This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I saw a thread about Louis Theroux's manosphere documentary. OP relates his teen daughter's alleged words and experiences to make a point about healthy values and teen male behaviours. The current verdict is that boys should have their screen times monitored or limited so they don't get corrupted by the manosphere, and raise them with feminist values. Okay. I agree with some of this. There are certainly incel adjacent online spaces that spiral into nihilism and hate. There are teenage boys with zero offline male role models to mainline this stuff and end up emerging more bitter than buff. Parental gatekeeping of violent porn, gambling apps, or extremist political content seems like basic risk management. If your heuristic is “anything that makes my daughter feel existentially unsafe is bad for my son too,” the monitoring prescription follows naturally. And yes, the generational digital literacy gap is real. Parents are often shocked their kids know the lore. I'd go further, I'm in favour of a blanket social media ban until they (both boys and girls) turn 16.
That being said. This comes just one day after Clavicular's recent clip with Leela Saraswat went viral. FWIW the "boyfriend" commented on Instagram that it was an old prom pic and they weren't dating. But are we allowed to question what message women's questionable dating choices (made of their free will with no external pressure) send to young boys and girls? We have a clip of an (allegedly) attached woman melting for a high value male on camera, yet the discourse pivots to “protect boys from the manosphere”. Here's the truth nuke: Clavicular is not an incel. He is living proof of the sexual marketplace the manosphere describes, which is heavily determined by looks, money, height, race, social status, etc. He pulls taken women with minimal effort. Young men are not “corrupted” into noticing these patterns. They notice them first (through lived failure) and then find the subculture that names the pattern instead of shaming them for noticing. So what is the problem with the manosphere? That it spreads dangerous lies and radicalises young men into subjugating and even killing women? Or that the rhetoric makes women look bad?
If it's the former, I need to see some evidence. Netflix's "Adolescence" made waves last year for catching the so called andrew tate problem that's apparently radicalising 13 year old boys into stabbing their classmates. Never mind the fact that homicide rates in the UK have been trending DOWN over the years, particularly against females. Are we allowed to discuss the harm caused by manufactured hysteria? If it's the latter, then you’re not protecting boys. You’re just delaying the day they notice the discrepancy between official feminist sermons and observed reality. And when they finally do notice, they’ll be angrier for the wasted years. And manosphere critics would tell us they've been "corrupted".
Lastly, since #notallmen was mentioned as a gotcha, can I point out how this "collective guilt" only flows one way? If every man should feel ashamed about the manosphere because we share genitals with them, what about the (overwhelmingly male) miners, linemen, firemen, welders, construction workers, road workers, steel workers, etc etc who commit to physically intensive and dangerous labour everyday to keep your lights on? Do we all get a collective male labour paycheck for that too, simply because we share genitals with the workers in these vocations? You don't need to hold yourself to consistent principles if you have sufficient social capital, like feminism does.
Feminism, as an ideology for advancing women's interests, cannot survive in an open marketplace of ideas. It's Motte is 'Feminism is about equality between men and women' which is indefensible when presented with the flood of examples of Bailey exploitation where 'feminists' pick or discard gender roles according to whatever is most in their interests in the circumstance, equality be damned.
Boys and men can now drink from the firehose of the internet which facilitates easy noticing. Like many other ideologies crumbling in the face of evidence, Feminism's supporters have started pushing for suppression of information to allow the gaslighting to continue.
It's this broader desire for suppression to allow narrative control that worries me about the West right now. Its happening along other fronts such as Multiculturalism which also seems to now require suppression of speech to get incompatible cultures to coexist.
Except- as I've pointed out before- feminism is not a movement for women's interests writ large. It is a movement for a narrow subset of women's interests- those of urban, educated, professional-class working women. Not for all working women- feminism doesn't generally care much about the interests of, say, women in the military, or juanita the hotel room cleaner, or whatever. Not non-working women, no matter how educated, wealthy, and empowered they are- feminists lose their minds over any proposal to help SAHMs.
The rape feminists get conspicuously upset about illustrates this principle well- did you know women in the military experience sexual assault at very high rates? I bet not, feminists were too busy telling you about women in college being raped at something approaching, but not equaling, the rate of their non-college peers. The feminist redefinition of 'abuse' into petty BS is another good example; this is not a movement for the women who might actually get knocked around by their alcoholic husbands, as tragic as such cases may be, feminists have other women to care about.
More options
Context Copy link
That politician from Australia notwithstanding, I don't actually think that Multiculturalism requires suppression of speech to function, it just requires some amount of cultural assimilation and little-L liberalization. It's really easy to go back and read something like H.P. Lovecraft's He, where he wrote:
And see it as a bit silly and overblown. New York city isn't dead just because it isn't Dutch or Anglo American. (Also, surely London has had some shift in ethnicity from its Roman founding to the time of Lovecraft? Like, what about the anglo-saxons and the vikings?) And it just seems obvious that many of the ethnic groups that H.P. Lovecraft was worried about, like Southern and Eastern Europeans, the Irish, and Asians just aren't that scary in the modern day. Surely, even critics of multiculturalism would find a passage about the scary Asians like this one:
To be utterly laughable. Seriously, I've been to Chinese New Year celebrations within my city, and it is a fun time. They do have drum performances, and dress in strange clothes, but I don't feel like a group celebrating their heritage once or twice a year is some death knell for Western civilization and culture.
The good, still mostly functional Western countries that matter like the United States, still remember what it means to be an empire (even if they don't call it that), and we've successfully anglified basically every white ethnic group that has come here, we anglified the Native Americans, and sufficiently assimilated Asians and Hispanics so that they're no great threat to our society. People look at the statistics of Europe's failed immigration policies, and assume that they also apply to the US, but they just don't. Regardless of whatever foolish policies Europe and the wider anglosphere adopt, the United States is doing fine and will continue to be a torchbearer for Western values even after those cultures have become just like the New York of Lovecraft's imagination.
I kind of don't understand people who look at the facts of succesful past assimilation, and who just assume that there is no soft or hard pressure to assimilate anymore in spite of political correctness and what the progressive left say. People who come here learn English. People who come here, learn a baseline of American culture and values. Just as the Chinese Empire of old hanified many of the disparate ethnic groups within its borders and failed to hanify others, so too America has and will succesfully anglify (or if you prefer, americanize) many ethnic groups and will fail to anglify others. But as long as we have the state capacity to stop the non-anglified groups from being too much of a problem (and we definitely do), it is a total non-issue for our civilization and way of life.
I mean there are Western cultures that are common to our shared cultural heritage. Things like the Enlightenment ideals of thought (rationalism and empiricism) liberal democracy as ideal ways of making decisions. If you don’t agree, just imagine someone choosing to do things the opposite way. Perhaps they are a monarchist like Curtis Yarvin, or they decide to make major decisions by use of a set of Norse Runes, or they think liberalism and civil liberties and human rights are suspect. Would such a person be able to do those things openly in polite society without triggering a huge backlash against themselves. You wouldn’t want to see the CEO of your company using Tarot cards to decide on major strategic planning. Yarvin is mostly an object of derision in those same polite society.
At some point, I think you reach critical mass where the groups who reject Western consensus end up being strong enough to make the assumptions of our culture no longer the consensus that you can assume most people around are on board with. One Yarvin is a curiosity, 3 million Yarvinites in a state can affect the zeitgeist.
Doesn’t Zuck pine for imperial Pax Romana era Rome ( specifically Augustus)?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Like what? White supremacy or multiculturalism? Fascism or Marxism-Leninism? Scientific racism and social darwinism? Monarchism and the divine right of kings? Catholic integralism? These are all Western ideas.
I guess you mean liberal democracy. But how liberal should democracy be? Should voters be allowed to get what they want, or is that populism? What should be censored? Communists? Nazis? Porn? Anti-feminists? Islam? What should be taught in state education, what is the correct kind of history? Who should be debanked and suppressed? Who controls who is let into the country and in what numbers? Are there such controls? Or are they racist? Who can be murdered with impunity? Who can say certain words? Who runs the administration?
'Western values' as we mean them are a recent idea. They aren't even Anglo. The Anglos of old did not really believe all the things we believe today. The Americans of old believed in white supremacy, homophobia, all kinds of things that are unfashionable today.
There is indeed a Western culture, language group, philosophy, worldview to a certain extent. But it's such a vast tree with so many branches. It's like how 'America' in a certain sense includes Peruvians, Alaskan natives, Montreal latte-sippers, Texas cowboys, Venezuelan lowlifes. But that meaning of America is so broad as to be all but useless. It's ever changing and whole groups disappear in time, changing beyond recognition. The cowboys are mostly gone. The Aztecs are all gone. The Puritans are gone.
The issue is not just in 'not anglifying' others but in others changing what it means to be 'anglified.' The danger is deeper and more insidious than just seeing the Somali Learing Centre and thinking 'oh it's not so hard to get rid of these jokers' - it has to actually be done and not just talked about. Values have to actually be preserved, not just defended. Culture wars must be won rather than merely fought.
When talking about large groups of people over time, the only constant is change.
Dante might have been a Christian, but he also saw himself as an inheritor of Roman culture, and so his Divine Comedy ends up with a strange mix of references to Classical Mythology and the Aeneid, in a book about the Christian Afterlife. And before Rome "Hellenized" and adopted Greek philosophy and Homeric myth as its own, it saw the Greeks as foreign and other. We know that Cato the Elder considered Greek philosophy "un-Roman" and he probably would have hated to learn that his great grandson, Cato the Younger would be remembered as a sort of Stoic martyr and sage. It only took four generations for a resistant Rome to Hellenize in this way.
Just as there is no "truer" Rome, there is no "truer" West. All of those version of Rome are the real Rome, whether pro-Hellenistic or anti-Hellenistic, whether Pagan or Christian, all of them were Roman. So too, the West has been a lot of different things. The West is Greece and Rome, and Geneva, and London and Paris. It encompasses secular enlightenment ideals from the Encyclopedists of France, to the Marxists of Russia, and the Christians of the Crusades, and the Pagan Romans.
CertainlyWorse was expressing concern for the fate of "the West", and I was addressing him in those terms. But the simple fact is that the only thing we can say for sure is that "the West" is going to change in ways we can hardly predict, and would have no matter what happened. That's the weird thing about concerning yourself about a civilization instead of a nation or an ethnos or a tribe. Civilizations contain multitudes and are ever-changing. At least if you zoom in to the tribe level, you can say that there is a continuity of genetics, even if there is cultural drift and change over time.
This is completely incoherent, unless what you mean by the 'real Rome' is merely that these different cultures all existed in the same place. But then the 'real' is not doing any work. You can't just adopt a phrase while rejecting the premise behind it, which is that true forms exist in contrast to non-true forms.
Yes, but this is not really relevant. If people interpret 'Western culture' as one involving things like individualism, democracy, capitalism, etc; then pointing out that parts of the history of Western Europe didn't have those things is at most a criticism of a sloppy choice of words, but it doesn't invalidate that people can have a preference for a certain culture and put a label on it. That the label is sloppy, does not mean that the things the label refers to is not something real, or that it is invalid to have a subjective preference for things that the label covers.
Note that by adopting the 'real' adjective, people are in fact making it clear that they reject your belief that just because things happen in a place, things all fall under that label of 'real X'.
And historians recognize the distinction between the early 'Romanitas' and the later Greco-Roman culture, so a change happened, that destroyed the thing that Cato the Elder loved and considered to be true Roman. His belief was based on a true fact (a cultural distinction), plus a subjective preference. You seem to agree with the fact, but only disagree with the subjective element, but there is no right or wrong when it comes to subjective preference. There is a wrong when it comes to denying others their subjective preference.
Your own argument can also be used to argue that it is weird to have a concern for a nation or an ethnos or a tribe, which are of course all ever-changing. Even the human race is changing or if you abstract away even further, the animal population of earth (with mankind being just one of the animals). So does your reasoning not require total apathy, even to the survival of humankind, or the quality of humankind (see Idiocracy)?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
It’s only dangerous!
What level of intellect is required to see the violence and murder difference between races?
It’s not dead - but it COULD have been the capital of the free world.
Thank god we got Biggie Smalls and tacos instead.
Do you hate humanity so much that NYC should've had more influence?
More options
Context Copy link
Irish Americans had high rates of criminality until the around the 20th century. And the Irish in Ireland had low IQ's until their country became a banking hub. Lovecraft wasn't wrong to hate and fear the Irish in one sense, but after they were anglicized, the Irish Americans are just another "spicy white" ethnic group.
Certainly, I don't assume unkind things about someone when I hear they have some Irish heritage today.
I think the basic intuition is, sure, there might be genuine cultural or genetic differences that are leading some races to have higher rates of criminality in the United States today, but we don't actually know whether those groups are more like the Irish (where under the right set of societal conditions they might be made to assimilate) or whether it would literally take gene therapy to fix it. Also, the genetic factors for say, criminality, might not be precisely what we think. Just as the Native Americans seem to genuinely have higher genetic risk for alcoholism, I could easily imagine that ADOS black people might be more susceptible to certain kinds of drug addiction and that might end up explaining a large part of the difference in criminality between them and other ethnic groups.
Sure, instead it got the consolation prize of being the wealthiest city in the world, and one of two megacities that makes a major imprint on all of American culture and entertainment.
Specifically targeting the MAOA 2-repeat allele.
More options
Context Copy link
It's debatable whether or not this is an honest presentation of facts, but just assuming it as true for the sake of argument: liberals have been promising to do the same for other populations since time immemorial. American blacks are still not integrated, and Africa is still a basket case. How much longer until you accept you were wrong, ans who will be held accountable for it?
American culture and entertainment are on life support.
In a certain sense, I don't think we can be 100 percent sure until we have computers that can simulate the physics of our biological processes to a high degree of accuracy, because until that point all we will be able to do is genome-wide association studies and find genetic correlations with life outcomes but not explanations for why those correlations exist or whether they are causal. (Though I grant that we could in principle get a physical explanation earlier than that, the same way we figured out that the genetic disorder Phenylketonuria leads to low IQ if one eats a high protein diet due to their body not producing phenylalanine hydroxylase, and thus discovering that with a strict diet people with PKU can have normal IQ's. Genetics is weird sometimes, and interacts with the environment in odd ways.)
I'm perfectly open to the idea that black people might genetically be predisposed to low IQ and personality traits that lead to higher criminality, but I think this is far from proven. It would actually be great news if it was all genetic, because that means we could probably do voluntary eugenics or gene therapies with the right framing and marketing, and be rid of the problem without much issue. If it's cultural, that's much harder to deal with.
I think we're highly biased by our novelty-focused culture, but I would wager that America is producing excellent cultural and entertainment products at least as consistently as Ancient Greece or Rome did.
How often did the ancient world produce a Virgil or a Homer? How often did they coast for a few centuries on the insights of a Galen or an Aristotle?
If you want to enjoy human artistic excellence in the United States, you can find it in virtually every large American city. You like opera? We've got opera. Ballet? Classical music? You could disengage from American pop culture, and probably fly to a different city every week and enjoy great Western art and performances that are probably at least as good as the average of what you could have experienced 500 years ago, or 1000 years ago, or 2000 years ago. Maybe we can't compare to the Gaussian tail artists of those eras, the virtuosos like Beethoven or Chopin, but you probably wouldn't have to look hard to find artists and performers in the top 20% of all of human history all over the United States today, which I think is nothing to sneeze at.
And if you're not rich, there's always the wealth of recordings we have, which give even the common man access to the great performances of the past. For a mere pittance, you could buy the Harvard Classics and immerse yourself in the greatest thoughts of Western thinkers of the last 2500 years.
Maybe it is true that many Americans choose to engage with the new and the now, and ignore the mountain of gold they're born into. But I'm grateful that I've had access to the public domain books on Project Gutenburg since I was in middle school, and got to enjoy works from 1001 Arabian Nights to Plato's Republic for free. I think it is possible, even with brain rot and the nightmare of the algorithm that more people today are engaging with the thought stream of Western civilization than ever before. And let's be honest, most of the servants of Ancient Greece and Rome probably weren't deeply immersing themselves in the art and literature of the era (even if there are notable exceptions like Epictetus and Cleanthes.)
The evidence is so overwhelming that a scientific study is not even necessary. It's like observing that men are genetically predisposed to being taller than women.
This strikes me as an isolated demand for rigor. Would you apply the same standards to the claim that smoking cigarettes causes lung cancer?
No, because the consequences of getting it wrong are very different.
If a society believes that smoking causes cancer, and they are wrong, some people don't get to enjoy setting fire to foul-smelling leaves and covering their walls and furniture with discusting gunk.
If a society believes that Black people are less intelligent and more criminal, and they are wrong, millions of innocent people go through their lives with a boot stamping on their faces.
More options
Context Copy link
Or would you apply the same rigor to the other question? That is, neither position is proven but which has more evidence. Why are privileging the blank slate hypothesis when it has for less evidence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If the only thing that could convince you is literal sci-fi technology, why are you doing the "it worked for the Irish" bit, then? That argument certainly doesn't meet the standard that you put upon people who disagree with you, so it should be rejected on similar grounds.
The bad news would have been that we've spent an inordinate amount of time and resources victim-blaming, and excluding people out of public life, for not enthusiastically hopping on the current race-equality bandwagon. This is why I asked who will be held accountable for it, it's not something we can gloss over with "teehee, I guess it doesn't matter now".
By that metric, there's nothing special about New York. I'm not buying a ticket to watch any of the stuff they make there, there's more than enough local artists I can enjoy. Even in the US a trip to the city scarcely seems worth the bother, and the city's impact on the rest of the culture is dwindling.
The metric of IQ was invented in 1905. Around the 1970's we measured Irish IQ, and it seemed low. In the late 1980's Ireland became a banking hub and in the decades that followed we measured their IQ's and they weren't low. Those are the facts as I roughly understand them, without causal links added.
I do agree that the banking hub explanation is only one possible explanation for the observed changes in IQ. It's not as certain as the conservation of momentum, to be sure. It is just a balance of probabilities.
We have seen Irish IQ go up to around the White European average. We have also seen black IQ go up, but it does not match White IQ (today it averages around 85 in the US.) I don't think we have definitive evidence that this is as high as it will ever go. I guess my question would be, would it surprise you if in 100 years, people with similar genetics to today's African Americans ended up having average IQ's that were equivalent to a 90 or a 95 today and no medical interventions were responsible for the measured rise in IQ? Would it surprise you if in 100 years the black murder rate fell 10%-20%? What about if the rise in IQ was larger, or the fall in the murder rate even greater? What do you consider unrealistic for us to observe in the future?
Sure. I was just defending American culture as a whole there. You were the one who said it was on life support.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I’m not convinced that multiculturalism doesn’t need some speech suppression, it can sort of coast in periods of prosperity without it, but when you create a situation where it’s obvious that there’s not enough goodies to give the majority of people the good life, it falls apart quickly, and even with speech controls in place it’s hard to keep tribalism at bay.
Maybe don't do that then? (This is why I find the leftist embrace of Gaianist degrowtherism to be less than logically coherent with their stated commitments to "Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité", and lean more toward Leigh Phillips Thought as a more effective route to the realisation of those principles.
So you deliberately destroy the economy so that nobody gets anything above bare survival? The issue is that competition for resources in a situation where the people involved have enough differences to matter means that they become much more tribal than they would otherwise. And as such it’s inevitable unless you find a way to always either have absolutely nothing available to fight over, or so many resources that everyone can have everything they want and still have enough left. If you’re not in either of those conditions, you’re going to have tribalism.
Integration sort of worked in the 1960s because it was part of the American golden age in which everyone could reasonably expect that a modicum of effort would allow them to own a house and a car and their kids could go to an affordable college and land a white collar job. In 2026, that’s no longer the case, homes are out of reach for most people, secure jobs are hard to get even as college becomes virtually unaffordable for most people. In that Situation, it’s easy to fall into tribalism and work to make sure that whatever resources available go to people like you, rather than some other tribe.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
American exceptionalism aside, in the non-American Western nations there is definitely a lack of will and state capacity to assimilate foreign cultures. It is cheaper in terms of political capital to double down on indoctrinating the host heritage populations to accept the 'eccentricities' of immigrant groups over mandating assimilation. There's also perverse incentives where host politicians (and parties more broadly) can benefit themselves by championing immigrant groups over heritage citizens. The US isn't immune to this in pockets, but broader American culture may be more resilient against cultural infringement.
Noticing the 'two tier' celebration of immigrant cultures over the denigration of the host cultures is building resentment. The UK seems to be the first of the Anglo nations to reach a crisis about this with free speech infringements used to keep a lid on things.
The fertility decline/rapid aging of the citizen population doesn't help either imo. The younger cohorts are much more diverse.
It also means that you can't ever stop and assimilate people. People always bring up the Ellis Islanders or whoever but that stopped and the intake slowed for a generation after. Nobody who cites that as a success story even pretends that's going to happen because they want workers and to show population/economic growth.
Nobody can ever make the argument to ease off for a decade or two, even for specific groups.
There's some pretense that they're gonna fix the plane when it's in flight but no one actually knows how to do it.
It's the only group with revolutionary potential so it's very dangerous to embolden their critiques of multiculturalism or show it may be worse than they think. I think, in the eyes of the leaders, it runs the risk of becoming a runaway train where they take it too far.
Of course, this is partly what helped the very offenses that make it even harder to fess up and further discredit the system.
I might sound like a broken record, but I think TFR is the root cause of all this. Western governments see population decline (and consequent tax base erosion) as a sovereign risk and will do whatever they can to forestall it. Immigration is the only tool they think is feasible to 'fix' this, so we continue to see uniparty policies of mass immigration despite it being grossly unpopular.
Everything else is downstream of this. I've heard speculation that AI based productivity gains might obviate the need for immigration, but I'm not holding my breath.
We know this is not the reason, because the governments have data that show immigrants are a massive money sink. Some of them even decided to share it with the public!
This didn't actually prevent some government orgs from assuming otherwise, e.g. in the British OBR projections that assumed migrants would be as productive as locals.
That and lobbying from business (and fears of a dying healthcare system) explains the massive post-COVID migration spike.
Incredibly short sighted (basically low wages for business that didn't like how COVID shifted the labour market + pretty projections of growth so you can borrow at the expense of taxpayers for decades) but governments can be shortsighted. It also doesn't help when discussions on human capital are basically taboo so it's hard to coordinate criticism without being called racist.
Of course, that's another structural problem caused by aging: there aren't really many high IQ populations to squeeze since most of their countries are both wealthy now and aging (and, in the case of Britain, they left the EU). If you think migration is your solution it's gonna be Third World migration and we've seen how even selective immigration systems that try to get the cream of the crop from places like India got corrupted by the incentive to import cheap labour.
More options
Context Copy link
Refugees are definitely a money sink. Young educated tradespeople or professionals going through a strict points based system are normally positive in lifetime contribution.
Its difficult to do direct comparisons on net lifetime contributions across the anglo countries because a lot of the studies seem to be gamed to create the strongest arguments for immigration.
Regardless, as soon as you look at non-economic impacts, multiculturalism has so many downsides over homogeneity.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link