Author Archives: Majken Hirche

Liberalisme og indvandring

Spændende artikel, selvom jeg personligt synes det er ret godt, at der er blåt fodslag lige nu.
Men jeg vil gerne lige komme med nogle bemærkninger om indvandring, for jeg mener, det er helt i overensstemmelse med liberalisme at ville kontrollere begrænsning af indvandering fra kulturer, som man ikke mener fungerer godt i ens samfund.Den Liberale tænker Karl Popper skrev i THE OPEN SOCIETY AND ITS ENEMIES følgende:

“Ubegrænset tolerance vil føre til tolerancens undergang. Hvis vi udstrækker ubegrænset tolerance endog til dem, der selv er intolerante, hvis vi ikke er parate til at forsvare et tolerant samfund imod angreb fra intolerante, så vil de tolerante blive ødelagt, og tolerancen med dem … Vi bør hævde, at enhver bevægelse, som prædiker intolerance, placerer sig uden for loven, og vi bør anskue tilskyndelse til intolerance og forfølgelse som kriminelt; på samme måde, som vi bør anskue tilskyndelse til mord eller kidnapning, eller genoplivning af slavehandel , som kriminelt.”

Den anden liberale tænker Robert Nozik skrev tilsvarende i sin ANARCHY, STATE AND UTOPIA, at et tolerant samfund må have ret til at bestemme, hvem der indvandrer og ret til at holde dem ude, der ikke passer i den model, man ønsker. Du kan ikke have frihed til at skabe et samfund med en speciel kultur og livsstil, hvis enhver kan indvandre og ødelægge det. Tænk hvis Amish folkene pludselig fik indvandring fra Banditos.
Problemet i nutidens samfund vedrører overvejende indvandring fra muslimske samfund, hvor et flertal ikke deler den udbredte vestlige tro på videnskab, retstatssbegrebet, demokrati, rationalisme, frihed og kvinders ret, mm. Disse muslimske samfund ledes helt overvejende af diktatorer, når de ikke har borgerkrig. Deres befolkning læser gennemsnitligt meget lidt, og der udtages stort set ingen patenter, ligesom der stort set aldrig udvikles nye produkter. Overordnet står 1,5 milliard muslimer nok for under 0,1% af verdens innovation.
Samtidig er der siden 9/11 begået over 20.000 islamiske terror angreb. De fleste af disse hører vi ikke om i vestlig presse, fordi de forgår i muslimske lande som del af sekteriske kampe, som i øvrigt ofte er religionskrige. Mange siger så, at dette ikke har noget med islam at gøre, men dem, der begår disse angreb siger typisk selv meget klart, at det netop har alt med islam at gøre. Så sandheden er vel, at der er mange muslimer, der ikke støtter terror, men at der også er mange, der faktisk støtter eksempelvis sharia lov, ISIS og terror, og det er umuligt at vide hvem, der er hvem. Jeg har lige læst bogen THE DIVERSITY ILLUSION fra Ed West, som analyserer, hvad der er sket i samfund, der har haft masseindvandring fra andre kulturer såsom det, vi nu er startet på.
Konklusionen, som altså er baseret på omfattende statistisk analyse, er, at befolkningerne i sådanne samfund mister deres gensidige tillid, dvs. det, man kalder “social kapital”. De får også mere kriminalitet. De skærer ned på solidariteten, bliver angste og forskanser sig. Samfundet bliver uhæderligt og sekterisk. Der opstår den såkaldte ”halo effekt” omkring indvandrer gettoer, hvor de oprindelige indbyggere, der bor tættest på indvandrerne, går fra at være tolerante til at blive fascister. Bliver indvandringen stor nok, opstår der ofte borgerkrig. Intet af dette stemmer efter min mening med de liberale idealer.

Økologisk mad

Videnskabeligt er der lavet utallige undersøgelser af både de helbredsmæssige og økologiske effekter af økologisk mad. Disse er så opsummeret i videnskabelige meta analyser, som jeg omtaler i min bog. Simpelt sagt opsummerer en meta analyse hvert eneste videnskabelige studie som et enkelt datapunkt. Disse metaanalyser siger, at økologisk mad IKKE er sundere end ikke-økologisk. I øvrigt er der lige så mange naturlige pesticider i en enkelt kop kaffe, som der er kunstige pesticider i al den ikke-økologiske mad, man kan spise på et år. Undersøgelserne siger også, at økologisk jordbrug på nogle områder er værre for lokalområdet men på andre er bedre, og sammenlagt er de bedre per arealenhed. Imidlertid kræver økologisk jordbrug gennemsnitligt 25% mere jord per produlktionsenhed, og når man regner dette med, skifter konklusionen. Hvis alt jordbrug var økologisk, skulle vi bruge yderligere landbrugsarealer svarende til syv gange hele Franrigs areal. Vi skulle med andre ord ødelægge enorme frie naturarealer, og derfor styrer jeg altid uden om økologisk mad. Vedrørende stigende kræftsygdomme er dette også undersøgt, og faktisk er de faldet per aldersgruppe. Grunden til, at de er steget overordnet er, at vi heldigvis bliver ældre. Autoimmune sygdomme er steget, fordi vi får for få pesticider og for få infektioner, hvorfor vort underbelaetede immunoforsvar angriber andre ting. Flere pesticider ville faktisk være sundere, og i øvrigt ville selv mere radioaktivitet ifølge meta studier være sundere.

MBTI Personality Tests in Foreign Languages

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) is the world’s most popular personality test. There are lots of free personality tests proposing to test one’s MBTI type online.  But most of them are not very scientific. These free, professional-grade MBTI tests are offered in foreign languages for your service and perusal. Have fun discovering your personality type and unique cognitive preferences in one of the languages below.

Humanioraspiralen

Med en række indlæg i engelsksprogede aviser har humanistiske forskere igen fået striden om humaniora til at blusse op. Hvorfor skal skatteyderne fortsat poste millioner i de humanistiske uddannelser? I hvilket omfang skal markedets logik styre humaniora? I hvilket omfang skal statens? Og kan humaniora overhovedet bruges til noget?

Humaniora plages af både interne og eksterne problemer. Udefra presses man af den særegne blanding af erhvervshensyn og administratorvælde, som staten påtvinger de offentlige universiteter. Det er således ikke kun i Danmark, at refrænet om forskning og faktura har lydt. ”Humaniora skal være mere erhvervsvenligt,” får fakulteterne at vide. Et notat fra den britiske regering konkluderede sågar, at universiteterne skulle minde om en art konsulenthuse, der havde til opgave at hjælpe nystartede virksomheder på fode.

Staten fortæller også de humanistiske fakulteter, at de skal ”hæve produktionen.” På dansk betyder det, at de skal få flere studerende gennem systemet, og gerne hurtigere. Således presses de humanistiske undervisere til at lade håbløse studerende bestå. Resultatet er, at der med tiden bliver flere og flere diplombærende humanister, hvis faglighed til gengæld er mindre og mindre.

På forskningssiden betyder kravet om øget produktion, at der skal publiceres mere forskning, og gerne i de tidsskrifter staten har udvalgt. Med den amerikanske filosof Rebecca Goldsteins ord produceres der ”mere og mere om mindre og mindre” – der zoomes obskønt tæt ind på det enkelte træ, men ingen har længere tid til at opmåle skoven. Ifølge den britiske professor i litteraturvidenskab Terry Eagleton er det sågar så grelt, at meget af samtidens humanistiske forskning slet og ret er ligegyldig. Ifølge Eagleton skrives der bunkevis af publikationer, der udelukkende skrives for at score point i embedsmændenes statiske systemer. I mange lande er det nemlig denne overflødighedsforskning, der afgør, hvor mange penge staten tildeler det enkelte fakultet.

Humaniora har således rigeligt med udefrakommende problemer. Men på indersiden melder flere forskere også om fallit. I mange tilfælde er de humanistiske fakulteter ikke længere kulturbærende. Ifølge den amerikanske professor i uddannelsespolitik David Steiner er den fælles kerne af kulturarv, som humaniora burde oppebære, ikke længere fælles og dermed ej heller en kerne. For at behage de studerende undervises der mange steder i Fifty Shades frem for Friedrich Nietzsche og i vampyrfiktion frem for Virgil. Det populære har erstattet det svære.

Til humanioras problemer skal også lægges den politiske ekspertise, som mange humanistiske forskere selv mener, de besidder. Således rapporterer den amerikanske professor David Clemens fra et nyligt møde i verdens største organisation for sprog- og litteraturforskere, at deltagerne havde mere travlt med at fælde moralsk dom over Israel end med at diskutere deres fag. Ligeledes konkluderede en nylig rapport fra Harvard Universitet, at humanioras rolle nu reelt ikke længere er at videreføre og forske i klassisk kulturarv, men at afdække ”skjulte magtstrukturer,” som offentligheden ikke selv er i stand til at begribe.

En udvækst af denne selvforståelse kan ses i både danske og udenlandske aviser, hvor humanistiske forskere jævnligt forsøger at belære økonomer om økonomi. Dette foregår som regel under den belejlige antagelse, at kun humanister kan ”tænke kritisk” og i dybden. Belejligheden er ikke altid til at skelne fra magelighed, da humanisten har det med at afsløre, at han ikke har sat sig ind i grundlæggende neoklassiske principper, før han fremturede med sin kritik af dem.

Ironisk nok tyder erfaringerne fra udlandet på, at jo mere humaniora forfladiger sit emnevalg og gør sig til arnested for venstreekstreme ”magtkritiske” holdninger, des mere svinder offentlighedens lyst til at finansiere de humanistiske discipliner ind. Og logisk svarer staten igen med øgede krav om ensretning og uniformering. Der må jo styr på galskaben.

I løbet af de sidste 50 år er humaniora konstant blevet omtalt som kriseplaget. Men med humanioraspiralens seneste rotation mener flere universitetsfolk, at humaniora måske vil forsvinde helt fra en række universiteter i løbet af de kommende år. Alligevel er det dog svært at tegne et entydigt billede af fremtiden: I Storbritannien og USA bløder flere humanistiske fakulteter med frafaldsrater på op til 60% i løbet af de første to år. Til gengæld konkluderer en ny rapport, at humaniora tilsyneladende har undgået krisen i Australien.

Og løsningen på humanioras krise? I den nylige runde af indlæg er det Eagleton, der kommer det nærmest. Han udpeger bureaukraternes kontrol med universiteterne som den store slyngel og slår til lyd for decentralisering og et universitært selvstyre, der ikke står til regnskab for staten. Hvem der skulle have interesse i at finansiere dét, kommer han dog ikke ind på.

MBTI Two Types Tests

With MBTI types, people are often confused as to whether they are one or the other. CelebrityTypes.com offers a series of tests to help you find our what type you are, if you are confused over two types:

The Myers-Briggs or MBTI type test is the most popular personality test in the world and used by governments and Fortune 500 companies across the globe. While the test is popular and time-honored, it often happens that newcomers are confused over their type and have trouble determining their own type. To this end, these two-types test may provide a valuable guide and assistance in pointing the test taker in the direction of his true type.

America Universalis: A Republic in Concord with Nature and a Model for all Mankind

The title of this chapter is an allusion to the feeling of exceptionalism that seems to have permeated the Founding Fathers as they laid down the foundations of the American constitution. Sentiments that have been outlined in Isaac Kramnick’s essay on the Federalist Papers (Kramnick 1987). It was thought that the establishment of the American republic would finally free man from the “long shadows of feudalism” and permit him to live in accordance with himself and nature. Thus it was thought that America would be a Republic in Concord with Nature and Model for all Mankind.[1]

The view of the American Revolution taught to me as an undergraduate student of History was that the American Revolution was the philosophy of liberalism brought to political fruition. However the study of republicanist sources and the writings of professional historians, Pocock’s Machiavellian Moment above all, have made it clear to me that republicanism had just as big a part to play in the discussion surrounding the founding of the American state.[2]

Early republicanism in the United States drew heavily on the ancient Roman precedence as well as on the discussion from seventeenth century England.[3] As such, it can be said that there was a common educational and philosophical frame inside which the discussions of the founding fathers took place. The contents of this shared intellectual baggage were, of course, the precedence of the Greco-Roman world, Machiavelli, and the political philosophers of seventeenth century England.[4] To this end, we shall hopefully have made the case for the intellectual continuities outlined in the present paper. But even beyond the Federalist Papers it would be no exaggeration to say that the republican views studied in the following chapters would be representative of figures such as Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, George Washington, Thomas Paine, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Jefferson.[5]

The American Constitution and the Federalist Papers

Since the time of the Roman Republic itself, no state has come as close to the ideal set fourth by republicanists as the United States of America. Even the framing surrounding the discussion about the American discussion is teeming with references to Roman history. Indeed the United States of America was the first realization of a large republic since the time of Rome itself and it is hard to overlook the symbolism of Hamilton, Madison, and Jay writing under the pseudonym of Publius Valerus, the founder of the Ancient Roman Republic,[6] or the iconography of America having a “Senate” on “Capitol” hill overlooking the “Tiber”,[7] just as there are numerous mentions of Rome in the Federalist Papers.[8]

The American Constitution: A Victory for “Checks & Balances”

In the overall design of the American republic the American federalists did not follow Machiavelli’s call for regal power to any notable extent (the presidency was endowed with only very few political powers). Conversely, in their on rigid insistence of checks and balances, no doubt a contributing factor to the 200 years life span of the American constitution, the American federalists not only emphasize but break with Machievalli’s notion of adaptability and dynamism.[9] As such, they were far sterner in their attitude towards the (lack of) flexibility they would permit with regards to checks and balances, certainly sterner than Machiavelli.[10] Thus the consecutive presidencies of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and James Monroe were characterized by a championing and an understanding of the principle of checks and balances as an instance that served to limit the nature of government. – In regards to the historical precedence, we may thus note, that John Adams felt that while Greeks may have thought of the principle of checks & balances they had never mastered it. [11] Likewise, the founding fathers disagree with Machiavelli that the framing of a Republic’s constitution should be determined by checks and balances, rather than by the political dynamism generated by a conflict of the orders. Thus the apex of this spirit of checks and balances might be said to be embodied in the Tenth Amendment of the American Constitution:

“The powers not delegated to the United States [i.e. Federal Government] by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”[12]

The introduction of a Senate as well as a house of congress reflects the conflict of orders as it was explicitly stated to represent an aristocracy, albeit not one bestowed by birth but by merit. Thus Thomas Jefferson made his voice known saying they there existed a ‘Natural Aristocracy’.[13] This was thought to be an aristocracy of the spirit, rather than one of heredity which they – along with Machiavelli and others – condemned as harmful. Instead, the image of this ‘natural aristocracy’ seems to have been shaped by another antique idea, namely the humourism of Hippocrates and Galen.[14] Jefferson and Madison wanted for their senators men who could deliberate coolly on matter of state and act as a check against the ‘heated’ mass of public opinion that would surely gain access to the house of representatives.

The Ideal of the Yeoman

Early republicanism in the United States had a strong, somewhat idealistic focus on the Yeoman as the political citizen-ideal. This idea permeated the minds of even great thinkers like Thomas Jefferson who has been called the “philosopher sphinx” of America.[15] The Yeoman was defined as a self-owning farmer, in possession of practical common sense, and perhaps armed as the Roman farmers had been under the Republic, and as Machiavelli had envisioned it for his ideal Republic. In stressing this, the founding fathers aligned themselves clearly with both Harrington’s Oceana as well as with the historical Roman Republic.[16] The self-ownership was seen as the anti-thesis to the oppressing feudalism of the Old World, and as a bulwark against unrestrained majority rule, the maxim being that if the citizens risked loosing their personal property they would naturally be conservatively inclined politically and think twice before enforcing the political oppression of their neighbours.[17] – Thus political theorists such as Thomas Jefferson feared that American political virtue would run out along with the supply of land on the western frontier and that the eventual urbanization of the United States would ultimately lead to a strengthening of the democratic element, on behalf of the more aristocratically-aligned republicanism, as did in fact happen. But these developments could not be regarded as finalized until somewhere in the 20th century and the Yeoman-voter would remain the dominant ideal political discourse throughout the entire debate surrounding the constitution.

To this end we can compare the position of civic virtue as envision by Madison, mostly a reflection of Machiavelli’s vivere civile to the tenets of the French revolution:[18] As the latter was more of an urbanized phenomena it naturally downplayed the republican yeoman-ideal and with it the expectations of common sensical, conservative civic virtue and favoured solidarity and (attempted) fiscal equality instead; – ideals truly foreign to America’s founding fathers. In fact, Jefferson, Madison and others tended to view the American Republic as founded on Nature and thereby as constituting a break away from the artificial, inherited, feudalistic state of the Old World. To them the Republic functioned in accordance with natural law and the nature of man, whereas the French revolution set out to create a better version of man.[19] The Aristotelean/Machiavellian equality of the republic is understood as equality before the law or equality before the republic. Machiavelli recognized the dangers inherent in the extrapolation of a political mindset where the people believe that men should be equal in all respects.[20] This is undesirable as it ultimately leads to a despotism of the opinion of the majority which was also clearly recognized by Tocqueville.[21]

In relation to this view we may note that also Tocqueville observed the brisk aggression of the westward farmers. As has been described by Fernard Braudel and others, these men were not truly farmers but entrepreneurs living on the harsh frontier.[22] They did not wait for the state to approve of their fiscal aggression and lonesome ventures but took their chances and risked everything in pursuit of happiness. This, amongst other things, was what fostered American Exceptionalism.[23]

[1] Kramnick, Isaac: Commentary on The Federalist Papers, Penguin 1987 p. 13

[2] Pocock, J.G.A.: The Machiavellian Moment p. 507

[3] Ibid.

[4] Also of course the Founding Fathers shared a common background of deism and Puritanism, knowledge of French thinkers such as Montesquieu and so on.

[5] Shalhope, Robert E.: Toward a Republican Synthesis, William and Mary Quaterly, 29

[6] Hansen, Mogens Herman: Den moderne republicanisme og dens kritik af det liberale demokrati p. 76

[7] Flower, Harriet I. et al: The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic p. 347

[8] Madison, Jay & Hamilton: The Federalist Papers: Federalist V, VI, XVIII, XXXIV, XXXVIII, XLI, LXIII, LXX, LXXV

[9] For a discussion of Machiavelli’s flexibility regarding checks and balances, see Discourse III.9

[10] Harrington does not as much deliberate on the issue of the optimum degree of rigidity regarding checks and balances as he simply over-expounds every detail of the republic’s workings.

[11] Although it lies outside the scope of this paper an interesting observation for the reader interested in the American revolution would be the parallel of the French revolution and its disregard for the principle of checks and balances and the consequences that such a republican attitude spawned. See also: Flower, Harriet I. et al: The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic p. 347

[12] Various Authors: The Constitution of the United States of America (1787)

[13] Madison, Jay & Hamilton: The Federalist Papers (Penguin 1987) p. 21

[14] Kramnick, Isaac: Commentary on The Federalist Papers, Penguin 1987 pp. 45-55

[15] Amongst others see, Joseph J. Ellis, Alfred A. Knopf, 1997: ‘American Sphinx’ as well as Kelley L. Ross, 2006: ‘The Great Republic: Presidents and States of the United States of America, and Comments on American History’ in The Proceedings of the Friesian School, Fourth Series.

[16] The Romans of Antiquity appear to have honoured the rural castes and their imagined unspoiled rural past and mistrusted civilization and urbanization which they saw as the root of Rome’s political corruption.  See Millar, Fergus: The Roman Republic in Political Thought p. 89 – Furthermore, the alignment with Harrington is no accident as American politicians, such as John Adams, had read Harrington and were familiar with his thoughts. See: Flower, Harriet I. et al: The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Republic pp. 348-349

[17] Madison, Jay & Hamilton: The Federalist Papers: Federalist X See also: Pocock, J.G.A.: Journal of Modern History 1981

[18] Hansen, Mogens Herman: Den moderne republikanisme og dens kritik af det liberale demokrati p. 43

[19] Pocock, J.G.A.: The Machiavellian Moment p. 537

[20] Machiavelli, Niccolò: The Discourses I.34

[21] Pocock, J.G.A.: The Machiavellian Moment p. 538

[22] Pocock, J.G.A.: The Machiavellian Moment p. 537

[23] See Schmidt, Regin: American Exceptionalism. Nationale Myter, historiografi og virkelighed og Braudel, Fernand: A History of Civilizations pp. 458-480

Nazi Germany’s Characterization of the Danish People

(1) The Dane possesses a strong national feeling. … Therefore, avoid everything that can hurt his national pride.

(2) The Dane is liberty-loving and self-conscious with regard to his own standing. He resists the use of compulsion and attempts to command him. He lacks a sense of military hardship and authority. Therefore: Tone down attempts to subordinate him; do not shout, such things only fill him with resentment and are without effect. Enlighten and convince him in an impartial manner. A humoristic tone comes out ahead. …

(3) The Dane possesses much peasant-cunning and unconventionality bordering on the unreliable.

(5) The Dane loves a cosy mood and home life. You win him over by friendliness and small acts of consideration and attention; by recognition of his person.

Nina Fauerholdt, Lars Lundmann og personlighedstests

I WA IDEER 20. Marts skriver Nina Fauerholdt om psykolog Lars Lundmann, der har forsket i jobsamtaler. I artiklen hedder det bl.a., at det er de færreste mennesker, hvis personlighedstræk er stabile. Det er noget pjat.

Den såkaldte Fem-faktormodel, som der henvises til i artiklen er blevet forsket til døde af forskerhold fra hele verden, som har gjort brug af enorme datasæt hentet fra flere nationer. Gang på gang er det blevet konkluderet, at de overordnede personligehedstræk, som denne test måler, ligger overvejende stabilt omkring 15-årsalderen og er stort set urokkelige efter de 30.

I artiklen hedder det også, at personlighedstests ”kun bidrager med støj.” Pjat igen. Hvad angår jobsamtaler har videnskabelige undersøgelser konkluderet, at en persons resultater på Fem-faktormodellen er en kraftigere forudsigelse for hvordan vedkommende vil klare sig på jobbet end vedkommendes referencer fra tidligere arbejdspladser, tidligere joberfaring og uddannelsesniveau.