 Further illustrations and causes of internal Western decay Part one discussed topics like racism and white supremacy, gender transformation under the rainbow symbol, attempts to demolish symbols and foundations of the Western societies. Part two takes up the following topics: Open borders leading to demographic “suicide” of the White West Growing Muslim population leading to social disintegration Freedom of expression becoming thought crimes Open borders leading to demographic “suicide” of the White West At 01.30am, June 29, 2019 the so-called search and rescue vessel, Sea-Watch 3, under command of Carola Rackete, entered the port of Lampedusa without permission after a long stand-off with Italian authorities. More two weeks before on June 12 Sea-watch had picked up, or rescued, 53 migrants (39 men, 9 women, 2 toddlers and 3 unaccompanied minors) about 47 nautical miles off the Zawiya in Libya. Rackete later argued that it was imperative save migrants a in the Mediterranean: "Asyl kennt keine Grenze!" (Asylum knows no borders!) she argued. She asserted that the break down (Zusammenbruch) of Climate system (whatever that means?) leads to more refugees.” One gets the impression that Carola Rackete acted out of a deeper moral conviction, in primitive sense somewhat along the line of Kant's categorical imperative: “Always act so that you may also wish that the maxim of your action become a universal law.” Furthermore "an action from duty has its moral worth not in the aim that is supposed to be attained by it, but rather in the maxim in accordance with which it is resolved upon." In her view European nations have been responsible for many of the problems in Africa, she mentions historical colonialism and continuing exploitation. Thus, in her view Europe has the responsibility to take up all those people, who can no longer live in Africa. When asked what should be done about the migrants still in Libya, she argued that they should all immediately be brought to a safe country. According to her half a half a million people stuck in Libya must to be brought to Europe. She insists that there is no limit to how many migrants Europe can take in, but also that countries in Africa must be helped. Carola Rackete acts as if she is a white saviour of African people. For the African-American writer, Teju Cole, “Africa has provided a space onto which white egos can conveniently be projected. A nobody from America or Europe can go to Africa and become a godlike savior or, at the very least, have his or her emotional needs satisfied. Many have done it under the banner of “making a difference.” One wonders if Carola Rackete and all the other NGOs' trying to pick up and transport migrants to Italy have thought about the consequences of their actions. By acting single mindedly on their own convictions, they are leaving a burden on others, who haven't been asked if they are willing to carry the burdens caused by the single minded insistence of part-time white saviours. They don’t seem to mind that even more migrants might lured to start the journey from Sub-Sahara and other places. They don't care that they may even contribute to a survival of the fittest with the majority of migrants being young males. Don't see that they may contribute to a slave like labour market based on the availability of African migrants in Europe. Don't see they are putting a burden on an Italy, that is striving to contain the stream of migrants. Don't see they contribute to the proliferation of makeshift migrant camps around Europe. Don't see that in the long run they contribute to changing the demographic composition of Europe. The unthinking single-mindedness of the white saviours really shouldn't be applauded. And it still continues. In 2020 The UNHCR counted 95.000 Mediterranean migrants arriving in Europe. Nothing compared to of course to 2015 when a little more than one million arrived. What is conveniently forgotten by the white saviours of the Mediterranean is the looming migrant potential Estimated population of Africa in 2019, 1,3 billion, with a present growth rate of around 2,5 per cent. Estimated population in Africa in 2050 around 2,5 billion and still with expected growth rate of around 1,7 percent. This numbers ought to make all of Europe nervous, and perhaps also make white saviours like Carola Rackete think twice, before insisting that there should be no limit to the number of asylum seekers from Africa. Population growth, constant conflicts and climate changes contribute to the looming out of Africa migration potential. A publication entitled, "Many more to come?" from the European Commission’s JRC Joint research Centre) looks at characteristics of Africans planning and preparing to move abroad: The report projects an "increase in the annual number of Africans leaving their country of origin from 1.4 million in 2015 to 3.5 million in 2050 (Many more to come?). With potentially major consequences for Europe and perhaps even the US. The numbers may be too optimistic. What happens when a fast growing population makes it impossible to generate acceptable living conditions. Might that not result in a mass exodus from Africa. For Europe it is not only an African problem, it is also a problem in relation to parts of Asia, with migrants from the conflicts in Near East and the Middle East. Presently with a potential for migration from Afghanistan. UNHCR has argued that “Afghanistan is experiencing a humanitarian and displacement crisis. Over half a million Afghans have been newly displaced inside the country in 2021, and Afghan women and girls make up the majority of those displaced.” The U.S. having its own problems with a constant stream of migrants trying to cross the Southern border, and Biden’s presidency has already lead to a record-breaking influx of arrivals to the US southern border. The U.S. Border Patrol reported nearly 200,000 migrants at Southern border in July 2021. Last days of a "white" World? To get an idea of what may happen to the ethnic composition in the West under certain migration and fertility assumptions, a look at the rapidly changing ethnic composition in the UK and the U.S. may be illustrative. UK demographic upheaval "If current trends continue, the so-called majority-ethnic group in the UK - white British - will become a minority before 2070" according to a projection from Oxford University's Migration Observatory. The forecast for this dramatic change presumes that nothing is done to diminish the immigration of non-white ethnic groups, that fertility remain high among the non-Western migrants that at the present make up the minority in the UK, while fertility remains at the present low level for the White British population. The Migration Observatory has looked at the future composition of the population under different assumptions, especially proportion of the White British population under these assumptions, as shown in the following graph.  Standard scenario means no change in immigration. Balanced migration presumes balance between in and out migration. Natural change presumes a stop for immigration. Ethnic mobility is defined as ""inter-generational" ethnic mobility into the ‘White British’ group, which slows its numerical decline, albeit by gradually altering its ancestry," i.e. more people are defined as belonging to the white population. It is hardly to be expected that the immigration of non-White ethic groups of people will be stopped completely. Under the standard scenario, this would mean that somewhere in the last quarter of this century (around 2070), the present "White British" majority will become a minority. What this will mean to the UK one can only guess, but suddenly the question of whether this represents the last days of a "white" world, does not sound quite so outlandish. Not a problem according to the Labour Party, a motion on migration has even called for "for free movement, equality and rights for migrants." Rejecting "any immigration system based on incomes, migrants’ utility to business, and number caps/targets" and demanding "equal rights to vote to all UK residents." Residents not citizens! Meaning that the 2070 scenario could happen much sooner. While the UK (and France) may represent an extreme example of the potential for drastic demographic changes in Europe, changes that would give credence to some the wild replacement theories, we may also have a look at the potential demographic changes in the US. U.S. demographic upheaval Data from the 2020 U.S. Census show that the White population, defined as non-Hispanic White, has declined for the first time in U.S. history from nearly 197 million in 2010 to 191.7 million in 2020. A drop of 2.6%. While the overall population has grown from 308.7 million in 2010 to 331.4 million in 2020. With the following ethic and racial composition (Racial and ethnic diversity table):   The trend seen in the 2020 census is projected to continue. Using data from the U.S. Census "National Projection Tables" we find the following picture of the future composition in 2060 (population in thousands):  For a not too distant future the data shows that the Non-Hispanic White population will become a minority in the US, making up only 44.3 % of the population, although still the largest of the ethnic groups. In absolute numbers Non-Hispanic White population will have declined from 191.7 million to 179 million. According estimates from the United States Census Bureau in 2018, Non-Hispanic whites are already a minority in California, comprising 36.8 % of the population, while the Hispanic or Latino population comprise 39.3 %. Again, giving some kind of credence to the replacement theories. Demographic "suicide" of the West? Professor David Coleman from Oxford University's Migration Observatory points out that what is happening in the UK may happen in other countries: "On current trends European populations will become more ethnically diverse, with the possibility that today's majority ethnic groups will no longer comprise a numerical majority in some countries." It has to be remembered that the drastic changes may happen earlier, if one only looks at the younger part of the population, or some of the larger cities. Exact numbers are hard to come by because of a certain "head in the sand" attitude caused by a political correctness attitude. Meaning that one may not be willing to register or publish data on the ethnic composition, which certainly make accurate forecasts difficult, and recognition of potential future problems extremely difficult. According to INSEE (Institut national de la statistique et des etúdes économiques) the Constitutional Council forbade the collection of data on ethnicity in 2007. It is not only a question of official rules for not collecting data. It is certainly also a question of correct political attitude. A researcher who becomes too implicated in studying a “disqualified” topic is in danger of condemnation. Writing of immigration studies in a not-too-distant context, Sayad (1991) coined the term “sociologie du petit” ; i.e., “subjects situated near the bottom of the social hierarchy of research ‘objects’”, thereby exposing the circular process through which the illegitimacy of the research topic comes to affect those seeking to handle it." (Simon, 2010). "A demographer, who didn't want to be named for fear of being called racist, said: 'It's a matter of pure arithmetic that, if nothing else happens, non-Europeans will become a majority and whites a minority in the UK. That would probably be the first time an indigenous population has voluntarily become a minority in its historic homeland.'" (The Guardian). At a Budapest Demographic Summit in September 2019, the Hungarian Prime minister, Viktor Orbàn, voiced similar fears: "If in the future Europe is to be populated by people other than Europeans, and we accept this as a fact and see it as natural, then we will effectively be consenting to population replacement. To a process in which the European population is replaced." While views and statements like these are either ignored, received with unease or outright rejected, the numbers and the potential demographic changes presented here would seem to bear them out. The West may in fact be committing a kind of slow and silent demographic "suicide" on itself. Although it must be said that this presumes that one understands the demographic West as being characterised by having a majority of "White people." No wonder that The Robert Schuman Foundation is warning that "A deafening silence surrounds Europe's demographic suicide, projected for 2050." The decline seems to happen in politically correct silence as decision makers in the West don't seem to be alarmed by the bleak demographic projections, instead praising diversity and multiculturalism. Ignoring that the almost tectonic population shifts may have enormous consequences for the last half of the 21st century in the West. What happens to the achievements that have characterised the West and been fought for through generations: Freedom and liberty, democracy and rule of law? What happens to the potential for future economic development and to the scientific and technological performance of the West against the Rest? What happens to the hard fought for value systems underpinning these achievements? Perhaps there is a real danger, not only of a clash between civilisations, but within Western civilisation itself. Major shifts in the composition of the population of the West certainly raises the spectre of intercultural conflicts and even civil wars. Growing Muslim population leading to social disintegration “Europe will have Muslim majorities in the population by the end of the twenty-first century at the latest.” An often repeated quote from Professor Bernard Lewis, an Islam scholar. Hardly in the foreseeable future would be our immediate answer. Although Erdogan, in his irritation with the EU, has threatened a Muslim invasion of Europe. For the time being, however, if you look only at the size of the Muslim population in the European Union, there is no reason to fear a Muslim Europe or “Eurabia.” Pew Research presented this estimate of the Muslim share of the population in EU countries in 2017.  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/29/5-facts-about-the-muslim-population-in-europe/ Unfortunately, an attempt to get a reasonable overview of the actual number of Muslims in each country of the European Union must be based on estimates, which in some cases are almost 10 years back in time. As a rule, it is not possible to obtain precise data for the actual number of Muslims in a given country. On average, according to our Conservative calculation, the Muslim share of the population in the EU was around 4.9% of the population at the time of these estimate, or around 25.8 million the 527 million people in Europe (Europe defined as the former 28 nations of the EU plus Norway and Switzerland). Not a particularly overwhelming proportion, but it is not just the average that is important. It is also important to look at the proportion in each country. The old E astern countries have a very small proportion of Muslims, while several countries in Western Europe have much higher proportions than the average 4.9%. Cyprus for instance with 25.4%, Bulgaria with 11.1, France with 8.8%, United Kingdom with 6.3% and Germany with 6.1%. The proportion of Muslims in the population varies not only between countries, but also within individual countries. In some cities in Europe there is a much higher concentration than the approximately 4.9% percent average. This is certainly the case for some large European cities, although estimates of the share of their Muslim populations vary wildly. Here a few examples: Amsterdam 12.1%, Antwerp 16.9%, Brussels 25%, Cologne 12%, Frankfurt 12.6%, Malmö 16%, Marseille 20%, Rotterdam 13.7%, The Hague 14.7%. PEW Research has also estimated the future Muslim population in Europe under different migration scenarios.  However, even without immigration the situation in the European would look quite different if we factor in the proportion of the Muslim population in those countries that may want join the European Union. (The number of Muslims in Turkey is estimated).  In these countries, about 88 percent of the population are Muslims. Thus, if their current population were to be added to Europe as defined above, it would result in a Muslim population of over 111 million and a total population of around 624 million. In this scenario, Muslims would make up about almost 18% percent of the population. Making a simple projection, where we somewhat simplistic take as our starting point the mean of 2000 and 2010 figures for population growth, i.e. 2 percent for the Muslim population and 0 for the rest and calculate 25 years. If the countries mentioned above also become members of the European Union, we will reach a much larger share of Muslims. About 182 million Muslims out of a population of about 695 million with a calculated proportion of Muslims of about 26 percent of the population. In other words, a very strong representation of Muslims. It seems evident that European Union must make an important choice in relation to Turkey. If the wishes of the people in the present EU are taken into account, there is little doubt that the European Union should choose to not admit Turkey to the European Union. The second choice concerns the issue of continued Muslim immigration, including in the form of refugees and family reunions. High immigration will also help to increase the proportion of Muslims in the EU. In view of the apparently serious integration problems and conflicts we are already seeing it would also be appropriate to limit this immigration. Western views of Muslims and Islam A PEW survey of how the U.S. general public view Muslims and Islam indicate that about half of the US population don’t see Islam as belonging to mainstream society and that a large proportion (44%) thinks there is natural conflict between Islam and Democracy.  https://www.pewforum.org/2017/07/26/how-the-u-s-general-public-views-muslims-and-islam/ A 2015 YouGov opinion poll also found that a majority of the population believes there is a fundamental conflict between Islam and the values of British society. The view of Islam may of course differ from the view of Muslims. As data from The Brookings Institution indicate. They find that on average 62% of Americans had a favourable attitude towards Muslim people. While only 44% had a favourable attitude towards Islam. In Europe a PEW survey finds a wide difference in the views of Muslims between Eastern, Southern and Northwest Europe. In the East the view is unfavourable with values ranging from 56% (Lithuania) to 77% (Slovakia). In the South less unfavourable with values from 42% (Spain) to 57% (Greece). In the Northwest the view of Muslims is much more favourable with only between 18% (UK) and 28% (Sweden) having an unfavourable view of Muslims. A Chatham House survey tested the view of Muslims by looking at the response to this statement: ‘All further migration from mainly Muslim countries should be stopped’ “Majorities in all but two of ten states agreed, ranging from 71% in Poland, 65% in Austria, 53% in Germany and 51% in Italy to 47% in the United Kingdom and 41% in Spain. In no country did the percentage that disagreed surpass 32%.” Self-segregation of Muslims In a remarkable speech on 2 October 2020 President Macron asserted that “Islam is a religion that is in crisis today all over the world, … including in countries where Islam is the majority religion.” A crisis due tensions between religious fundamentalism and political projects, that is leading to growing radicalization. “A crisis of Islam everywhere that is plagued by these radical forms, by these radical temptations and by a yearning for a reinvented jihad, which is the destruction of the other.” It is a radicalization that has been influenced and furthered by Wahhabism, Salafism, and the Muslim Brotherhood: “They carried messages of rupture, a political project, a radicalism in the negation for example of equality between women and men, and by external funding, by indoctrination from outside.” France has created its own breeding ground for radicalization by the allowing people to concentrate according to their origins and social background. “We have built our own separatism. It is that of our neighbourhoods, it is the ghettoization that our Republic, initially with the best intentions in the world, let happen … we have built a concentration of misery and hardship, and we know that very well… We have thus created neighbourhoods where the promise of the Republic has no longer been kept.” France’s retreat from these neighbourhoods and the inadequacies of the integration policy, has allowed bearers of radical Islam to gain influence in the ghettos. “Let us approach it and name it, this radical Islamism, since it is the heart of the subject, … a methodical organization to contravene the laws of the Republic and create a parallel order, to erect other values, develop another organization of society, separatist at first, but whose final goal is to take control, complete it. And this is what makes us gradually come to reject freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, the right to blasphemy.” Macron insists “What we need to tackle is Islamist separatism. It is a conscious, theorized, politico-religious project, which materializes through repeated deviations from the values of the Republic, which often results in the constitution of a counter-society and whose manifestations are the dropping out of schooling of children, the development of community-based sporting and cultural practices which are the pretext for teaching principles which do not comply with the laws of the Republic. It is indoctrination and through it the negation of our principles, equality between women and men, human dignity.” A survey by Institut Montaigne indicates that the French Muslim population can divided into three groups according to their views: The silent majority of Muslims is making up 46% of respondents. “Their belief system allow them to adapt to French society. The conservatives. They make up 25% of the sample and are at the heart of the political and ideological struggle. The authoritarians make up the last group, 28% of the total sample. They are mostly young, low-skilled and facing high unemployment. They live in the working-class suburbs of large cities. This group is no longer defined by conservatism, but by its appropriation of Islam as a mode of rebellion against the rest of French society. Social disintegration can also be observed in the UK: "British society is increasingly dividing along ethnic lines – with segregation in schools, neighbourhoods and workplaces – that risks fuelling prejudice." There is segregation in residential areas, segregation in the workplace, and there is segregation in schools. It promotes "prejudice, intolerance, mistrust in communities." Although these are ethnic divides, it must be assumed that the dividing line is very much a dividing line between Muslims and non-Muslims. What we see is Muslim self-segregation, with Muslim communities turning away from the society in which they live, referring to their religion’s " comprehensive doctrines " which, of course, are often contrary to Western values. According to a 2015 poll by Survation for the BBC, they hold what one respected Muslim commentator called 'disconcerting' attitudes. A third of UK Muslims would like their children educated separately from non-Muslims. A quarter disagreed with the statement that 'acts of violence against anyone publishing images of the Prophet could never be justified'; and a quarter were sympathetic to the 'motives' of the Charlie Hebdo killers." A report titled "Social inclusion: A wake up call" from "The Integration Commission" warns against the consequences of segregation or "a fractured society." But the seeds of such a development have already been laid. Gated communities may become the norm. Even in areas which at first sight appear socially mixed, buildings will have one entrance for the affluent, and another for those relying on state support. These communities will become increasingly defined by a fear of crime, which will weaken the remaining bonds across age, social grade and ethnicity.”(belongnetwork.co.uk). In attitudes and actions, Muslims turn away from the society they live in. A study from Berlin shows that districts with a high proportion of Muslims have built up parallel justice built upon the Sharia. Differences are dealt with internally, without interference from the authorities that otherwise would have the task. The same can be found on a larger scale in the UK: "The use of Sharia, or Islamic religious law, is growing in Britain, with thousands of Muslims using it to settle disputes every year, with women's groups and some others objecting." Not only that - in 2014, guidelines were drawn up to incorporate Sharia law into the English legal system: "Under ground-breaking guidance, produced by The Law Society, High Street solicitors will be able to write Islamic wills that deny women an equal share of inheritances and exclude unbelievers altogether." (The Telegraph). Not exactly something that promotes women's equality. To some, it may sound like good integration, society aligns itself with a minority in order to promote integration. But it seems crazy to think that integration is promoted by allowing certain religious minorities and highly discriminatory and old-Islamic Sharia laws to be incorporated into a modern society. Attempt to reclaim secular Western values The multi-cultural elite is wrong. It is not our attitudes and values that are wrong. The problem is that a large group of non-Western immigrants, especially immigrants with Muslim backgrounds, "are handcuffed to heavy cultural baggage that they really should leave at the foots of the stairs?" It is therefore not the existing Western society that is the problem, it is the extremely heavy cultural and religious baggage of Muslim minorities. No wonder we observe murmuring protest from large sections of the population and the emergence of political movements that more or less articulately protest against what they see as a misguided tolerance of minorities whose values, culture and religious beliefs simply pose a threat to the norms, values, behaviour and way of life that has so far been regarded as self-evident. There is annoyance at the apparent kowtowing to Muslim demands on society. The most extreme form of protest against Muslims and Muslim radicalism is found in terrible cases of anti-Muslim terrorism. Isolated cases of terrorism carried out by isolated White extremists. But in 2021 Twenty retired French military officers published an open letter threatening military intervention against Islamism in France, warning “… if nothing is done, laxity will continue to spread inexorably in society, ultimately causing an explosion and the intervention of our active comrades in a perilous mission to protect our civilizational values and safeguard our compatriots on national territory.” Their warning later received support from many members of the French so-called “generation of fire,” men and women, active military personnel, of all armies and ranks. Perhaps a forewarning of serious internal confrontations or even civil war in Western countries with large and rapidly growing Muslim populations. Confrontations that may only be avoided if the society demands that fundamental secular values are upheld. Insisting that religious freedom is essentially an individual freedom, an inner freedom. Not a freedom for a fundamentalist religion to pose demands on the rest of society. Demands to restrict freedom of expression, such as literature and cartoons. Demands for anti-blasphemy laws. Demands for the maintenance of a patriarchal order. Demands for acceptance of Sharia. Requirements for ritual slaughter and circumcisions. Demands for the maintenance of gender inequality. Demands for the right to discriminate, by, for example, not shaking hands with women. Demands for religious dress codes to be accepted. Demands for prayer rooms, even in police stations and universities. Demands for prayer breaks during work. In short, all the areas in which we are currently experiencing conflicts with the bearers of Muslim fundamentalism. Instead, it is secular society that must make demands on immigrants who are carriers of a fundamentalist religion. Demands that we might see as a set of general instructions to not allow religious practices that are generally prohibited for all others not allow anyone avoid to do what is generally required of all other not allow, in the name of religion, to prohibit what is generally permitted; not allow a religion to demand what is generally voluntary not allow inequality in the name of religion In 2020 President Macron promised a series of initiatives to reclaim the laïcist Republic: In the interest of public order, the neutrality of public service will have to be enforced. This also means the enforcement of equality between men and women. Dissolution of associations that are dominated by religious ideologies undermining the secular republic. Stricter control of schools and of the curriculum, with the ability to curb a system in which teaching is to subject religious and foreign influence Creation of a French Islam. “An Islam in France which can be an Islam of the Enlightenment … We could speak of an Islam of France.” Creating opportunities and hope. By assuring Republican presence at the bottom of every tower, at the bottom of every building. By assuring “that everyone, whatever their skin color, their origin, their religion, can find their place.” By recovery plans for poor neighbourhoods. In July 2021 France took wide ranging law initiatives to follow up on Macron’s promises to contain Muslim radicalism and enforce the French version of secularism, the laïcite. “After seven months of back and forth between Palais-Bourbon [The National Assembly] and the Senate, the bill, entitled "Respect for the principles of the Republic" and presented as a remedy for "the Islamist OPA" [offre publique d’achat, or take over], was confirmed by the deputies with 49 votes in favour, 19 against and 5 abstentions.” (Le Monde). Note that the bill does not mention Muslims, “The text is "of general scope" and "does not deal with relations with a single religion," as François de Rugy from La République en Marche has argued. Different cultures squeezed into a shared form? In "The Idea of Public Reason," John Rawls asks an important question: "How is it possible for citizens of faith to be members of a democratic society who endorse the society's intrinsic political ideals and values and do not simply acquiesce in the balance of political and social forces? Expressed more sharply: How is it possible-or is it-for those of faith, as well as the nonreligious (secular), to endorse a constitutional regime even when their comprehensive doctrines may not prosper under it, and indeed may decline?” We reformulate the question and ask: is it possible for devout Muslims to wholeheartedly support the political and ideals and values of a Western society, when these ideals and values are in stark contradiction to their faith? On the basis of our review, the answer seems to be that there is no wholehearted support. On the contrary, there seems to be a reinforced tendency to assert one's own religiously based values, ideologies and outward manifestations. On paper, one might imagine a solution to such conflicts. The so-called Parekh report envisioned a rethink of “both the national story and national identity" by assuming "the transitional nature of all identities." Rethink identity and, so to speak, remodel it. This is where they are wrong. Culture is so deeply entrenched that you can't simply rethink and remodel it in an arbitrary way from the top down. Some of our fundamental cultural perceptions have origins hidden so deeply in our development that we can only pass them on from generation to generation as habits and inclinations we are not even aware of, and if we are, then we cannot give any explanation for them. We can, of course, speculate about their purpose and function, but in reality, it might be more difficult to explain why we have certain cultural inclinations than to explain why we have the morphology that people have today. These patterns, furrows or imprints are indescribable and silent, just as part of our knowledge is. We only experience the imprints, not the reasons, not the explanations. These imprints are perhaps such an important part of what it means to be human that we do not really think about them or question them. These elements of culture may be considered immutable and natural. It is therefore to be expected that there will be fundamental conflicts between different cultures. Conflicts that cannot simply be erased by considering culture to be transient and able to be remodeled. This means that there is a fundamental problem with cohesion and we are left with the question of what an existing dominant culture should give up and what it should accept from new minorities in order to create a notion of social cohesion. In the blog post "Disintegrating societies?" from May 20, 2016, we looked at the problematic consequences of such societal attempts to square the circle. In the publication "Race and Faith – The deafening silence," Trevor Phillips, former chairman of the UK's Equality and Human Rights Commission, puts an end to a liberal elite's misguided belief in a kind of organic integration through acceptance of multiculturalism. For too long, inconvenient facts have been ignored, which show that we are not on the road to more integration and social cohesion, but rather a kind of super-diversity, with increased segregation and disintegration. "Squeamishness about addressing diversity and its discontents risks allowing our country to sleepwalk to a catastrophe that will set community against community, endorse sexist aggression, suppress freedom of expression, reverse hard-won civil liberties, and undermine the liberal democracy that has served this country so well for so long.” (The Telegraph) Rhetorically, Trevor Phillips asks whether we dare to stand by our fundamental values at the risk of offending others, or whether we are willing to put these values at risk and abandon much of the social progress achieved over the last half-century. We must therefore ask ourselves whether we are not doing both ourselves and migrants with a completely different cultural background, a disservice by not openly acknowledging, that this migration threatens the implicit and tacit coherence in our societies and lead to disastrous disintegration. Probably from the best of intentions we have been complacent and tacitly accepted that basic Western notions and values, large and small have been worn down and become frayed and fuzzy at the edges. The left and the “liberals” have become obsessed with the idea that problems with other cultures are due to our own lack of tolerance and our discrimination against other cultures. That’s why the solution to integration problems has been to demand more tolerance for the intolerants, to give in to large and small demands from Muslim minorities in particular, to attempt to practice positive discrimination of minorities and demand proportional representation of minorities in everywhere, film and TV productions, the workplace, the police and the military, and of course political parties and institutions. These attitudes can become self-destructive in the long term, in the sense that they lead to the abandonment of the values that allow us to hold such attitudes. They do not lead to more integration, but to acceptance of a decay into segregated communities. Freedom of expression becoming thought crimes  A fast growing number of facial expressions, words, phrases, opinions, and even scientific facts have become blasphemous to a loud and aggressive woke religion.
Don’t mention … Like many similar stories they may remind one of what was at the time a very funny scene in the Monty Python’s Life of Brian: The stoning of the old man called Matthias, who is accused of blasphemy for uttering the holy name of “Jehovah.” Even expressions that may have only sound like blasphemous utterance are immediately subject to angry reaction from the Woke crowd, and more and more also to a growing number of people, businesses and institutions trying to ingratiate themselves to the Woke crowd by virtue signalling. Sometimes the Woke crowd sound so ridiculous that one may find it difficult to believe At the University of Southern California (USC) a professor told students to avoid the use of filler words like um or er. According to The Atlantic he then said ““Like in China, the common word is that—that, that, that, that, … “So in China it might be nèi ge—nèi ge, nèi ge, nèi ge.” Some students hearing the mandarin expression nèi ge as the N-word, almost the worst blasphemy one can commit in the eyes of the Woke zealots. They complained to the administrators. The dean reacted by removing the professor from the class and his blasphemy in a mass mail: ““Professor Greg Patton repeated several times a Chinese word that sounds very similar to a vile racial slur, … Understandably, this caused great pain and upset among students, and for that I am deeply sorry. It is simply unacceptable for faculty to use words in class that can marginalize, hurt and harm the psychological safety of our students.” A few years ago, nobody might have believed this story. Now similar stories are popping up all the most progressive Woke countries of the Western World. In Germany we find demands for renaming old cities like the many centuries’ old German village “Neger” because it is also the N-word in Germany. In another example the German word “Schwarzfahren” for travelling on buses subways and trains without paying, has caught the attention of the Woke blasphemy watchers. “Schwarz” being “black” in English. So now the they may have to construct a new word for “Schwarzfahren.” But then what about Schwarzwald, Schwarzbrot (black bread) or Schwarzgeld (black money)? We may also refer back to the case where the definition for Women is attacked as being homophobic. Hate speech definitions with a shade of “1984” Once we may have laughed at Monty Python’s magnificent, but unbelievable sillines. But the equally unbelievable, but real silliness of UK Police is no laughing matter Harry Miller, a shareholder in a machinery company and former police officer had written a series of what he later termed gender-critical Tweets In a one of his tweets he states: “I believe that trans women are men who have chosen to identify as women. I believe such persons have the right to present and perform in any way they choose, provided that such choices do not infringe upon the rights of women. I do not believe that presentation and performance equate to literally changing sex; I believe that conflating sex (a biological classification) with self-identified gender (a social construct) poses a risk to women’s sex-based rights; I believe such concerns warrant vigorous discussion which is why I actively engage in the debate.” Harry Miller’s tweets came to the attention of Mrs B. who describes herself as a ‘post-operative transgender lady.’ Alarmed, Mrs. B reported the tweets to the police as a hate crime. “I was so alarmed and appalled by his brazen transphobic comments that I felt it necessary to pass it (sic) on to Humberside Police as he is the chairman of a company based in that force’s area.” The local Humberside Police decided to record it as a hate incident pursuant to HCOG. That is to say they found that it fell under the Hate Crime Operational Guidance (HCOG) as published by the College of Policing (CoP). A hate crime is defined as an incident where the offending party is “motivated by hostility or demonstrates hostility” towards a person’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation or transgender identity.” To record or prosecute a hate crime there must be evidence of hate or hostility. While the HCOG defines Non-Crime Hate Incidents (NCHIs) as “any non-crime incident which is perceived by the victim or any other person to be motivated by hostility or prejudice”. “Perceived to be” is central here. It appears that it is sufficient that Mrs. B felt so alarmed by the tweets, none of which were directed at her, that she saw the tweets as NCHI’s. The Police officer responsible later argued: “Having reviewed the nature of the tweets, the impact on the victim and the risk of matters escalating to criminal offences being committed, I took the decision to speak with Mr Miller.” The police officer went to talk to Harry Miller at the machinery company. Not finding him at work he left a message asking Harry Miller to contact him. When Harry Miller later called the police officer he wasn’t happy and asked if he had committed a crime. The police officer explained to him that although the tweets were not criminal, they were upsetting many members of the transgender community who were upset enough to report them to the police. In the phone call Harry Miller and the police officer had this exchange: Police officer: “You have to understand, sometimes in the womb, a female brain gets confused and pushes out the wrong body parts, and that is what transgender is.“ Harry Miller: ‘You’ve got to be kidding me. Wrong body parts? You have to know that is absolute bullshit. Is this really the official police line?’ Police officer: ‘Yes, I have been on a course.’ Harry Miller describes how he “Felt a deep sense of both personal humiliation, shame for my family and embarrassment for my Company, its customers, suppliers and employees. I also felt anxious as to what this might mean for me, the family and the business.” NCHI are recorded by police and will show in background checks on the person, even though it is not a crime. In a way it looks as if Harry Miller may have been even more alarmed and upset that Mrs. B had been. No wonder that he wasn’t satisfied, the case became public, and Harry Miller complained. In 2020 the case ended up in “The High Court of Justice, Administrative Court.” From which the case description here has been taken. The high judge concluded: “There was not a shred of evidence that the Claimant was at risk of committing a criminal offence. The effect of the police turning up at his place of work because of his political opinions must not be underestimated. To do so would be to undervalue a cardinal democratic freedom. In this country we have never had a Cheka, a Gestapo or a Stasi. We have never lived in an Orwellian society… Warning the Claimant that in unspecified circumstances he might find himself being prosecuted for exercising his right to freedom of expression on Twitter had the capacity to impede and deter him from expressing himself on transgender issues. In other words, the polic action, taken as a whole, had a chilling effect on his right to freedom of expression.” It is worth noting that police have recorded 120,000 non-crime hate incidents in the past 5 years., with possible serious consequences for those being recorded. Perhaps it is time stop this strange praxis, and concentrate on “crimes.” Apparently, police have not taken heed of the words of the high court judge. In 2021 Merseyside Police was driving around with a mobile billboard bearing the warning: “Being offensive is an OFFENCE” No, it isn’t, not yet, and the police had to excuse for the warning. No Platforming restrictions on speech Freedom of expression within the framework of legislation. The UK The Higher Education and Research Act 2017 makes clear that it implies "the freedom within the law of academic staff at English higher education providers, to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions." (emphasis added). One would think that it would ensure that it was possible to express controversial or unpopular theories and opinions in British universities. However, the hypersensitivity or allergy to other points of view, associated with the themes we have just looked at, has spread to the UK and is entering universities in the rest of Europe. Worst of all, of course, if it takes the form of an insidious self-censorship, which excludes certain points of view in advance. A 2017 survey by the internet magazine “Spiked” found that almost two-thirds (64 per cent) of 115 UK universities are "hostile to free speech and free expression, mandating explicit restrictions on speech, including, but not limited to, bans on specific ideologies, political affiliations, beliefs, books, speakers or words. (spiked-online.com). About 30 percent of universities "have chilled free speech through intervention." Only seven universities were found to have "a hands-off approach to free speech." Among the initiators of setting limits on free speech is the National Union of Students (NUS) with its "no platform" policy. "No platform" is seen as a tool that helps ensure safe spaces for students, especially, of course, students from minority groups, so that opinions that, for example, do not promote multiculturalism and equality are eliminated. This will ensure that there are no conflicts between the different groups in universities, protect minorities, and supposedly promote environments where a healthy democracy can thrive. "Students who support no-platforming believe it is dangerous to give a platform to - and thereby convey a sense of legitimacy to - speakers and views that have no connection with anti-Semitism, fascism, homophobia, Islamophobia, transphobia or racism." (The Guardian). If one is concerned about the attitudes of guest presenters, according to the NUS, you can examine their work to date, look at what they have written and said and how it has been perceived by guest lectures elsewhere. You can also request copies of the lecture before it is to be held. The protection of students from having to hear or see statements, opinions or simply gestures that might disturb them has taken bizarre forms. King's College London is said to have used "safe space marshals" which are expected to intervene and possibly interrupt the lecture if lecturers breach the "safe space" policy. For example by making critical remarks about someone's age, disability, race, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, gender identity, trans status, socio-economic status, ideology or culture." "Snowflakes" has become a derogatory term for people so vulnerable that "safe spaces" and "no platforming" policies are needed. "Snowflakes" describe "extremist liberals that get offended by every statement and/or belief that doesn't exactly match their own. These individuals think they are just as "unique" as snowflakes when really their feelings are just as fragile." Apparently they are also vulnerable to being described as snowflakes. In a study by the Aviva Health Institute, 72 per cent of young people aged 16-24 say it unfair to use the term "snowflake" and a similar proportion (74 per cent) feel the term can have a negative effect on their mental health. (Aviva). Sanitizing thought and speech with “1984” like Wokebulary In 2020 Brighton & Sussex University Hospital (BSUH) published their new inclusive guidelines, launching the UK’s first clinical and language guidelines for trans and non-binary birthing people (emphasis added). “Within our care, we honour and uphold the right to self-determination and bodily autonomy for all people. We are especially proud of the care we provide for transgender (trans) and non-binary (including agender, bigender and genderqueer) people as birthing parents and co-parents.” When referring to a birthing parent BSUH also listed the new terms to use, like for instance chestfeeding, breastmilk, and the use of “them” or “they” replacing “woman.” Confused? This is inclusiveness carried to extremes. Biological women identifying as male gender when giving birth of cause are no longer women giving birth, but birthing persons, thus avoiding the nonsensical idea of calling then birthing males. The UK Parliament tried to be just as woke when introducing a new maternity bill containing phrases like “the person is pregnant” and “the person has given birth.” The House of Lord’s voiced a protest with Baroness Noakes arguing: “this House regrets that the bill is drafted in a way which does not respect the fact that only women can be pregnant.” Later the government agreed to change bill, so that it uses the term "mother" rather than "person.” The NHS (The National Health Service in the UK) recently published a A to Z vocabulary, also containing these elements of a Wokebulary: Gender: Often expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity, gender is largely culturally determined and is assumed from the sex assigned at birth.” Microaggression: This term refers to common place every day or casual and commonplace daily acts of racism, sexism etc that may be verbal, behavioural or environmental indignities, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups. Other and othering: Othering is the process of casting a group, an individual or an object into the role of the ‘Other’ and establishing one’s own identity through opposition to and, frequently, vilification or abuse of this Other. In this way white people Other BIPOC, heterosexuals, LGBT+ and so on. Othering comes from a form of power over the Other. Pronoun: Words we use to refer to people’s gender in conversation – for example, ‘he’ or ‘she’. Some people may prefer others to refer to them in gender neutral language and use pronouns such as they/their and ze/zir. Transphobia: The fear or dislike of someone based on the fact they are trans, including denying their gender identity or refusing to accept it. Transphobia may be targeted at people who are, or who are perceived to be, trans. Woke: By the late 2010s, woke had been adopted as a more generic slang term associated with progressive or socially liberal causes such as anti- racism, feminism, environmentalism and LGBT+ activism. After criticism the vocabulary has since been withdrawn, but it is an example of an evolving new Wokebulary. The American Psychological Association (APA) writes “birth sex” and “natal sex” imply that sex is an immutable characteristic without sociocultural influence. It is more appropriate to use “assigned sex” or “sex assigned at birth.” Likewise: “Individuals whose gender varies from presumptions based on their sex assigned at birth may use terms other than “transgender” to describe their gender, including “gender-nonconforming,” “genderqueer,” “gender-nonbinary,” “gender-creative,” “agender,” or “two-spirit,” to name a few. Just like George Orwell’s Vocabulary used in “1984,” Words in the new Wokebulary will have “the undesirable meanings purged out of them.” Next, we may see the banning, or will it be burning, of books not confirming to the right opinion. Banning of books When American Booksellers Association’s (ABA) in July 2021 mailed their suggestions for books to consider for bookstores in the US, one of the books included was Abigail Shrier’s 2020 book “Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters” ABA was immediately met with cries of homophobia. According to Washington Post ABA regretted promoting such a book: “This is a serious, violent incident that goes against ABA’s … policies, values, and everything we believe and support,” … “It is inexcusable.” ABA also vowed to take concrete steps to remedy the harm it said it had caused. What was all this about? Shrier who is also a journalist, argues that “The book is just an honest exploration, journalistic exploration of why out of nowhere in the last decade, we have seen a sudden explosion in transgender identification among teenage girls. This is a population that has never before in the whole history of gender dysphoria.” Shrier: “today, we now know that over 2% of high school students in America are identifying as trans so 1.1 million American kids, just in high school and the numbers are getting bigger.” An explosion in number of children wanting to change gender also seen in the UK, where government in 2018 wanted an inquiry after seeing a 4,000 percent rise. In Shrier’s book the reason for the explosive rise is seen as linked to internet influences and social peer groups. With too many parents and therapist’s patients unquestioningly accepting children’s belief “that the source of their discomfort is that they are the ‘incorrect gender’ and that, to be their ‘true selves’, they must alter their bodies.” According to Shrier this then leads to the use of the drugs, troubling procedures and harmful practices for teenage girls to obtain the bodily changes they want, causing perhaps irreversible damage. The revelations of Shrier’s book were apparently too much for the LGBTQ+ people and self-proclaimed apologetics. They want the book banned, just like the two Amazon employees who resigned in protest when Amazon continued to sell the book. Facebook, arbitrator of free speech? Facebook is supposed to have 2.6 billion (in EU terms milliard) users on a monthly basis, although a certain percentage are fake user accounts, the guestimate is around 5%. The U.S. alone has around 225 million users, more than two thirds of a population of around 333 million. Thus, it must surely have an enormous impact on what one may call opinion building. Not the least in the U.S., where Facebook strangely enough may even have played decisive role when Trump won the presidential election in 2016, and now perhaps also in Biden’s success. And what about its role in the MeToo campaigns, the Black Lives Matter protests, identity politics, cancel culture and the growing political divisions in the US. Facebook may in fact be seen as having monopoly power in the public discourse. No wonder then that is has been argued that “no private monopoly has the right to turn away customers.” The argument being that such monopolies must serve all on fair and equal terms. The counter argument being of course that Facebook as private company must be able to decide who it accepts as customers and on what terms. But Facebook seems to want to have it both ways, insisting on the right to ban people from using Facebook, but also acting as a community “that reflects the social norms and values of people all around the world.” Now even with an independent Oversight Board, although the Oversight Board do not know if Facebook are using political and ideological components in the algorithms that it applies. Perhaps “with conservative content and users being more likely to fall afoul of these restrictions.” Why is it not self-evident that a private monopoly, even with an adjudicator in the shape of a so-called “supreme court”, should not be allowed to continue to censure public discourse with its own definition of free speech? In their report “Free for all? Freedom of expression in the digital age” the House of Lords write: We are concerned that platforms’ approaches to misinformation have stifled legitimate debate, including between experts. Platforms should not seek to be arbiters of truth. Posts should only be removed in exceptional circumstances. Facebook should perhaps be subject to common carrier principles. According to U.S. law: “It shall be unlawful for any common carrier to make any unjust or unreasonable discrimination in charges, practices, classifications, regulations, facilities, or services for or in connection with like communication service, directly or indirectly, by any means or device, or to make or give any undue or unreasonable preference or advantage to any particular person, class of persons, or locality, or to subject any particular person, class of persons, or locality to any undue or unreasonable prejudice or disadvantage.” If Facebook was subject to such common carrier principles, say like telecommunication companies, it would presumably mean that it would have to have a government license to operate and thus be regarded as a public utility subject to government regulation. Perhaps even subject to challenges with reference to the First Amendment, which “protects freedom of speech, the press, assembly, and the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. A mockery of free speech and democracy It is worth remembering John Stuart Mill's arguments for "free speech" in "On Liberty of Thought and Discussion": "First, if any opinion is compelled to silence, that opinion may, for aught we can certainly know, be true. To deny this is to assume our own infallibility. Second, though the silenced opinion be an error, it may, and very commonly does, contain a portion of truth; and since the general or prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by the collision of adverse opinions that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being supplied. Thirdly, even if the received opinion is not only true, but the whole truth; unless it is suffered to be, and actually is, vigorously and earnestly contested, it will, by most of those who receive it, be successful in the manner of a prejudice, with little comprehension or sense of its rational grounds. ... fourthly, the meaning of the doctrine itself will be in danger of being lost, or enfeebled, and deprived of its vital effect on the character and conduct: the dogma becoming a more formal profession, inefficacious for good, but cumbering the ground, and preventing the growth of any real and heartfelt conviction, from reason or personal experience." Is multiculturalism, the protection of minorities, special interests and a myriad of gender designations unconditionally progressive? If so, why? Or is it just progressive because it is seen as such in the group you see yourself as part of? Perhaps forming a protective, rigid and insulating cocoon, which does not need to be justified in itself and with ability to avoid any confrontation with "another view" that might force one to reflect on the correctness of one's own perception. Like wearing pre-ripped jeans or white soled sneakers because others do. Without thinking about it and without there being any deeper justification for doing so? Many identity initiatives aim to protect a growing body of peripheral groups of people who define themselves as vulnerable, discriminated against and disadvantaged minorities, who must therefore be protected from attacks on their own self-understanding and even receive preferential treatment. The question, however, is whether the attempts to protect such minorities and demand positive discrimination for them can in fact mean increasing the separation between them and the rest of society. Or as Mark Lila has put it in his critique of identity politics: "An ideology institutionalized in colleges and universities that fetishizes our individual and group attachments, applauds self-absorption and casts a shadow of suspicion over any application of a universal Democratic 'we.' This preoccupation with identity and assertiveness of for example African-American identity, of LGBQT-plus movements and of religious freedom for Muslims understood as the right of Muslims to turn existing values upside down, means that one has lost shared values, and societal coherence It sometimes translates into bizarre outcomes, as when an LGBT+ movement protests against Islamophobia, ignoring that radical Islamism is certainly does not accept LGBT+. The focus is on what separates the different identities, not what is common and shared in coherent society. This contributes to a periphery of different identities which increasingly distances itself from the conservative left behinds. In the struggle for diverse identities, in rejection of the values of a shared community, identity groups contribute to a growing centrifugal separation of society into isolated parts. It is only the "I" and the little self-conforming "Group we" that is important. Not the others, not the “Societal We.” Tolerance of the peripheral diversity and intolerance of the existing societal coherence, however, is an affront to fundamental democratic ideals. |
