As Sweden votes, sanctimony is being tested

Sweden goes to the polls tomorrow and the failure of sanctimonious multiculturalism has taken centre stage. Even with Elizabeth II and Charles III overwhelmingly dominating the British press, the BBC has place for this article.

 

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-62823893

But why is anybody surprised?

I wrote this post 8 years ago:

A “society” – to be a society – can be multi-ethnic but not multicultural

A “culture” is both the glue that binds any society of humans and lubricates the interactions within that society. It applies as well to a family or an association or a sports club or a company or a geographic area (say a country). The culture of any sub-society – a sub-culture – must be subordinated to that of the larger society it is  – or wants to be – part of.

Of course one can have – if one wishes – many different cultures within different sub-societies in a single geographic area. But if these sub-cultures are not subordinated to a larger culture then the sub-societies cannot – because it becomes a fatal contradiction – make up any larger society. Multiculturalism dooms that geographical area to inevitably be a splintered and fractured “greater” society – if at all.

The politically correct “multiculturalism” followed in Europe in recent times has effectively preserved and maintained each ethnic group in its own cultural silo and – inanely – made a virtue out of preventing the evolution of any overriding, common culture. This has been the fundamental, “do-gooding” blunder of the socialist/liberal “democrats” all through Europe. Creating a society of the future with a common culture as the glue has been sacrificed in a quest for some imagined God of Many Cultures. For an immigrant – anywhere – how could it be more important to keep the language of his past rather than to learn the language of his future? The “do-gooders” have prioritised living in the past to creating and living in a new future.

Hence Rotherham and Bradford or Kreuzberg or Rosengård or Les Bosquets,

Multi-ethnic communities particularly need both a glue and a lubricating medium. And that has to be an overriding common – new – culture and not some mish-mash, immiscible collection of sub-cultures – each within its own silo, insulated and held separate from all others.

1. Multi-ethnic societies are inevitable around the world.
2. A single society has a single culture.
3. To have many cultures in one area – which are not subordinated to a larger culture (values) – is to exclude a single society.
4. Promoting multiculturalism is to promote the fracturing of that area into many immiscible (inevitably ethnic) societies.

Multi-ethnicity – especially – requires a mono-culture to be a society at all.

Multi-ethnic and multi-cultural is separatism and serves to ensure that a single society will never be established.

and again 6 years ago ..

“Multiculturalism” always gives fractured and segregated societies

It seems obvious. Multi-ethnic societies, even with well -developed sub-cultures, work very well under an over-riding common culture. In fact the over-riding common culture is dynamic and takes on parts of the various sub-cultures. But societies with parallel cultures with no over-riding common culture can only give a fractured society. It  prevents any common culture developing and inevitably gives ethnic segregation. For over 5 decades, these parallel cultures have been promoted by the liberal, social-democratic, do-gooding, misguided elite of Europe.

It is not at all surprising that the cities of Europe now have segregated and have no-go ghettos which consider themselves outside of the main society and not subject to the rules and behaviour expected in that society.

But I don’t expect any great improvements after the elections tomorrow. The “liberal” sanctimony will continue, the ghettos and no-go areas in the big cities will continue, Sweden will accommodate Turkey and its quirks for the sake of NATO, the Social Democrats will continue to propose new taxes as solutions to all problems, the Moderates will continue to propose tax cuts to solve all problems, and the minority parties will continue to oppress the majority.

And nothing will change.

---

 

Sweden openly becomes a nuclear weapons supporter

Politics is the art of the possible. Even-handedness, and especially the need to appear as being even-handed, often requires the simultaneous support to conflicting policies

That Sweden champions neutrality and disarmament has been a cherished perception that Sweden has promoted for over 60 years. The reality is not so so clear-cut. Swedish neutrality has always been laced with a large dose of pragmatism and opportunism. During WW2, Swedish neutrality “leaned” towards Germany while they were winning until 1942, and then leaned increasingly towards the Allies. Sweden has not yet signed or ratified the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). Sweden has consistently abstained from voting on an annual UN General Assembly resolution since 2018 that welcomes the adoption of the TPNW and calls upon all states to sign, ratify, or accede to it “at the earliest possible date”.

It is not quite hypocrisy, but it comes close, to both supporting the having of nuclear weapons (by proxy) and  to mouth righteous platitudes about encouraging disarmament and the eventual prohibition of nuclear weapons.

The Russian (mis)adventures in Ukraine and the subsequent fears have forced the Swedish application to NATO and the formal acceptance of nuclear weapons.

The Local:

Sweden’s state broadcaster SVT on Monday evening published a full copy of the letter Ann Linde, Sweden’s foreign minister, sent to Nato’s Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg on July 5th, in which she formally confirmed her government’s “interest in receiving an invitation for Sweden to accede to the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949”. 

“Sweden accepts Nato’s approach to security and defence, including the essential role of nuclear weapons,” the letter, which can be read here in full, reads, adding that it “intends to participate fully in Nato’s military structure and collective defence planning processes, and is willing to commit forces and capabilities for the full range of Nato missions.” 

The clause will alarm those who were already uncomfortable with how Nato membership will clash with Sweden’s historical efforts to promote nuclear disarmament. 

As recently as 2019, Sweden launched the Stockholm Initiative for Nuclear Disarmament, through which 16 non-nuclear nations sought, among other goals, to “diminish the role of nuclear weapons in security policies and doctrines”. 

As a full NATO member Sweden will not be able to refuse the storage or deployment of nuclear weapons from Swedish territory. Of course, full NATO membership requires ratification from Turkey and that will only happen when Sweden stops (tacitly) supporting the PKK and gives up all the “dangerous Kurds” that have been granted asylum.

If ever necessary Sweden could produce and deploy nuclear weapons in less than 12 months. What was once a truth preferred to be hidden has now come into the open. Sweden is – and has always been – a nuclear weapons capable country.

---

And where lies the truth about Ukraine?

I believe very little of the ridiculous propaganda narratives either from the Western media or from the less accessible Russian sources.  The narrative in the Western media dominates the media space that is accessible to me. The counter-view is not politically correct and is largely ignored but the politically correct story that I am being bombarded with lacks somewhat in credibility.

What I do observe is the real oil and gas prices (spot price rather than futures), the real prices of food in the markets and the real performance of the world stock markets. Asia and the Middle East are resisting the wholesale acceptance of the NATO propaganda and are making their own nuanced judgements. And what I observe suggests that the Western media narrative which is flooding the air-waves is heavily (probably intentionally) flawed.

The Guardian’s view is utterly predictable and just a little too sanctimonious. The counter-view published by ANI may also be rather biased but is a necessary balance for the childish narrative peddled by the bulk of the Western media.

Well, time will tell, but I suspect that the end-game will include further “autonomous”, Russian speaking regions established in Eastern Ukraine and that Ukraine will be forced to give up its aspirations for any membership of NATO for the foreseeable future.

---

 

Vaccinations may have helped against severe illness but neither masks nor vaccinations have shortened the pandemic

For almost 3 years, epidemiology and rock-star epidemiologists have been flailing their way through the pandemic. Ridiculous modelling and constantly changing and contradictory advice have become the norm. 

At least there are some few who are beginning to be self-critical about all the mistakes that  epidemiology – which is no science – has made. Even fewer are willing to admit that blindly “following the science” means also following the 90+% of scientific research which goes down the wrong path. 

• It was first thought that the infection would spread like influenza. But instead it spread in clusters which negated all hopes for achieving some kind of herd immunity.
• the pattern of mutations of the corona virus was not as predicted (more hope than prediction) and that made specific vaccines less useful and for shorter times than expected.
• vaccination has probably helped more in preventing serious illness than in preventing any spread of infection.
• Infection was first thought to be air-borne. Then it was thought to be liquid-borne. In fact it is both and neither. These assumptions led to confused advice about the use of masks and types of masks. In fact, the use of masks may have helped in preventing a few of the infected from infecting others but has had little effect in stopping the mask-wearers from being infected.
• even if the WHO had not tried to avoid blaming China and had raised the warning flag two months earlier than they did, no country had any useful plans for preventing the spread of infection in place.
• Travel restrictions were never introduced fast enough to prevent the entry of a virus into a region.

The response to the pandemic will be studied for a long time yet and all the mistakes made will be the subject of many PhD theses to come. The social “sciences” are going to have a field day.

I believe in vaccines. I am sufficiently scared of serious illness to have taken all the vaccinations and boosters as they have become available. No doubt I will also take the 4th shot if and when it becomes available. It has generally been forgotten that for an effective vaccine to be useful and do its work, a vaccinated person needs first to be infected. But it is perfectly clear to me that, of course with the best intentions, vaccines have been grossly over-hyped as a means of preventing infection. Uncertain and bad science has also been used to justify the introduction of authoritarian and mandatory measures by governments. It may even be that the over-reliance on over-hyped vaccinations has prolonged the effects of the pandemic for longer than necessary. The purpose of mandatory vaccinations has misguidedly been the prevention of infection (not the prevention of serious illness) but the stark reality is that vaccinations have not been, and cannot be, very effective in preventing infection. The various mask mandates introduced in many countries have been both ridiculous and ineffective.

 

---

“Minor incursion” by Russia allowed by Biden

It is fairly obvious that Sergei Lavrov and the Russian strategists are making a very precise calculation of what they can get away with with Joe Biden. I suspect that they have been surprised that Biden is even more risk averse than Obama and at how far they can push. They were fairly accurate with the multitude of red lines drawn by Obama in Syria which they knew could be crossed with impunity. Now that Joe Biden has confirmed that “minor incursions” by Russia into Ukraine would be acceptable, it only remains to define what a “minor” incursion is. They would have received some further proof from the German Foreign Minister recently that Europe will do little without firm backing from the US and that this backing would be very lukewarm.

It now remains to make a case for “minor” including all the clearly Russian speaking areas of Ukraine.

Line of acceptable minor incursion?

---

The G7 rule by the minority

The G7 nations are meeting in Cornwall. Several terms come to mind:

• Minority rule
• Oppression by the minority
• Redefining democracy
• Undemocratic
• Realpolitik
• Non-violent, economic coercion

Source: Nationmaster.com

Oppression by the minority is self-evident. But we can rest easy since they are a virtuous lot. And we can be sure of that since virtually every press statement is about what good guys they are!

Ah well!

---

Vaccine philanthropy is only possible if you first have vaccine nationalism

There have been a number of sanctimonious platitudes about the dangers of vaccine nationalism from the usual suspects (UN Sec Gen, WHO Dir Gen, …). This has been virtue signalling at its worst. Any national government which did not first secure its own citizens would be failing in its primary task. It is again a case of people forgetting that international is not possible without first securing the national. Philanthropy between countries cannot happen unless there is first nationalism.

And so it is between India and Brazil.

Covishield is the brand name of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine manufactured by the Serum Institute of India. So far India has despatched over 3 million doses of Covishield to Bangladesh, Nepal, Bhutan, Myanmar, Seychelles, Mauritius and Brazil. Brazil receives 2 million doses today. President Bolsanaro has invoked images from the Ramayana in his message of thanks. Sri Lanka and Afghanistan are to also receive vaccines in the next despatch. This vaccine can be transported and stored at between +2 and +8 degrees Celsius and has a shelf-life of 6 months. This vaccine philanthropy by India is only possible because sufficient stocks, greater than the rate of vaccination, are available for its own citizens.

The EU has not yet approved this vaccine but this approval is expected on 29th January. Neither has the US approved. I have my own theory that the EU delay in approval is not unconnected with protecting some market for the other, more expensive, more difficult to transport vaccines. Not quite a conspiracy theory but at least some unconscious collusion.

---

---

Losing sleep

I have yet to find a political party which represents my views.

But of all the various parties from left to right, I find I am diametrically opposed to the various green parties on almost every issue. They have almost cornered the market on stupidity.

---

 

Lamenting Modi’s absolute win is more phobic than rational

The point about phobias is that they are all irrational fears. A phobia is not removed by rational argument but by addressing and removing the underlying fear(s). “Phobic” assertions are futile then in a rational discussion just as “rational discourse” has no impact on reducing a phobic fear.

I have been hearing many people lamenting the absolute win that Narendra Modi and the BJP party have just achieved. They believe themselves – in the main – to be of the educated middle classes; to be liberal, secular and rational. Nearly all of them believe themselves to be atheists (conveniently forgetting that their atheism is existentially dependent upon others’ beliefs) and they are all generally contemptuous of those who profess themselves to be religious. They generally claim a monopoly over “reasoned argument” and dismiss nationalistic or religious claptrap out of hand.

But what strikes me is that their lamentations about the Modi win and the rise of dark, nationalistic and religious forces are more manifestations of a Modiphobia or a BJPphobia than the exercise of reason. It is not unlike the Trumpophobia that now dominates the Democrat discourse in the US. But just as in the US, the apparently “rational arguments” are subordinated to irrational fears and only carry the appearance of rationality. They end up being phobic assertions and lose rationality along the way.

Following the Indian elections the BJP, by itself, now commands a comfortable majority in parliament. The BJP with its allies now have almost two-thirds of the seats in parliament (353 of 543). Narendra Modi is unchallenged as Prime Minister and is perhaps the first to to have transcended some of the traditional block-voting patterns of caste and religion.

Back in 2014, I posted:

If Narendra Modi manages to break – or even to weaken – the debilitating stranglehold that caste and clan have on Indian life, he stands some chance of releasing the huge potential that is still buried deep in the country. Paradoxically, his brand (now mellowing) of Hindu nationalism may allow him the freedom not only to challenge the shackles of caste and clan but also to keep in check the extravagant expectations engendered by the pampering of minority groups (which was unavoidable with a coalition government).

I find the lamentations now lacking in reason:

1. There was not a single individual among all the opposition parties who realistically aspired to be or (or was capable of being) the Prime Minister.
2. There was no majority coalition of any kind remotely feasible without the BJP.  The option of the BJP not being in government did not exist.
3. A parliament having a party with an absolute majority is more likely to be effective as a parliament and less likely to be disrupted than a minority or a coalition government. A BJP minority government or a BJP led coalition (and since BJP is in a minority in the Rajya Sabha) would have given India an impotent government.

India will have at least 5 more years of Narendra Modi and the BJP. From 2020 the BJP will likely have a majority even in the Rajya Sabha. The subcontinent is awash with fractures and fissures. My reason tells me that the chance of Indian potential being unified and harnessed is far greater now than it has ever been since independence in 1947. It is greater now than it was under Nehru and his phobias, and greater than it was under Indira Gandhi’s Emergency. I may not like some of the fanatics riding the BJP wave, but paradoxically, a strong Modi has a better chance of keeping them in check than a weak Modi.

I suspect that 2020 – 2024 will see a period of unprecedented growth of not only the Indian economy but also of Indian infrastructure and social welfare.

---

 

Actually, Netanyahu has just had his best ever election result

I am no great student of Israeli domestic politics and my perceptions/knowledge of the Israeli elections are only what I have gleaned from media reports. However, I do try to also read reports from the Israeli media and not just from the western mainstream media. Over the last few weeks the “liberal” mainstream media have been supporting an anti-Netanyahu position and most of their reporting has been critical of Netanyahu and his chances in the 2019 general election.

Last night, just before I went to bed, the exit polls were showing a close race between Likud and Blue & White. The “liberal” press had started putting out headlines about a “setback for Netanyahu”. The New York Times – among others – has been hoping for a Netanyahu defeat.

NYT dislikes Netanyahu – and it shows

This morning, as exit polls are replaced by vote counts, I find that Benjamin Netanyahu’s Likud party narrowly won the Israeli election. With 97% of the votes counted former Israel Defense Forces (IDF) chief of staff Benny Gantz, led the opposition Blue & White party to a strong showing. Both parties will receive 35 seats (out of 120) in the next Knesset. Likud received 26.3% of the vote and only just exceeded Blue and White’s 25.95%. No single party has ever won an overall majority on its own. The right parties are expected to have 65 seats and the left parties 55. It is virtually certain that Netanyahu will form the next coalition government.

But the reality is that Likud have won more seats this time than they ever have under Netanyahu. Likud has won 5 more seats than in the outgoing Knesset.

Netanyahu’s record

The only time Likud have done better in an election was in 2003 with Ariel Sharon when they received 29.39% of the votes and 38 seats in the Knesset.

The “liberal” media have become peddlers of opinions and cannot be relied upon to be purveyors of facts. The Fake News phenomenon starts with their increasing presentation of opinion and wishful thinking as fact.

---