Estado Sentido

 Roger Scruton, How to Be a Conservative (London: Bloomsbury Publishing Plc, 2014), 90-92:

Once we distinguish race and culture, the way is open to acknowledge that not all cultures are equally admirable, and that not all cultures can exist comfortably side by side. To deny this is to forgo the very possibility of moral judgement, and therefore to deny the fundamental experience of community. It is precisely this that has caused the multiculturalists to hesitate. It is culture, not nature, that tells a family that their daughter who has fallen in love outside the permitted circle must be killed, that girls must undergo genital mutilation if they are to be respectable, that the infidel must be destroyed when Allah commands it. You can read about those things and think they belong to the pre-history of our world. But when suddenly they are happening in your midst, you are apt to wake up to the truth about the culture that advocates them. You are apt to say, that is not our culture, and it has no business here. And you will probably be tempted to go one stage further, the stage that the Enlightenment naturally invites, and to say that it has no business anywhere.

 

For what is brought home to us, through painful experiences that we might have avoided had it been permitted before now to say the truth, is that we, like everyone else, depend upon a shared culture for our security, our prosperity and our freedom to be. We don’t require everyone to have the same faith, to lead the same kind of family life or to participate in the same festivals. But we have a shared civic culture, a shared language and a shared public sphere. Our societies are built upon the Judaeo-Christian ideal of neighbour-love, according to which strangers and intimates deserve equal concern. They require each of us to respect the freedom and sovereignty of every person, and to acknowledge the threshold of privacy beyond which it is a trespass to go unless invited. Our societies depend upon law-abidingness and open contracts, and they reinforce these things through the educational traditions that have shaped our common curriculum. It is not an arbitrary cultural imperialism that leads us to value Greek philosophy and literature, the Hebrew Bible, Roman law, and the medieval epics and romances and to teach these things in our schools. They are ours in just the way that the legal order and the political institutions are ours: they form part of what made us, and convey the message that it is right to be what we are. And reason endorses these things, and tells us that our civic culture is not just a parochial possession of inward-looking communities, but a justified way of life.

 

Over time, immigrants can come to share these things with us: the experience of America bears ample witness to this. And they more easily do so when they recognize that, in any meaningful sense of the word, our culture is also a multi-culture, incorporating elements absorbed in ancient times from all around the Mediterranean basin and in modern times from the adventures of European traders and explorers across the world. But this kaleidoscopic culture is still one thing, with a set of inviolable principles at its core; and it is the source of social cohesion across Europe and America. Our culture allows for a great range of ways of life; it enables people to privatize their religion and their family customs, while still belonging to the public realm of open dealings and shared allegiance. For it defines that public realm in legal and territorial terms, and not in terms of creed or kinship.

 

So what happens when people whose identity is fixed by creed or kinship immigrate into places settled by Western culture? The activists say that we must make room for them, and that we do this by relinquishing the space in which their culture can flourish. Our political class has at last recognized that this is a recipe for disaster, and that we can welcome immigrants only if we welcome them into our culture, and not beside or against it. But that means telling them to accept rules, customs and procedures that may be alien to their old way of life. Is this an injustice? I do not think that it is. If immigrants come it is because they gain by doing so. It is therefore reasonable to remind them that there is also a cost. Only now, however, is our political class prepared to say so, and to insist that cost be paid.

 

(também publicado aqui.)

Amitai Etzioni, "We must not be enemies":

As I see it, the rise of right-wing populism in the United States and in Europe can be attributed to no small extent to the profound misunderstanding globalists have of community and communitarian values. Globalists tend to view society as composed of freestanding individuals, each of whom has his or her own individual rights and is keen to pursue his or her own self-interest. As a result, globalists assume that, given the proper information, their fellow citizens will see that their aging societies are refreshed by immigration, that free trade raises the standard of living for everyone, and that individual rights outweigh tribalism.

The trouble with this liberal view of society is less what it claims and more what it leaves out: namely, that people are also social creatures, whose flourishing and psychological well-being depend on strong, lasting, meaningful relationships with others and on the sharing of moral and social values. These relationships and values are found in national and local communities (including families, which are micro-communities). By definition, communities are circumscribed rather than all-inclusive and are inevitably parochial rather than global. Still, the values of communities can be reconciled with globalist values.

If the goal of progressives is to reduce right-wing populism, violence, prejudice, and xenophobia, then communities must be nurtured as they are urged toward equanimity, the rejection of unfounded fears, and above all tolerance. These goals cannot be achieved by denigrating parochialism. Rather, globalists must understand that parochialism can be reconfigured but cannot, and should not, be eliminated.

(...)

Above all, globalists ignore the effects of free trade on people’s essential communitarian needs. Economists often fail to understand people who are reluctant to move from West Virginia to Montana, say, when the coal industry is declining but the gas industry is growing. They do not sufficiently consider that people lose their communal bonds when they make such moves. People leave behind the friends they can call on when they are sick or grieving and the places where their elders are buried. Their children miss their own friends, and everyone in the family feels ripped away from the centers of their social lives: school, church, social club, union hall, or American Legion post. A reliable evaluation of the benefits of trade should take into account the destructive effects on communities of churning the labor force. We should at least feel the pain of the casualties of free trade rather than denigrate them as redneck boors who just don’t get it.

(...)

Globalists favor the free movement of people across national borders. They strongly support the Schengen Agreement, which removes border controls among many members of the European Union. They cheered Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, for welcoming millions of immigrants to Germany. And they view Trump’s call for building a wall on the Mexican border and restriction on immigration from Muslim countries as typical right-wing, xenophobic, reactionary policies.

However, the well-known social psychologist Jonathan Haidt views mass immigration as the trigger that set off the authoritarian impulses of many nations. He concludes that it is possible to have moderate levels of immigration from “morally different ethnic groups”—so long as they are seen to be “assimilating to the host culture”—but high levels of immigration from countries with different moral values, without successful assimilation, will trigger an authoritarian backlash. Haidt suggests that immigration policies ought to take into account three factors: “the percentage of foreign-born residents at any given time; the degree of moral difference [between the] incoming group [and the members of the host society]; and the degree of assimilation being achieved by each group’s children.” Globalists do not approve of this approach.

Progressives are sure to continue to favor a path to citizenship for millions of undocumented immigrants. But they’d better pay more attention to the further acculturation of this large group than many globalists do. To favor unlimited immigration—whatever the numbers and the cultural differences—is possible only if human rights outweigh all concerns about the value and importance of communal bonds, shared moral understanding, and a sense of identity, history, and fate. Adding a sizable number of people who are indistinguishable from its current members will stress a given community. Adding a large number of culturally distinct people is very likely to engender social tensions. The answer is not to draw up the bridges or build walls but to adopt realistic sociological strategies for absorbing immigrants into their new, host communities.

(...)

Even a global community, if one can be forged, would have to be constructed on top of local, regional, and national communities, rather than as a single independent entity composed of more than seven billion individuals, each with individual rights but no social bonds or set of shared values. Thus, universalism and parochialism can be combined, but attempts to maximize either position are sure to lead to troubling, socially disturbing results.

(...)

Communitarian sociologists have been pointing out that, for two centuries, the rise of modernity has threatened the communal bonds and shared moral cultures that are essential for a person’s sense of identity, emotional stability, and moral codes. Studies of the rise of Nazism show that communities serve as the best antidote to the mass appeal of demagogues. The kind of reasoned, self-governing, tolerant, civil person whom globalists favor is much less likely to be found among individuals outside the bonds of community than among people with stable social bonds, imbued with a proper moral culture. Hence, globalists have strong reasons to shore up communities.

(...)

Progressives should remember that nobody can bond with seven billion people, and almost everyone feels more responsibility toward those closest to them. People have profound needs for lasting social relations, meaning, and shared moral beliefs. Globalist values can be combined with nationalist, parochial ones—demanding that communities not violate individual rights while allowing them to foster bonds and values for their members in the ways that suit them best.

Local communities need to be nurtured rather than denounced, not only because they satisfy profound human needs but also because they anchor people to each other and thus help to dilute appeals to their worst instincts. Championing fair trade, fostering diversity within a framework of unity and shared values, and accepting many kinds of communities as long as they respect rights—all are positions that show understanding and even empathy for citizens who voted for Donald Trump and will go a long way toward making America as great as it can be.

(também publicado aqui.)

A revista Der Spiegel noticiou ontem o relatório da polícia federal alemã sobre os distúrbios e ataques de muçulmanos contra mulheres na noite da passagem de ano em Colónia, que qualifica a situação vivida como caótica e vergonhosa, tendo as forças policiais sido completamente ultrapassadas pela dimensão dos acontecimentos e pela atitude desobediente e desafiadora dos desordeiros, e ainda a impossibilidade de socorrer pessoas que pediam ajuda. Citando:

"According to the report, officers encountered many distraught, crying, frightened pedestrians, particularly women and girls. They reported "fights, thefts, sexual assaults against women, etc." Groups of male migrants were repeatedly named as perpetrators.

(...)

The report lists several examples of police officers' experiences:

• Officers were hindered from pushing their way through to people calling for help by tight clusters of men.
• A man is quoted as saying: "I'm a Syrian! You have to treat me kindly! Mrs. Merkel invited me."
• Witnesses were threatened when they provided the names of perpetrators.
• People reportedly demonstratively tore up residence permits in front of the police, grinned and said: "You can't touch me. I'll just go back tomorrow and get a new one." The report did not, however, confirm the authenticity of the documents.
• Orders for people to leave the premises were ignored; taking repeat offenders into custody was not possible due to lack of resources.
• After track closures due to overcrowding, people simply forced their way over adjacent platforms and train tracks back to the closed platform.
• Physical fights broke out as trains were being boarded; it was "every man for himself."

O artigo completo: Cologne Assaults: Police Report Outlines 'Chaotic and Shameful' New Year's Eve

António Costa disse hoje na Turquia que quer mais imigrantes na função pública, de forma a melhor integrar estes imigrantes na região de acolhimento. Não que haja alguma coisa errada com esta intenção. Que dizer então daqueles que já trabalham para a função pública em regime precário? Ou dos desempregados? E dos jovens à procura de primeiro emprego? Será forçado dizer que a fazer fé nas sondagens vamos passar de um primeiro ministro que aconselha as pessoas a emigrar para um muito preocupado em integrar os imigrantes na função pública? E o povo? O que pensará quando ouve tão nobres propósitos?

Aqui está uma sociedade multi-cultural composta por trabalhadores de origem diversa.

(foto daqui)

No seguimento deste post do John Wolf e deste do Nuno Castelo-Branco, permitam-me dizer que não tenho uma visão tão pessimista como a do John. Não vejo em que é que a criação de uma agência governamental destinada a atrair imigrantes qualificados esbarre com a ideia de self-made man, e muito menos me parece que possa dizer-se que isso andaria perto de práticas de regimes nacional-socialistas. Creio que a visão do John enferma de um igualitarismo extremo de que não partilho. Estando a União Europeia de portas abertas há já vários anos, a existência de programas que atraiam um tipo específico de imigração apenas complementará esta política. Há que ser pragmático e interiorizar aquilo que o Nuno escreve: "Há que atrair os investimentos, facilitar procedimentos legais - burocracia, impostos, justiça -, oferecer perspectivas de actividades empresariais e garantias de segurança." 

Não é por acaso que Austrália e Canadá têm programas desenhados especificamente para atrair imigrantes qualificados que suprimam as necessidades de trabalho em determinadas áreas, que França e Inglaterra criam condições para investimentos por parte de elites financeiras da Rússia, países árabes e outros, e que um dos grandes segredos da renovação interna e do domínio internacional dos Estados Unidos da América, como muito bem aponta Fareed Zakaria em O Mundo Pós-Americano, é precisamente a atracção de estudantes, cientistas e académicos que ali desenvolvem os seus trabalhos, muitos acabando por se tornar parte integrante da sociedade norte-americana, como é o exemplo do próprio Fareed Zakaria, de origem indiana. 

Já não vivemos no tempo da migração da mala de cartão, mas sim num mundo globalizado em que boa parte das relações laborais, empresariais e académicas extravasa fronteiras administrativas e suprime limitações nacionais de outros tempos, tendo o Ocidente que apostar muito mais na qualidade do que na quantidade, sob pena de não conseguir competir com a Ásia. Da mesma forma que muitos jovens e quadros portugueses qualificados, em virtude do ajustamento económico português e, consequentemente, do mercado de trabalho nacional, têm saído do país para rumar a outros destinos onde existe bastante procura pelas suas capacidades e competências, e da mesma forma que o tecido empresarial português tem vindo a reorientar-se, em larga medida, para o estrangeiro, o que tem potenciado o assinalável crescimento das exportações, também Portugal deve adoptar políticas que permitam atrair jovens, quadros e investimentos estrangeiros. Esta é precisamente uma das principais formas de, como o Nuno escreve em relação aos portugueses da África do Sul, "trazer claros benefícios à nossa economia e tão importante como isto, (...) alguma segurança à solvência do Estado Social e ao sempre sibilinamente mencionado défice demográfico."

Alberto Gonçalves é um dos melhores cronistas portugueses, e a sua coluna de Domingo é de leitura indispensável. Mas há semanas em que está particularmente inspirado, ainda mais que o habitual. Esta é uma delas. Ide ler, do princípio ao fim, que vale bem a pena. Aqui fica parte da crónica, "As casas dos imigrantes":

«É curioso que o mesmo Governo que exorta os indígenas a emigrarem para fora daqui tente convencer estrangeiros a imigrarem aqui para dentro. É engraçado que o mesmo Governo que tenta angariar uns trocos na receita à custa dos indígenas gaste 828 mil euros (alguns media falaram, impávidos, em 828 milhões) a vender imobiliário a estrangeiros. É hilariante que o mesmo Governo que esfola os indígenas através do fisco prometa a estrangeiros benesses fiscais e um IRS competitivo.

Se ainda não têm vontade de rir, eu explico: o Governo quer atrair em definitivo para dentro das fronteiras cidadãos que incompreensivelmente vivem além delas, sobretudo reformados do norte da Europa. O raciocínio do ministério da Economia é inatacável. Se muitos suecos, holandeses, alemães e, pelos vistos, russos torram as poupanças na aquisição de residências permanentes ou estivais em Espanha, França e Itália, nada impede que procedam de modo similar em Portugal, que possui sol, comida decente e, já agora, "6 mil a 10 mil" casas prontas a negociar no mercado de turismo residencial, das quais se espera comercializar 10%. O único contratempo era, como sempre, a escassa divulgação do país no exterior, apesar das recorrentes campanhas de divulgação do país no exterior. A solução? Uma campanha de divulgação do país no exterior.

Sou incapaz de prever o sucesso da iniciativa, mas afianço imediatamente um facto: o nosso Governo é decerto dos menos xenófobos que alguma vez existiram. A tendência histórica e contemporânea da maioria dos países é para repelir forasteiros. Enquanto repele os locais, o Executivo do dr. Passos Coelho optou pela hospitalidade da Holanda seiscentista ou da América dos inícios do séc. XX e desunha-se para aliciar quem vem de longe. Não sendo um apelo tão nobre quanto o "Dai-me os vossos fatigados, os vossos pobres" de Emma Lazarus, a descendente de judeus portugueses cujos versos foram gravados no pedestal da Estátua da Liberdade, o "Dai-me os vossos abastados escandinavos" também é digno de louvor. Caso corra bem, em breve estaremos ricos. Se, o que é pouco provável, estivermos cá.»

"O comissário do Conselho da Europa para os direitos humanos alertou esta terça-feira que há crianças portuguesas a emigrar para trabalhar por causa da crise e famílias a retirar idosos das instituições para beneficiar das suas reformas."

O Sr. Presidente da República, diz na sua visita aos EUA que Portugal é também uma terra de oportunidades e que os imigrantes deviam apostar no seu País de origem.

Ora bem, ou é de mim, ou esta é mais uma das suas enormes incoerências?

Portugal tem visto ao longo dos tempos os seus quadros e as suas mentes brilhantes a "fugirem" para outros países, devido à falta de oportunidade no nosso país, por não haver mesmo lugar devido ao facto de as pessoas terem qualificações a mais.

É este o país das oportunidades? Que forma quadros especializados para os mandar lá para fora?

É muito bonito falar de meritocracia, mas seria ainda mais bonito se isso fosse uma realidade, em vez de apostar nos cérebros Portugueses, que realmente se distinguem das massas entorpecidas - não, vamos mesmo é apostar em aumentar os impostos que limitam o empreendedorismo e que apoiam quem não quer trabalhar.

Vamos tomar como exemplo a nossa função pública que se sente sempre tão injuriada quando lhes limitam as regalias - é em grande parte composta por pessoas que não evoluem, nem contribuem para a evolução do País e que se limitam a subir na carreira devido a anos de serviço e idade.

É este o país das oportunidades? Que investe na "preguicite aguda" e no "deixa andar" em vez de apostar em quem realmente interessa?

Depois admirem-se que fujam para países que não os seus, mas que lhes reconhecem as capacidades e o valor.

Lamento informá-lo Sr. Presidente que aos Portugueses não lhes falta amor pelo País, falta-lhes sim, a oportunidade de poderem evoluir cá dentro - e não, este não é o momento certo.