war, the Arab negotiation teams not only refused to meet with representatives of the State of Israel, but took great pains to emphasise that the armistice lines separating the newly independent State from the Gaza Strip and the West Bank were not to be borders. Borders implied permanence. These were cease-fire lines only, because the war was not over. The message was clear: the Jewish people might have declared independence in the State of Israel, but sooner or later there would be another war that would erase that humiliating eyesore from the Arab region.

It is all about not accepting the existence of Israel as anything other than a temporary, and cosmically perverse, state of affairs. Cosmically perverse because the fundamental objection remains the same that it always has been–treating Jews as politically equal to Muslims and Arabs.

The main driver of Muslim, particularly Arab, attitudes in general, and Palestinian attitudes in particular to Israel and Jews, remains Muslim supremacism. It is not that absolutely every Muslim, Arab or Palestinian buys into all of it (or any of it); it is that Muslim supremacism retains the balance of presumption and opinion and continues to drive attitudes. But Muslim supremacism is central to most of the difficulties between Muslims and non-Muslims (and, for that matter, many of the problems between Muslims; though in such cases it is about what it entails, whether and how it should be adhered to, and who counts as a Muslim). In particular, Muslim supremacism is why the patterns of behaviour within Muslim communities tend to shift depending on their share of the population and their level of local population dominance.

The depressing reality

But looking at all this history is messy and awkward: it gets in the way of all sorts of neat, convenient narratives. It being a common contemporary progressive view that somewhere, somehow, history stopped and no one has inconvenient historical and cultural baggage–well, no non-Westerners. (The principle of Haan history most emphatically applies to the West: including, of course, Israel.)

Taking the broader perspective does lead us to a depressing place. But there is a reason we are not far from the centenary of the Jewish-Arab violence in Israel-Palestine. And the reason is not Zionism and the Jews, the reason is that the Palestinians have not remotely escaped from over 13 centuries of Islamic doctrine and cultural practice. Unless some mechanism is found to sort those who have from those who haven’t, and and increase and keep the former and shrink and expel the latter (since even a hostile minority is enough to keep violence going), the no-peace just provisional arrangements situation will continue, indefinitely.

 

[Cross-posted from Thinking Out Aloud.]

Why there is so much nonsense spouted about fascism

By Lorenzo

If you are going to invoke the interwar period, particularly the 1930s, please do so intelligently.

By which I mean, non-propagandistically. And by interwar period I mean the phenomenon of fascism and neo-fascism.

Despite self-serving (look at me, I am opposing fascism!) shrieking, there is not a lot of fascism or neo-fascism in contemporary Western politics. Fascists and neo-fascists do, of course, exist but mostly as sad and nasty fringe groups–Golden Dawn in Greece is the most locally successful of the breed, as was the MSI in its early days in Italy (where it got much of its support as an anti-Mafia vote), though nowadays it is post-fascist as a necessary element in mainstreaming itself.

What has become conspicuous is a lot of shrieking-and-pointing about alleged fascists and neo-fascism. (E.g. treating Pauline Hanson, for example here, and Geert Wilders as neofascism and Marine Le Pen‘s National Front in France as fascism.) This has mostly been a result of intellectually impoverished frameworks interacting with moral grandstanding; in particular, the moralised cognitive tribalism that is such a feature of postmodern identity progressivists (PIPs) and their fellow cognitive tribalists.

Militarisation of politics

The reason there is not much fascism or neo-fascism in contemporary Western politics is because there is remarkably little militarisation of politics. By militarisation of politics, I do not mean being pro-military spending, extolling the worth of military service or supporting military intervention. Hillary Clinton and other folk supporting various military interventions are not examples of the militarisation of politics.

Actual Fascists, doing fascist politics.
Mussolini marching on Rome, 1922.

By militarisation of politics, I mean something much more domestic and much more pervasive: seeing politics operationally and rhetorically in military terms; taking military virtues to be the central virtues all society should be directed to creating; seeing military service as the apotheosis that all true men should seek; glorifying military conflict itself.

The appeal of Italian Fascism and German Nazism was deeply pervaded with appeal to the heroic virtues of military service and conflict. It is no accident that both movements had their own paramilitary wings. Mass display of uniformed militarised masculinity was a key part of their political aesthetic, their operational methods, their motivating ideology, of their political branding. It was also no accident that both Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were aggressive powers: it was something their entire mode of politics was inherently directed towards. (It is also a sign of Franco not being a fascist, rather a traditionalist authoritarian who used some fascist rhetoric and props, that he made the achievement and maintenance of peace a key justifying prop of his regime.)

As peacetime systems of rule, neither Fascist Italy or Nazi Germany were remotely as murderous or systematically oppressive as various Leninist regimes. But peacetime was not their time. It was particularly not in the case of Nazi Germany; lebensraum was Hitler’s political aim, the object the policy of his Reich was directed towards. It was in the removal of normal constraints that war entails which let loose the true megacidal horrors of Nazism.

Nazi politics, 1928.

Indeed, as systems of domestic politics, Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany were relatively unremarkable tyrannies. Nazism was terrible because it exported its viciousness into war and then used war as a cover to let its full megacidal ambitions loose. Italian Fascism was less so in every sense, but engaged in its own, smaller, imperial military adventures and then made itself a co-conspirator in the grander horror.

There do most certainly exist in the modern world analogues of Fascism and Nazism; movements glorifying violent conflict and heroic virtues in grandiose imperial ambitions–the jihadis. Within Western politics, however, not so much.

Militating against

Nor is there any surprise in the lack of such militarisation of politics within the contemporary West. First, is the association of war with horror and vast risks (particularly as a result of the war that Nazi politics let loose), a factor reinforced by low fertility rates (the prospect of war looks very different to a society of families of 5-10 children than a society of families of 1-2 children). Second, it represents a grotesquely failed model of politics even in its own terms. Third, having paramilitary wings is an easy legislative target and a promise of the threat of disorder which is precisely the opposite effect you want to have to get mass political support in the contemporary West. Fourth, there is no issue in contemporary politics with mass appeal that such militarisation represents any sort of even vaguely plausible response to.

Thus, it is no accident that both the National Front in France and the MSI in Italy moved away from their neo-fascist roots in their drive to become more electorally successful: a form of the taming of the extremist fringe which is supposed to be part of the virtue of electoral politics.

Threat levels, then …

Which leads to the other way such contemporary pointing-and-shrieking comprehensively fails to grapple with past and present political reality–in refusing to consider how much the appeal of Italian Fascism and German Nazism rested on the threat of Leninism and Stalinism. In other words, refusing to consider the dynamic nature of politics, its action-and-response nature.

That Fascism was a response to Leninism was both explicit in Mussolini’s thinking and in how his movement was able to generate such high levels of support–the prospect of a Leninist revolution in the Kingdom of Italy in the immediate aftermath of the Great War seemed very real to many. With 20-20 hindsight, whatever risk there had been was in sharp decline before Mussolini’s March on Rome, but that was not how it appeared to many at the time. Without Leninism as a model of total politics (which Mussolini adopted and re-directed) and Leninism as a multi-dimensional threat to social order (which Mussolini posed as the true defender against), Fascism’s militarisation of politics would have seemed grotesque and threatening to the very support base it relied upon. With such a violent revolutionary threat, however, invoking the role of uniformed protectors had much more resonance.

Nazi-Communist street fighting, Berlin, 1930s.

The same points apply to the rise of the Nazis in the 1930s. In the prosperous 1920s, the NSDAP was a fringe Party precisely because its (para)militarised politics was disruptive and threatening. When the insane Bank of France, aided and abetted by a feckless US Federal Reserve, turned the interwar gold standard into a system of economic devastation such that the proudly Stalinist KPD began to electorally overtake the SDP, threatening to bring to Germany the confiscations, totalitarian tyranny, mass starvations and killings of Stalinism, and ordinary politics seemed incapable or unwilling to do anything effective, then the Nazis could point to a problem to which their militarisation of politics could be presented as an answer. Without Stalinism as a model of total politics (which Hitler followed and surpassed Mussolini in adopting and re-directing) and Stalinism as a multi-dimensional threat to social order (which Hitler posed as the true defender against) the NSDAP’s militarisation of politics would have remained a grotesque and threatening folly to the very support base it needed for electoral success.

… and now

The nationalist populisms of our time (notably, One Nation, National Front, Sweden Democrats, Party for Freedom, Flemish Interest, Alternative for Germany, etc) are not Fascist or Nazi, or even neo-Fascist or neo-Nazi, in any useful sense. They are responses to the way globalisation is dividing Western societies into anywheres and somewheres (David Goodhart), into cosmopolitans and parochials (Katharine Betts), with increasingly distinct experiences, perspectives and interests; to contemporary progressivist politics, and to failures of the mainstream centre-right, but they are much less feral responses than Fascism or Nazism because they are not responding to things anywhere near as violently threatening as Leninism in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution, and its variouscopy-catrisings, or Stalinism in the context of widespread, intense, and apparently entrenched economic misery.

The contemporary version:
Hezbollah swearing-in ceremony.

For the 1930s Depression was not enough in itself to generate such politics. Fascist politics remained fringe throughout the Anglosphere, despite the depths of the Depression in the US and Australia particularly. Without mass Leninist or Stalinist Parties, plus rural votes profoundly alienated from the centre-left, there was nothing anywhere near directly threatening enough to create any breakthrough into mass voter support for the militarisation of politics.

There still isn’t in the contemporary West. (Unless relations with the growing Muslim communities in Western Europe continue to spiral downwards.)

What there is, are remarkably arrogant and insular globalist elites who use their sense of moral superiority as a socio-cultural club against any concerns they deem beneath their moral consideration. Folk who display a massive sense of moral entitlement in demanding absolute respect for their moral concerns while habitually displaying complete contempt for the moral concerns of other citizens. Sheer exasperation with their condescending self-involvement is driving working class voters in particular to embrace various forms of populist nationalism. (Or, in Spain and Greece, various form of populist socialism.)

Such populists are pushing nationalism (ethnicity politics) instead of patriotism (polity loyalty), and nationalist politics have all the nasty implications that identity politics do. But if the language of cultural placement and affirmation is not only abandoned by mainstream politics, but actively excoriated, then it creates a massive opportunity for nationalists. Just as if support for migration become a marker of membership of the oh-so-moral cognitive elite, so that any discussion of the downsides and costs of migration (and both exist) is deemed illegitimate, that creates a political opportunity too.

Politics as dynamic interaction

One cannot understand the rise of populist nationalists without understanding the dynamic nature of politics. But that would require the PIPish cosmopolitans to look critically in the mirror, and their entire mode of political, intellectual and cultural operation has become all about signalling their tribal membership and their multidimensional cognitive and moral superiority. So, no mirrors for them.

On the contrary, one signals one’s cognitive tribal membership by blaming folk who display their intellectual and moral culpability by dissenting from progressivist signalling pieties. Which leaves us back to pointing-and-shrieking about fascism and neo-fascism. It’s self-serving nonsense. (Consider, just for a moment, the vast gulf in methods, operations, ambitions and policies between the jihadis and the populist nationalists.) But it is very revealing self-serving nonsense. Unfortunately, the longer PIPish cosmopolitans remain trapped in their self-serving blindness, the greater the number of exasperated and infuriated voters is likely to become. (Because, of course, constantly shouting racist!, xenophobe! is such an excellent way to be persuasive and is not at all about displaying one’s moral superiority.)

The AntiFa idea of being the opposite of fascists:
organised violence with improvised uniforms
to block other people’s peaceful assembly and free speech.

It is also a very old pattern, whereby a socio-cultural elite agrees furiously amongst itself how horrible the rustics/plebs/peasants/proles are. (As is pretty explicit in this post.) Made all the more blindly self-righteous in the contemporary West by the pose of being “subversive” and their addiction to explaining social outcomes as being the result of the malice of their fellow citizens (i.e. as being caused by racism, misogny, [fill in the blank]phobia …) who, because they are the malicious, cannot be debated with, only shrieked at.

For the problem with turning moral beliefs into markers of status and tribal membership is that they become too precious to (re)consider, leading to an increasing hostility to reality and inability to deal with difference. The PIPish cosmopolitans are relentlessly, often viciously, tribal (which makes this post hilarious in its self-blindness). The pointing-and-shrieking fascist! fascist! is a symptom of the cognitive xenophobia, the inability to cope with difference in concerns and perspectives, among those holding the cultural and intellectual “commanding heights” in Western societies that is doing a great deal to make Western politics much more dysfunctional.

So, the fascism! pointing-and-shrieking is not only bad history, it is part of a wider, destructive, self-serving, pattern which is new in details but is otherwise tediously oh-so-been-here-before.

ADDENDA Also worth noting is that both Nazism and Fascism were very explicit in their anti-democratic rhetoric (which, of course, is a another way they parallel the jihadis). Fuhrerprinzip in particular followed logically from the idealisation of the heroic virtues–which come together in a hierarchy of heroic leaders which reached its pinnacle in the Fuhrer himself.

Hitler defeated Lenin, Chiang defeated Mao

By Lorenzo

It is a commonplace that the victors write history. But which victors? The victors that are claimed to write history are normally taken to be those who win wars and other conflicts. But just because one side wins a war or conflict, it does not follow that its ideas triumph in the longer term.

Consider contemporary China. Mao Zedong defeated Chiang Kai-shek in their epic decades-long conflict, driving him and his Kuomintang forces to exile in Taiwan. Now, look at contemporary China–is it closer to Mao’s vision or Chiang’s?

Obviously Chiang’s. As a wit observed, the story of post-1979 politics in both “Chinas” (the People’s Republic and Taiwan) is the Communist Party of China trying to become the Kuomintang and the Kuomintang trying to become the Democratic Progressive Party. Mao may have won the military struggle, but Chiang’s vision won the wider social war. It turns out that social reality is not entirely plastic to our visions, and Chiang’s proved to be more human and achievable than Mao’s. That matters, in the end.

Lenin‘s successor Stalin, with huge help from the Anglo-Americans (who provided trucks, rolling stock, canned food, and munitions crucial to the Red Army while their bombing campaign diverted the Luftwaffe and many thousands of tank-killer 88mm guns from the Eastern Front), defeated Hitler on the Eastern Front. But consider contemporary postmodern identity progressivism (PIP), with its concern for authenticity, identity, emotion over reason, environment, obsessions with the Jewish state, dismissive treatment of workers and belief that a sufficiently interventionist state does not have to own firms to control them: whose obsessions does it better reflect, Hitler’s or Lenin’s?

Obviously Hitler’s (though also obviously not with his identity rankings). As post-Enlightenment progressivism turns out to be the Counter-Enlightenment rebooted (which is why it is so easy for more openly Counter-Enlightenment politics to adopt the political tropes of PIPism), this is less shocking than it appears.

For the triumph of Chiang’s vision over Mao’s, and Hitler’s obsessions over Lenin’s, is, in a deep sense, the same triumph (or, more accurately, the same failure). In both cases, the Radical Enlightenment (the belief that humans and society could be utterly transformed by applied social reason) turned out to be triumphant in direct military struggle and a failure thereafter.

Winning the war …  

The Radical Enlightenment instanced by Leninism and Maoism was triumphant in direct military struggle because it both motivated and mobilised. It provided a vision, a goal, of such transcendent power that it could motivate enormous, focused efforts. Moreover, efforts that could not only motivate intensely but mobilise broadly. Since every aspect of society was to be transformed, every aspect of society was up for being contested and mobilised without inhibitions, moral or conceptual. No aspect of society, or social group, was beyond contesting or mobilising for a future that seemed to epitomise modernity. Mao could count on much more motivated allies and fellow-travellers than Chiang, including broader sympathy within the US State Department, for example–and not from communists or crypto-communists but from liberal/progressive folk repelled by the corrupt inefficiencies of Chiang’s regime.

During the struggle on the Eastern Front, Hitler threw away potential allies on race-theory grounds while diverting resources to genocide. Stalin was even more willing to engaged in megacidal slaughter than Hitler, but was much better at sequencing slaughter than Hitler. Mobilising for the current struggle always came first.

Within Weimar Germany, interwar politics demonstrated that class theory was worse at alliance building than race theory. As a direct consequence, once in power being ruled by Hitler in peacetime was generally far safer than being ruled by Stalin: a typical German was much less threatened by Hitler than a typical Russian was by Stalin.

Internationally, it was the other way around–class theory was better at alliance building than race theory. While Nazism and Stalinism were even on the motivation stakes, Stalinism was better at allies and breadth of mobilisation.

… but failing human and social management 

Hence, Stalinism won (with help from its allies). But won the war, not history for, again, social reality is not entirely plastic to our visions. As political economist Mancur Olson pointed out, you can make Stalinism work (in the sense of providing a high proportion of social resources for the purposes of the ruler)–provided you are willing to engage in regular purges to break up the resource diverting and suppressing “self-help” (i.e. patronage and corruption) networks that command-and-control systems naturally generate. But as the people purges need to threaten (those in the power apparat) in order to work are precisely the people with the greatest ability to end them, they are not likely to be a permanent feature of any society. (Well, there is a way around that–have a hereditary ruler.) Once the purges end, then the self-servicing networks build up and the (now unchecked) pathologies of command-and-control begin to spread until the system is buried by them.

                        Shanghai, China.

Unless you do as Deng Xiaoping did, and allow other social mechanisms (specifically those of markets and private property) to operate across wider and wider range of social space. You are still left with attempting to manage command-and-control mechanisms, but across a narrower span of social action supported by an expanding economy rather than a stagnating, or even contracting, one.

Hitler’s obsessions, on the other hand, are much less directly destructive of economic activity while equally representing a rejection of the Sceptical Enlightenment (the belief that human nature and social dynamics–such as the problems of knowledge and incentives–provide a permanent constraints on what applied reason can achieve). The rebooted identity obsessions of the Counter-Enlightenment provide motivating purposes and grounds for social mobilisation compatible (mostly) with market mechanisms. In the face of the collapse of command economics as a plausible social model, they were a natural place for salvationist politics (i.e. politics that provides a substitute for religion in imparting a sense of meaning, importance and path to a transcendent future) to move to, and so it has.

It turns out, being good at military success is not enough; being compatible with longer run social success counts more. In the failure of the Radical Enlightenment because people and society are not as plastic to our visions as it claims–indeed, requires–we can see why Chiang’s vision defeated Mao’s and Hitler’s obsessions overtook Lenin’s.

 

[Cross-posted from Thinking Out Aloud.]

How the rhetoric of denunciation distorts public affairs

By Lorenzo

During a post on how the US Democrats need to get their act together for the good of the United States, IT guru and long-time blogger Eric. S. Raymond makes the following observation about constant harping on about racism:

It is irrelevant whether an actual plurality of American voters actually are as racist and sexist as you think. They don’t think they are, and they’re fed up with being hectored about it. This isn’t 1965, and your ability to tap into a substratum of guilt by white people who deep down know they were in the wrong is gone. What that same move brings up now is resentment.

Quite so. That racial resentment is then characterised as racism (or a proxy for racism: see here) then generates a self-reinforcing feedback loop.

The constant pointing-and-shrieking of racism!, sexism!, misogyny!, homophobia!, transphobia!, xenophobia!, Islamophobia! etc is what I have called the rhetoric of denunciation. It is based on what we might reasonably call the PC-principle:

a person’s moral standing is determined by their opinions.

This is in contrast to the liberal principle:

a person has inherent moral worth and so should be free to express their opinions.

The PC principle, or what we might call the grading-by-opinion principle, has various implications. One is “gotcha!”. If a person’s moral standing is dependent on their opinions, then any error or mistake is likely to be interpreted as a moral or character failing. If said words transgresses against the current opinion-grading norms (and so is subject to point-and-shriek), then their lack of moral character, their lack of moral standing, is taken as demonstrated and so profoundly contaminates anything else they have to say.

Another consequence is the downgrading of achievement. If moral standing is determined by conformity to opinion-grading norms, then past achievement is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter if one was a pioneering voice in feminism, or of transgender film making, a prominent gay and civil rights activist, or was clever enough to land a spacecraft on a comet, or got a Nobel Prize in biology, or even if the original claims were false or misleading; all that counts for naught against (apparent) failure to keep up to current opinion status-grading norms.

A third is pervasive moral arrogance: both from the belief that one is entitled to grade people in such a way and in the belief that one partakes in a moral and cognitive understanding so pervasive that such grading is unproblematic. There is no place for Millian humility about truth being discovered through dispute. On the contrary, the sense of moral grandeur and entitlement is part of the appeal of the grading-by-opinion principle to adherents (and, conversely, what makes their consequent antics so infuriating to others).

Distorting information flows
But there will also be a range of (invidious) effects on the flow of information and opinion within the wider society and politics. Those who have views or concerns that fail to conform to the opinion norms (themselves set by those most willing to protest and vilify) and for whom vilification imposes relatively high costs (for instance, due to career or personal reasons), will be pushed out of participating conversations and debates; both personal and public. Their concerns and views will not disappear, and are unlikely to be changed, but will simply persist in a largely unseen fashion. So, all the problems of preference falsification begin to build up.

Those who dissent yet remain active in conversation and public debate will be those willing and able to put up with the vilification costs. Which will often be the more ideologically motivated. So, the paradoxical effect of trying to restrict diversity in opinion will to make the more stridently non-conformist more publicly salient. Worse, the more that the more ideologically motivated have a monopoly in expressing concerns prevalent among the reluctantly silent, the more capacity the ideologically motivated will have to build support among such.

Given that contemporary grading-by-opinion principle within the cultural “commanding heights” is profoundly progressivist, that will create a tendency to de-stabilise centre-right politics, as more moderate politicians are pushed into failing to respond to concerns among their voters, and so begin to lose out to less conformist political entrepreneurs. Conversely, the (quite accurate) sense of being ignored and hectored by arrogant and condescending elites will give the counter-identity of populism so much to work with.

So, the effect of conformity-enforcing pointing-and-shrieking, and the rhetoric of denunciation, of imposing social costs on dissenting opinion, will to increase polarising extremity in public debate.

Including via the effect on the proponents of the opinion-dominates principle. Both their sources of information, and their capacity to use information, will degrade. If transgressing the opinion norms determines your moral standing, then information coming from those deemed to lack moral standing will be massively discounted. The reluctant silence of those unwilling to bear the costs and risks of dissent will give a false impression of the actual patterns of opinion. Moreover, entertaining thoughts that might lead to oneself transgressing against the opinion norms becomes dangerous to one’s standing and sense of identity, as does paying attention to any facts that might lead one to such thoughts.

The more one’s social milieu is made up of people who grade people’s moral standing via their opinions, the more opinion-conformity there will be within that social milieu, as the penalties of transgression mount, and the connection between opinion and identity increase. The increasing-conformity social mechanisms nicely set out in Cass Sunstein’s Why Societies Need Dissent come into play. The effect will be to create increasing opinion “bubbles” where dissent will seem even more outlandish and aberrant and so even more subject to vilification and loss of moral standing. The “I can tolerate anyone except the outgroup” effect becomes that much stronger.

This is nowhere clearer than in the debate over political correctness itself. To claim that there is a problem with PC is to put oneself outside the cognitive tribe of those adhering to “proper” opinion; or, at least, to put one’s tribal membership, as a person with good moral standing, at risk. Conversely, those most likely to publicly criticise the dynamics of PC are those mostly likely to already diverge from “proper” opinion, so be already discounted. So, “good folk” are blocked from listening to, or giving any substantive consideration to, such critiques.

Hence a feature of the debate, which is gay men in particular of a certain age (such as Andrew SullivanPeter Tatchell, Stephen Fry and David Rubin–Fry and Rubin discussed the issue together) being critics of PC. First, their being gay gives them some protection. Second, the dynamics of PC are essentially the same as those of the traditional gender and sexual correctness that they grew up being oppressed by: deriving from claims to be protecting the moral order against those who would destroy it, vilification of divergence, treating the divergent as evil in intent, suppression of inconvenient facts, being insulted by the notion that such “awful” people should be treated as having moral standing equivalent to “decent” folk (what I call the insult of equality), and so on. Both opinion-grading-conformism (aka PC) and traditional sexual and gender correctness are forms of moral bullying; and those who have no wish to be moral bullies themselves, but suffered from moral bullying in their own lives, are often more motivated to call it out when it comes around in a new form.

Decaying institutions
There are also wider institutional effects from the grading-by-opinion principle. If an industry which exists on conveying information (most obviously, the media) is increasingly pervaded by the conformist operation of the grading-by-opinion principle, then its members will increasingly become an unreliable conveyor of information–either due to suppressing facts, or suppressing implications. (Note that suppressing facts does not require lying: it just requires either not covering inconvenient facts or covering them in a way which discourages taking the “wrong” implications from them.)

A pattern which will become stronger, via the echo chamber effect (and the other social mechanisms nicely set out in Cass Sunstein’s Why Societies Need Dissent), the more the norms of opinion grading become dominant in their organisation or industry. Which, as the alternative sources of information available to the wider public expand, creates a widening disconnect between the purveyors of information and large sections of their audience. The effect is likely to be particularly strong where the information content typically conveyed is lower (say, because the visual content is higher and pieces are shorter–i.e. TV media) and so remaining words have more potential normative weight.

Thus the effect of accepting opinion-grading norms, based on opinion determining moral standing, will be to depress the public standing of any information-conveying industry the more it becomes pervaded by it. Particularly among those most distant from the opinions within the industry.

Polarising opinion, growth of more “extreme” forms of political dissent, creating of opinion bubbles and loss of standing by mainstream media with rising populism. Does this sound anything like the world we live in?

Degrading democracy
A society where the costs of participating in public debate are extremely uneven, so preference falsification becomes increasingly widespread, is a society where basic processes of social bargaining will be damaged. This is very unhelpful for the long term health of any polity, but particularly democratic ones.

As the performance of democracies as vehicles for broad social bargaining degrade, and as the notion that citizens are people who are of inherent worth, such that they are entitled to express their opinions, becomes less and less adhered to (particularly among those who inhabit the cultural “commanding heights”), then one can expect that confidence in democracy, and adherence to democratic norms, will also degrade. As is happening.

The PC principle, the grading-by-opinion principle, is disastrous in both theory and practice. It is morally offensive to reduce the moral standing of a person to some subset of their opinions (in much the same way as it is to reduce their moral standing to their gender, religion, sexuality, etc). It is particularly meretricious to do so according to ever-shifting norms of acceptability.

Moreover, the patterns of thought and behaviour involved are deeply politically and socially corrosive. The deeply illiberal (indeed, incipiently totalitarian) nature and social dynamics of conformist grading-by-opinion dominating the information industries (media, IT, academe, entertainment) is not a minor issue at all, it is a very serious corrosive factor within Western democratic societies.

 

ADDENDA. And now Margaret Atwood, novelist and author of The Handmaiden’s Taleis being called “an enabler of rape culture”.

[ Cross-posted from Thinking Out Aloud. ]

 

Stop with the projecting

By Lorenzo

If you assume some factor is behind everything, it is very easy to find it everywhere you look–you just project it onto phenomena. Marxists assumed everything was driven by class dynamics and–surprise, surprise—they found it everywhere they looked. As a friend of mine said to me years ago; Marxist academics didn’t look for evidence, they looked for footnotes.

As the modernist left has been overtaken by postmodern identity progressivism–folk who have drunk the “post-Enlightenment” Kool Aid, which turns out to be just the Counter-Enlightenment rebooted–so has risen the pattern of assuming malicious group projection (racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc) is behind everything and—surprise, surprise—they find it everywhere they look.

According to exit polls, The Donald in 2016 won slightly less of the white vote than Mitt Romney in 2008, and more of the African-American and Hispanic vote (though there is some dispute about the scale of the latter shift). In terms of actual votes, the 2016 Presidential was less ethno-racially polarised than the 2012 election and was less ethno-racially polarised primarily because of net shifts in non-white votes away from the Democrat ticket. (Mainly because a lot of non-white voters did not vote.)

If the actual vote was less ethno-racially polarised in 2016 than 2012, what would account for the shift? Economics: The Donald explicitly pushed economic issues as his great differentiator from Hillary Clinton. Which clearly worked: in scores of counties, working class voters who had voted twice for Obama (in 2008 and 2012) shifted massively to The Donald.

Immigration does not provide universal gain

Yes, The Donald talked about immigration, but immigration is, for working class voters, primarily an economic issue and always has been. It is economic competition which is their primary fear from immigration; that fear has often, historically, been framed in group terms (ethnic, linguistic, racial, religious, whatever marker most easily has distinguished newcomers from the residents), with rhetoric to match, but was and is primarily driven by concern for their incomes and livelihoods. The resident working class is, after all, the group economically most vulnerable to immigration.

Nor, despite folk wielding somewhat tendentious economic studies to the contrary, is this fear irrational. Yes, a larger population means more economic activity and Smithian growth from larger markets. But the benefits from such growth go primarily to the migrants (who get access to better institutions than where they came from) and holders of capital (who get an increased scarcity premium relative to labour). It is very easy for the resident working class to be net losers from migration (unless migration policy takes considerable care that they are not) and being net losers is what both elementary economic theory, and the evidence, suggests has happened to much of the resident working class in the US.

The Rogowski political economy of trade [pdf] is very simple–plentiful factors of production want free trade because they want access to larger markets, scarce factors of production want trade protection because they want to preserve their domestic scarcity premium. If a country is importing that factor of production, or its products (given you cannot import land), then that factor of production is domestically scarce. Immigration is, in these terms, trade that moves in (so with a much wider range of effects, of costs and benefits).

Folk who work in the public sector, or are welfare dependant, or work in a non-traded sector (such as most professional folk) tend to be pro free trade, as it gives them access to cheaper goods. People who work in the public sector also tend to be pro immigration, as it broadens their career opportunities. Similarly with professional folk, as long as (1) migrants are not likely to compete with them: which, particularly given the long term trend to increased occupational licensing in the US, is generally true, or (2) they already work in a global market (as do most academics, entertainment, IT and media folk). For the welfare dependant, it depends on whether the migrants are seen as tax-cash-cows and/or potential pro-welfare voters (pro-migration factors) or competitors for scarce welfare resources (anti-migration factors).

More broadly, if migration is seen as directing scarce policy attention and public goods to your area, it is likely to seen as a positive; if it is seen as directing scarce policy attention and public goods away from your area, it is likely to be seen as negative. (Hence, for example, areas in England with relatively few migrants voting for leaving the EU.) On these grounds alone, migration is likely to be seen as a positive in big city US and as a negative in rural and small town US.

If you work in an industry which exports, then you have an interest in free trade (or at least in access to foreign markets). But, if you are a worker in such an industry, you do not have the same interest in immigration if the migrants are going to compete with you.

Given that the US imports labour, labour is domestically scarce. Hence workers tend to be protectionist and, even more, sceptical about immigration. This is not stupid, ignorant or racist of them: it is rational economic self-interest. Indeed, if you bar any opposition to, or concerns about, immigration as xenophobic, racist, etc, you are basically demanding that workers not be concerned about their interests and the interests of their family. (There is also good reason to think much of the benefits of expanded trade have gone to others.)

Given a choice between a candidate who tells the world that anyone with such concerns is a “deplorable” and a candidate who tells them that their concerns are legitimate and justified, who are they going to vote for? The answer is obvious: and, indeed, it is now electorally obvious.

It wasn’t racism that drove working class voters to The Donald, especially not the same working class voters who had voted for Obama twice: it was the Democrat’s embrace of the religion of anti-racism which drove them away from Hillary. Indeed, there were hints that the North-Western “Rust Belt” working class was shifting even before The Donald was a surreal possibility. The Donald simply capitalised on the market opportunity that the Democrats systematically handed to him; a market opportunity that Democrat progressivism has been progressively handing to Republicans for decades, but The Donald exploited much more precisely. (Apparently helped by a slick data operation.)

If the economics of immigration are conceived in terms of the winners being the migrants and the holders of capital (with the more capital, the bigger winner you are) and the losers being resident workers and those dependent on them, then the 2016 political alignment makes perfect sense–migrant groups, public sector folk, the welfare dependent, professionals and the wealthy voted for Hillary (Orange County voted Democrat for the first time since FDR); the working class and local business folk voted for The Donald. Especially given that low economic growth since 2008 provided less growth-goodies to offer and flat median income and wage growth since the 1970s says that many households have not been getting such goodies even when there was lots of growth. No racism is required as an explanation: on the contrary, that the electorate was less ethno-racially polarised than in 2012 makes perfect sense.

Really, it’s the economy, stupid. (And it is a rich irony that it was a Clinton campaign who got that so wrong–though not, apparently, Bill himself: but he always was a much better politician than his wife.) Hence the better performance of standard economic and political science models than poll-dependent ones in predicting the result. (With a political scientist who has published an excellent study of the American right being a particularly good predictor.)

Even better, the above analysis not only explains the election result, it also explains why The Donald won the Republican primaries. There really was a swathe of Republican voters who were (1) refugees from pro-immigration, identity-group Democratic politics that (2) conventional movement conservatism was not connecting to and that The Donald did. His politics may not have been movement conservative, but they actually harked back to a time when the Northern working class voted Republican, then the Party of protection.

Illegal immigration and ostentatious political powerlessness

All this without considering the constant progressivist rhetorical conflation of attitudes to immigration in general with attitudes to illegal immigration specifically. For most people, the vote is their only political lever. If laws are not being upheld, then they have no lever. Extolling illegal immigration is explicitly rubbing their face in their powerlessness. Of course they are going to react negatively. Sanctuary cities may play well as virtue signalling, but it also shouts to American voters how much say they are not having. (The disjunct between folk who apparently think every economic or other problem has a regulatory solution, yet shout their intention to subvert laws they don’t like, is also not exactly endearing.) Polling suggests American voters are strongly against illegal immigration (and are not keen on sanctuary cities either).

Consider The Donald’s infamous rant when announcing his candidacy that:

When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.

Let’s start with the obvious: he did not say that Mexicans were rapists. The message he was conveying, in typical The Donald rhetoric, was simple: a process that American voters have no control over is (1) one that they have no control over, (2) is not one that is likely to operate in their interests and (3) has obvious problems about who gets in.
By constantly insisting on the “racism! racism!” framing, not only was the mainstream media studiously missing the actual message, and feeding “the lying media” theme, they were also constantly broadcasting the negative association with illegal migrants, an association that got an automatic boost anytime any migrant did something criminal or otherwise problematic. They thought they were demolishing The Donald by pointing out his awful sinfulness; in fact, The Donald was playing them, and playing them all the way to the Presidency.
Meanwhile, in projection realm

If we move away from the electoral facts, and the sectoral economics of free trade and immigration, and to the devotees of the religion of anti-racism (not un-coincidentally, also those who work in the global markets of academe, IT, entertainment and the media) we see folk over-run with self-interested projection.Self-interested in that what they project onto others serves their economic (and status) interests. Projection, in that they insist on seeing an election marked by lowered ethno-racial polarisation in voting in ethno-racial terms: as “white won” or “the end of the postracial myth“. (What on earth is “post racial” about politics explicitly based on putting together a rainbow coalition of ethnic, racial and other identities?)

But projection that is also utterly hypocritical in ethno-racial terms. If African-Americans overwhelming vote as a racial bloc, that’s just great. If Hispanics strongly vote in a particular direction, that’s fine too. But if white folk vote much less tribally, that’s clearly a result of evil racism. This is projection that is way, way into self-delusion. They are not only not listening to other folk, they aren’t listening to themselves.

Here is a basic fact of identity politics: identity politics requires counter-identities, folk that you are being protected from. People who then become repositories of blame to hold your identity coalition together. Everything bad becomes the fault of the bad folk: more specifically in the American context, bad white folk. (How you identify bad white folk? They are the ones who wilfully refuse to see how much of the bad things that happen are the fault of bad white folk.)

Being repositories of blame makes it very hard for such folk to vote for you: they will obviously seek a different framing of political issues. This is what the Republicans have provided somewhat for decades, but The Donald provided in much more targeted fashion.

But, in the self-serving, self-reflecting world of identity-projection politics, rejecting your framing, the framing of Good Folk Who Understand And Care, can only be understood in the same way all disagreement outside the framing is understood; as the malicious group projection (racism, misogyny, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia, etc) which is behind everything that doesn’t turn out “right”. No other framing of politics is to be accepted and any move to change the framing is, by definition, motivated by evil, malicious projection. The pattern is completely self-referential: so self-referential, no other perspective is allowed in.

Hence the hugely overblown claims about the Republican’s Southern Strategy, based on the deeply stupid idea that Southern whites were going to remain unrepresented, and completely failing to notice that the Republican Party changed the framing of Southern politics. Since, of course, not following the framing insisted on by postmodern identity progressivism is, itself, evil.

If you think this is an implicitly totalitarian mentality, you would be right. A mentality that is increasingly replicating within “mainstream” Western media and public discourse the so-easily-mocked disconnect between reality and public approved thinking that marked Soviet bloc countries.

The disconnect being particularly strong when dramatic events that cried out for different framings–such as jihadi attacks, or serious criminal activity–nevertheless had the identity-projection framing imposed on them. The arrogant, tone-deaf cognitive insularity involved alienates anyone not committed to said framing while providing a wonderful opportunity for political and ideological opponents.

Part of the problem has been the growth of knowledge elite or eduction gap politics: if knowledge is simply expertise, then folk can apply their various values and get various results. If, however, knowledge becomes confused with moral wisdom, so that “the consensus of my educated social milieu” is confused with “the good”, then serious moral or political disagreement (particularly views not represented in said educated, and so knowledge-defined, social milieu) becomes illegitimate. With the malice-projections of identity politics being the currently preferred device for asserting such “moral wisdom” and the illegitimacy of disagreement. (See this screed for belittling rage at cognitive difference–that is, belittling rage at others about differences that are so much less consequential than implied.)

The Alt Right distraction

With enough intensity, prosecuting identity politics does encourage the development of counter-identities–what the Alt Right is essentially doing. But that was far from the focus of The Donald’s campaign.

Indeed, apart from means of doing end-runs around a hostile media (developed particularly during Gamergate), whose main electoral significance was to encourage working class voters in the industrial North-West in their increasing confidence that The Donald would not be media-bullied into not talking about the issues they cared about, there is precious little evidence of the Alt Right having much other significance of the election result. That the only prominent alleged Alt Right figure in The Donald’s inner circle is Steve Bannononline media CEO, then makes sense–media mechanics are where any Alt Right influence mattered, not substantive electoral politics. Especially given the electoral results were, in fact, less electorally ethno-racially polarised than in the previous Presidential election.

If one Party seeks to be the Party of Minorities and Migrants (the Democrats) then, in a dynamic two-Party system, the other Party will be the Party of not-such-groups (the Republicans). Since minorities and migrants are overwhelmingly concentrated in the major cities, that makes their rivals the party of rural and small town America; with the suburbs as contested terrain. Which also makes the latter the intact-family Party and the stable-social-expectations Party.

Oh look, the current dynamics of American two-Party politics–including the pattern of increasing division into one-Party jurisdictions— explained without any reference to racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, Islamophobia, etc.

This is particularly important with regard to racism because, when one looks for hard evidence of actual racism (not things framed as racism, parsed as racism, or re-characterised as racism) but actual serious differential treatment on the basis of race, in American society, the evidence is just not there, except as a marginal phenomenon.

Thus, to take two prominent examples, race has little effect on income corrected for productivity or on incarceration rates corrected for law-breaking. Even black-white dynamics in the US can be overwhelmingly explained by the social implications of two factors: (1) the much higher homicide and crime rate of African-Americans and (2) their significantly lower average IQ [pdf] (and all the myriad social outcomes IQ is correlated with, particularly group outcomes).

The most self-serving politics in the US are not epitomised by the Republican Party, but by urban, global market (and therefore globalist) postmodern identity progressivists who refuse to see people as they are and insist on framing issues, events and people in ways that serve their own status and economic interests while keeping themselves utterly trapped in a shared, narcissistic bubble of self-regard. A very attractive narcissistic bubble that has come to dominate the industries which are supposed to reflect a society back to itself, and which so fail to do so; indeed, fail spectacularly badly to do so.

With, in the case of the mainstream media, the lack of standing to match; indeed their public regard is clearly falling. This is hardly surprising, given the contempt with which they so often regard most of their fellow citizens–a point which applies especially to the stunning low levels of confidence by Republican voters in the mainstream media. (And confidence in the media among independent voters is hardly impressive either.)

The result of the progressivist bubble realm’s collective narcissistic self-regard, their self-serving failure to do the most basic tasks of what they are supposed to be about, what they are allegedly trained and paid to be about, has been the elevation to the US Presidency of a billionaire demagogue with a postmodern media persona. A result of an interlocking pattern of official progressivist politics (the Democrats), progressivist media and the de-stabilising of the Republican establishment. (Unsurprisingly, Brexit had somewhat similar dynamics.)

But, with few exceptions (apparently The Hollywood Reporter is a good place to go for media self-reflection), those in the projection realm have and will, blame their fellow citizens, completely blind to the depths of their own self-delusion, and their moral and intellectual failure. Because it is all about The Good People Who Care And Understand, and if you don’t get that, you are racist, homophobic, misogynist, Islamophobic, transphobic and fill-in-the-blank hateful.

[Cross-posted from Thinking Out Aloud.]