site banner
PaperclipPerfector  1mo ago (text post)   23673 thread views

Culture War Roundup for the week of June 29, 2026

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.

2
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Let's talk about the Örebro Party: (Swedish) lefty socialists except they support remigration.

Key quotes from Wikipedia (emphasis mine)

The party claims to stand for a "class-conscious populism" which according to party leader Markus Allard takes inspiration from marxist ideology and unites the "productive" classes of society against the "Transferiat", with the "Transferiat" being a term coined by Allard to describe the classes of society that lives off transfers that are a net negative for society such as those who, despite having an ability to work, live off social welfare benefits, as well as those who work "made-up services" that the party deems serve no societal function, such as bureaucrats, consultants, public sector communications specialists, strategists and HR-specialists.

In 2026 ÖP party leader Markus Allard sparked controversy on several occasions. In a debate hosted by Studio3 with Liberal member of parliament Martin Melin, Allard asked: "why won't the Liberals push for deporting 100 000 social welfare-Somalis?" and in the same debate said that "Sweden belongs to the Swedes. We have to make sure that we take care of our own damn people and we must deport these damn parasites who sit and live at our expense."

In a podcast segment about immigration and deportations Allard stated his opinion and said that "They will also be forced to leave, even if they are born in Sweden, because they have no natural connection to Sweden. They are not Swedish."

"OH YES!!! SWEDEN BELONGS TO THE SWEDES! If an immigrant refuses to adapt then they should not be here. In our national party program we will present measures for massive remigration. We need to start by getting rid of the criminals and people who have lived off of social welfare year after year. 0 arguments to keep them here. On a municipal level that which can be done, should be done to achieve remigration/deportation of these."

They've made headlines recently (and got on my radar) because Mullvad's CEO donated €452,000 to them.

My perspective on remigration:

People should live in their own communities. I remember reading an article about a tradcath community, and presumably the article wanted to criticise and mock them, but I thought they had decent values and the world is better with them. Or the furry community, even though they can be weird, sometimes produce amazing works like this. Or the unique cultures from other countries and ethnicities...hence the appeal of reversing immigration.

Immigration has ruined communities. A massive problem with today's culture is that it has become one monoculture: everything is becoming gentrified, secured, and impersonal. Translation tools, ethnic stores, etc. are accelarating this (despite otherwise being positive by granting me interesting new cultures and vice versa), by making every culture adapt every other culture's most viral aspects (which aren't necessarily good, like arguably convenience food and tipping). LLMs are accelarating this. But immigration is perhaps most accelarating this: some immigrants are even beneficial, but immigrants who don't know or respect the culture's customs, don't socialize with the rest of the community, take more than they contribute (without an apparent excuse), commit much more crime than the existing community, and don't even speak the language...break community members' unspoken understanding, friendship, altruism, trust, and communication with their neighbor.

But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?

These are difficult questions not only morally, but the infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake. It risks broadening persecution, creating a fascist state, an ugly monoculture...the exact failure it seeks to prevent.

So what to do? I don't oppose moderate immigration reform, like:

  • Some restrictions on immigration
    • More thorough vetting
    • Rejecting anyone that can't demonstrate a good reason for immigrating or contribution to the target country
    • Rejecting anyone that fails a "basic human decency and tolerance" test that specifically includes tolerating other religions
  • Sending refugees to specific countries and regions in countries that accept them, maybe in exchange for tax relief; so they're safe and with the tolerant liberals who voted for them, not tight-knit communities who voted against them
  • Deporting anyone who commits a serious crime, even native-born if they have loose connections to their native country and an overseas family
  • Less welfare for immigrants than citizens (still enough to survive with small extra, but less than citizens)
    • Also, less welfare and rights than legal immigrants. Refugees can apply for legal immigration by learning the language and culture
  • Segregated communities (which do and will form naturally), then policing their border. "But isn't that just creating nations?" Yes, it's creating states, but see bullet point 2

Honestly, I don't think these are enough to reverse the decay of culture and public resources, and they may seem like a waste of resources for unwanted immigrants, but I think too much immigration/remigration would be worse (for culture and public resources). A real solution must be broader than immigration. Fixing the other issues: making LLMs more diverse, further improving translation tools and incentivizing ethnic stores to include more cultural nuance, and increasing nationalism as a side-effect of addressing the elephant in the room: convincing most of the population to like their government (maybe by having it do something notable for the public and advertising it, and electing new parties with less out-of-touch politicians, even Örebro if they tone down remigration).

Arguably the above essay is another milquetoast thought experiment with the same conclusions everyone already knows: obviously government should not be so corrupt, etc. So another point of discussion is why Örebro decided to focus on this as their stand-out policy. Is it just marketing and they plan to implement something much more moderate (I realize I'm bad at marketing, but I'm skeptical this would work for a generally leftist party). Is it a radical idea to appeal to the working class? Is it only the media that's focusing on this policy, and Örebro themselves consider it a less important part of the agenda compared to the socialist policies? (Probably all of the above, especially the third.)

I do think we need some radical solution to fix societal decay, although it may emerge outside policy, like a technological breakthrough, or just younger generations replacing older ones and having a drastically different culture. I don't think it's in immigration. Maybe the Örebro party will get elected by arguing for remigration, but if they actually want to improve Sweden, I believe the bulk of their implementation must be in their other policies.

How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them?

Just drop them off on the shore and??

You need to get them on a boat/plane and then off the vehicle upon arrival. The immigrants are not cooperative and will not consent to do this, so you have to force them somehow. Threats of shooting them won't fly for western audiences though, so you will have to hope the threat of imprisonment is enough.

Then there is the matter of the host country which does not want to take responsibility for its citizens. It might block your vehicle from landing, and there will be no attempts made to stop the immigrants from exiting the country once again.

So easier said than done. I guess you could give them a parachute and push them out of a plane. Although that might be more expensive than just keeping them imprisoned in their host country.

All illegals are already escorted around by people with guns as part of their removal. That's just a silly objection.

As to the host country, the hard way is just escorting people off a plane and leaving. There are also shipping containers and barges thanks can just be dropped off at a coast for very cheap (they can even be recovered after people leave, because what does a Somali know what to do with a barge?).

Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest.

Per Scott's post, the First Solution was convincing the Jews to emigrate (to Palestine and elsewhere, and by normal peacetime means like commercial passenger ships) by making life in Germany shitty for them (and seizing money from rich Jews to pay for the tickets of poor Jews). This failed because everybody else refused to take the German Jews (note that this was before decolonisation, so this mostly means the Western governments - they, after all, set the immigration policies of their colonies).

The supposed Second Solution was deporting all the Jews to Madagascar (forcibly, and by extraordinary means). This made no sense, because by then Germany was at war with Britain (which controlled the Suez, Gibraltar and the North Atlantic), and thus couldn't possibly get the Jews to Madagascar. Most people think this was just a fake plan as a cover story for the Final Solution (there was at least one other - the Wannsee Conference mentions "evacuation to the East" i.e. Poland/Russia).

How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?

How would you get rid of some guy sleeping at your house once you've decided your generosity is being strained, you don't like how he's been taking food from the pantry, money from your pocket or how he looks at your daughter? The guy might have no house, he might have no skills and no job and the street sure is dangerous... but it is not a reasonable expectation to turn your house into a hostel for arbitrary numbers of losers.

Why should Sweden be obligated to keep an arbitrary number of Somalians just because the Somalians don't want to go back to Somalia? Why would they want to go back to Somalia voluntarily? Paying them to go back to Somalia is idiotic, they can just come back again.

Why would I want to leave a 5-star hotel to my crappy apartment when I could stay and mooch off room service? That's just not how it works. The police would be called. They would find ways of getting rid of me.

The Algerians made it clear to the French that they had to leave or they would kill them, so they left. That's how it works. There is no police between nations, nations have to deal with this themselves and it inevitably gets messy and confrontational. Sometimes conflict is inevitable.

Being a nation without a state is an unpleasant prospect. Should the Swedes resign themselves to be like the Kurds, who just get hammered continually by nations that do have states? Why take any chances? Why should they worry about a Russian invasion when the streets of Malmo are unsafe for women because it's full of rapey Africans? What is the cost of a Russian invasion and conquest to Sweden? They'd merely lose political control over their country, risk unaccountable robbery and crime, get made to pay taxes for Russian interests...

Mass deportations can be done quickly and cheaply but not by handwringers and legalists who drag things out. In the UK they go through this whole dog and pony show about 'oh I'm gay you can't send me back to Nigeria because they'll be prejudiced'. You can't let people game the system by producing whatever rubbish will extend the process into the never never, there needs to be a disciplined exercise of authority. There are no magic words I can say to convince the hotel to let me stay in their room forever, not by producing sob stories or claims or phoney documents.

At some point European liberals and handwringers need to realize that their generosity is the problem. When immigrants drown on boats crossing the med, that's the fault of the policies in Europe. When coyotes, or whatever they call them in Europe, take boats full of women and children and abandon them with no fuel in the middle of the high sea, they are doing it because they know they'll be rescued. If the Europeans want to prevent people from drowning in the med, they need to stop accepting them and rescuing them.

They're like a parent who keeps supporting their drug-addict son. Giving him money enables his lifestyle, if he didn't have the support he'd have to get his life in line.

At some point European liberals and handwringers need to realize that their generosity is the problem.

I'm fairly sure they know by now. But to them, the problem is not a problem.

Liberals would say the problem is the human smugglers. But they have no authority over them and don't want to shoot them, so they have no influence over what to do. People choose to go with them because the smugglers tell them lies about how easy their life will become, and the business model is lucrative enough that this won't change if we decide to stop saving people. So saving them becomes the moral thing to do.

Nobody* thinks that migrants drowning in poorly built boats is a good thing, we disagree about the solution.

*lizardman constant aside

But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically.

The question now is whether the alternative can be done remotely ethically. Frankly, I think it's too late for a remigration policy in the UK, but by the end of this process you might wish it hadn't been.

Rejecting anyone that fails a "basic human decency and tolerance" test that specifically includes tolerating other religions

This would mean excluding all practicing muslims.

I don't know how the West came to assume that 'tolerating other religions' is to be expected, nor even that it should be considered a good thing.

It's something Christians (and Jews) developed to be able to live alongside one another, but it was never meant to be applied to Islam. Let alone something like the Nahua religion. Every time I see one of those 'all religions welcome here' signs I wonder how they'd feel about someone cutting out their heart on the top of a ziggurat.

And re: Islam specifically, despite seeing many debates about it, no one ever seems to ask the peace-professing muslim apologist what the penalty is for apostasy.

I support rejecting muslims who are too strict that they don't accept other religions. Other muslims may adapt their religion for modern times, like how many Christians and Jews have.

Tolerating other religions is certainly important if you're immigrating to a country with them. If intolerant muslims want to stay in intolerant communities, that's fine with me (same with Christian and Jewish sects).

It's something Christians (and Jews) developed to be able to live alongside one another, but it was never meant to be applied to Islam.

Correction: idea of religious tolerance was something Protestants developed to be able to live alongside one another, but it was obviously never meant to be applied to papists. (Jewish question was at the time and place very little issue)

I think it's a bit more complicated than this, at least for Founding-era Americans: plenty of people didn't like Catholics and public schools at the time in most places (where they had been established) were probably going to give you generic Protestantism as a baseline, but at the federal level there was pretty clearly an interest in making sure Catholics (which were a substantial minority - recall Maryland was set up as a Catholic refugee colony) were able to serve in federal office and were not persecuted by the federal government.

Well, yes, but then the pope stopped claiming to abrogate Catholics' oaths of loyalty and demanding the creation of a Roman Catholic state. If you imply similar developments within Islam, please elaborate on what you see there.

This is stupid.

It’s pretty dumb on the object level; I highly doubt that Orebro has a workable plan. Actually, I suspect they don’t even have a realistic model of their problem, but then, I don’t know the Swedish stats either.

It’s pointless on the political level, where repeating one party plank over and over again does not generally bring said plank about. The road to hell is paved with agitators certain their one weird trick would bring about the revolution clean energy a balanced budget ethnonationalism. Surely this time the people are crying out for someone to say the quiet part out loud!

And it’s embarrassing on a meta level, where boards like this will take any opportunity to root for a Great White Hope.

My own state of Texas has a recurring cast of separatists. In the 90s, it kind of centered around Civil War revanchism. More recently, they tried it in protest of the 2020 election. Running a fringe political movement is a way to feel important and connected. Maybe raise some funds while you’re at it. I’d be willing to bet Orebro is in this category: a vanity project picking some edgy positions to get attention. Whether or not it represents genuine believers, it is not a serious attempt to enact any policy.

Texas separatism is Not Thé Point of The Texas Independence Movement; thé point is being a central rallying point to keep different far right groups from openly opposing each other.

The road to hell is paved with agitators certain their one weird trick would bring about the revolution clean energy a balanced budget ethnonationalism.

Worked for El Salvador.

In the case of Sweden, it was literally regularly cited as an example of progressive utopia back in the 00's, until they became a meme after a different type of one weird trick.

I’m not sure it did. See section 3. If those stats are right, the murder rate peaked four years before Bukele got the presidency, and three more years before he started imprisoning everyone.

Also, I don’t get the impression his campaign was actually focused on one weird trick. Running a general law & order message isn’t that weird.

By the same token, there’s no one weird trick to Sweden’s policy. It’s not like someone ran on a single issue of opening the gates. Liberal policy plus world events equaled a ton of migrants. Integrate over a decade or two to get the current totals. Or is there some tipping point I missed?

I’m not sure it did. See section 3. If those stats are right, the murder rate peaked four years before Bukele got the presidency, and three more years before he started imprisoning everyone.

There are two problems with that:

  • The peak that the murder rate dropped from was absolute insanity. The "stable" level before it was still a deranged 3rd world level of murder.
  • The annual statistics obscure what actually happened. People look at the yearly rates, then check the year Bukele took office, and conclude that by the time he showed up El Salvador was already on a neat downward slope. What they don't check is the month he took office - it was June - so he had a full half of a year to implement his approach to law enforcement, and for it to bear fruit. The monthly statistics bear this out, there's a massive drop in homicides the very moment he's sworn in, and the whole reason it looks like 2019 is part of a downward slope, is because of what happened during that year. Prior to Bukele, El Salvador was on track to stay at the ~50-ish / 100K homicide rate that was "natural" to it. There's another massive drop exactly when he did start imprisoning everyone.

Also, I don’t get the impression his campaign was actually focused on one weird trick. Running a general law & order message isn’t that weird.

I follow him on Twitter, dude literally reposts "fix everything easily switch" memes.

By the same token, there’s no one weird trick to Sweden’s policy. It’s not like someone ran on a single issue of opening the gates. Liberal policy plus world events equaled a ton of migrants.

"Liberal policy" is the "one weird trick". Look at a map. Tell me how Syrians end up in Sweden, but somehow skip Denmark or Poland without someone trying out a "one weird trick" (which was them literally inviting the Syrians over, along with Merkel and her "refugees welcome" bit).

Yeah, the peak was insanity. Regression to the mean suggests that it would have gone down in the absence of Bukele. And was, in fact, going down every year.

I wish we had monthly stats for any year before 2019, because the red numbers in that year still average out below the previous year’s rate.

To be clear, I think Bukele deserves credit for continuing to bring the rate down. But he didn’t reverse any trend, and he didn’t have one weird trick. The TCP was announced late June and involved everything from equipment to public works.

I think Swedish immigration policy is even less focused. It’s all technocratic compromise politics, where a coalition government considers the recommendations of a committee on I’m already falling asleep. There’s no dynamic individual who said “yeah we’re gonna import Syrians.” Look at that spike. Policy crafted 20+ years ago for Yugoslavia getting stretched to a new extreme.

That’s what makes the Orebro situation different. Dude has none of the institutional backing and none of the existing law. His proposal is not serious.

Regression to the mean suggests that it would have gone down in the absence of Bukele. And was, in fact, going down every year.

No, it was only going down every year if you start counting in 2015, and regressing to the mean means it would it would stop at the 2018-ish levels. Also, as Gattsuru pointed out, he didn't drop into the presidency out of nowhere, he was the mayor of San Salvador since 2015, so it's perfectly plausible the drop from the peak was actually due to him all along.

I wish we had monthly stats for any year before 2019

Someone did collect them, but the source is ultimately unknown, so I didn't post this originally. It does seem to match what I linked though.

because the red numbers in that year still average out below the previous year’s rate.

I mean, we're talking 3346 total homicides in 2018 vs 3228 if you extrapolate the pre-Bukele rate to the end of the year. That's effectively no change.

But he didn’t reverse any trend,

The trend was a flat line, so you can't reverse it by definition. He did turn his country from a shithole (which it still would have been if it settled at the pre-Bukele 2019 levels), and turned it into the safest country in both Americas. It's a major and drastic change, and trying to frame that as riding a pre-exisitng trend is clearly inaccurate.

The TCP was announced late June and involved everything from equipment to public works.

Oh please, this is just grasping at straws. There were public works projects before Bukele.

I think Swedish immigration policy is even less focused. It’s all technocratic compromise politics, where a coalition government considers the recommendations of a committee on I’m already falling asleep. There’s no dynamic individual who said “yeah we’re gonna import Syrians.”

Committees can act dynamically when they want, and they use "I'm already falling asleep" to their advantage. How do you think Europe is pushing through ideas like gender self-ID?

Look at that spike. Policy crafted 20+ years ago for Yugoslavia getting stretched to a new extreme.

There's war going on all over the world all of the time, if the policy involved robotically transporting anyone from any hot zone in the world, how is it that it applied overwhelmingly to Syrians?

That’s what makes the Orebro situation different. Dude has none of the institutional backing and none of the existing law. His proposal is not serious.

I think the question of whether they will be able to consolidate enough power to implement a policy is different from whether the policy would work, if implemented.

I haven't followed the politics closely, but my impression is that Bukele was also a mayor of a major city and had pivoted to a hard anti-crime posture a few years before he got the presidency, so it's not like he or his policies were just showing in El Salvador completely fresh, either.

I had a section about that originally. He was mayor over like 10% of the population (but probably more of the gang crime). That doesn’t come with the kind of budget, or by extension firepower, of the presidency. You can look at the TCP for examples of his post-election policies.

I think he probably contributed to the overall decline; I doubt that he was uniquely effective.

That doesn’t come with the kind of budget, or by extension firepower, of the presidency

I mean... yes, but the mayor of a major city usually has significant firepower. Cleaning up New York after the 70's might not have been visible in national statistics, but in a country with the population distribution of El Selvador, it would most certainly have been.

I doubt that he was uniquely effective.

How? There is literally no reason to believe the murder rate would have been dropping to even 2019-2022 levels, were it not for him. What is your definition of "uniquely effective" at this point? How many politicians can you show that have similar results?

Oh yeah, I remember thinking I should look into that. Actually the murder rate started dropping from it's absolute peak when he became mayor. Maybe it's a coincidence, but something like a quarter of the entire country lives in the capital, so it's plausible.

So there's a lack of granularity in that graph, it makes more sense with more detail.

Essentially a previous government had struck a deal with the big gangs to behave, and that caused the initial murder drop. The gangs decided to come back with more demands and the murder rate was going back up just before Bukele.

Bukele came in with a "fuck negotiations, lock them up" policy and the murder rate collapsed.

People should live in their own communities. I remember reading an article about a tradcath community, and presumably the article wanted to criticise and mock them, but I thought they had decent values and the world is better with them

Well yes, our impeccable aesthetics make it hard to be wholly condemnatory.

But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?

You not being able imagine deporting people without immediately genociding them like the Nazis is a very silly argument. First because it is credible to no one that you can't imagine it (did you try at all? try harder!), and second because all they would have to do is just not genocide people. Very easy, they're already doing that. And there is zero indication that they are going to stop doing that, they already deport people without murdering them. What evidence is there that they will start? None. Its ridiculous.

These are difficult questions not only morally, but the infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake. It risks broadening persecution, creating a fascist state, an ugly monoculture...the exact failure it seeks to prevent.

You clearly just believe that remigration = fascism, by definition, that is the logic chain you have laid out. So just say that. Its honest.

Why would you assume this would involve military tactics? What evidence is there that remigrations are inherently dangerous, plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states. Huge claims with zero evidence.

So another point of discussion is why Örebro decided to focus on this as their stand-out policy. Is it just marketing and they plan to implement something much more moderate (I realize I'm bad at marketing, but I'm skeptical this would work for a generally leftist party). Is it a radical idea to appeal to the working class? Is it only the media that's focusing on this policy, and Örebro themselves consider it a less important part of the agenda compared to the socialist policies? (Probably all of the above, especially the third.)

Is it really that hard to take them at their own word? Why do you not? Why should we not?

A real solution must be broader than immigration. Fixing the other issues: making LLMs more diverse,

This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website

The deportation force must not genocide people and successfully deport a large ratio of foreigners, (since the policy is remigration) many with deep ties to their community. Inevitably they will resist. Inevitably many natives will join their resistance. Inevitably, news will spotlight some especially cruel deportations, and local economies will suffer, increasing resistance. Deportation is very invasive: it's effectively kidnapping from heavily-guarded areas, here large communities of mostly citizens. All this means mass remigration can only be accomplished by a powerful, nonlocal force that is brutal towards citizens.

And I doubt such force can be controlled, especially after intended deportations are over. Is there a historical example where it has? (Conventional militaries only target foreigners. Conventional police are local to their community and not powerful enough to carry out mass deportations. El Salvador’s crackdown has been supported by the vast majority of its citizens and only targeted men, remigration in today’s Sweden would not.)

making LLMs more diverse,

This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website

I don't understand why people here trivialize this. More and more people are using LLMs for more and more tasks, even basic thinking, and it's invading online discourse and media. All major LLMs have similar political preferences, creative ideas, writing tropes...much narrower than those shared by humans. Even in different languages, there's not much more variation in political preferences and writing tropes.

The result is that cultures all over the world are being diluted with the same, narrow LLM monoculture. It's overriding people's beliefs, self-expression, lifestyle...things that distinguish cultures, as people seek their LLM instead of peers, teachers, or tradition.

Also, LLM output is intrinsically impersonal, so it prevents community bonding whenever someone seeks the LLM instead of their peer. If there's enough community bonding elsewhere that's not an issue, but in many cultures there's not; compared to pre-2020, the median person spends less time with peers and there are less third spaces.

many with deep ties to their community

Most of them have been there less than 12 years, and have minimal ties to the Swedish community. Loading up the emotional affect does not a good argument make.

Now, if some UK guy is talking about remigrating Windrush, you'd have a point. Sweden, not so much.

Edit:

Inevitably they will resist.

I expect less than you might think, kind of like Trump's little bit of shock and awe enforcement caused US migration to plummet. They have no ties to the land or the people, they like being showered with free money, but the times would not have to get very hard before they pull up shop and find the next host to bleed.

I support

  • Welfare significantly curbed for immigrants (maybe they'll leave voluntarily)
  • Some deportation: particularly of serious (violent) criminals, and Swedes with close ties to their native country and none to Sweden, who would seem to live OK in the former
  • Requiring "bare minimum" assimilation (not removing or hiding the native culture, but adopting basic interpersonal Swedish norms), and deporting any immigrants who don't

Maybe these measures are enough (if most immigrants leave, or don't but assimilate and contribute more). Then there's no problem.

But what if they're not? Sweden allegedly has over 2.5 million foreigners, ~25% of the total population (from 2017). If a large fraction do resist and co-opt many natives, how else can they be deported? Except by a powerful and cold-hearted deportation force, which especially after the deportations are over, threatens the rest of Sweden's culture (which unrestricted immigration also threatens, but still, is there no middle solution?).

Likewise, ICE has so far reduced the immigrant population, but far from eradicated it: according to Pew, by 1 million between January-June 2025, but there are over 50 million total. And faces large resistance from the left. (I want moderate immigration in the US also, although it looks like it's losing to extremes, but I think compromise is possible, evidenced by the World Cup and smaller events where people across party and ethnic lines get along.)

If a large fraction do resist and co-opt many natives, how else can they be deported?

Eyeballing the by-country numbers, something like 700K that people would probably want to deport. A bunch of Polish plumbers aren't generally the point of concern.

Except by a powerful and cold-hearted deportation force, which especially after the deportations are over, threatens the rest of Sweden's culture (which unrestricted immigration also threatens, but still, is there no middle solution?).

What of Sweden's culture is threatened by removing people that want to replace Swedish culture?

Approximately no Western country is interested in enforcing assimilation, which is the closest thing to a middle solution.

The threat is intrinsic to any powerful and cold-hearted force against domestics: it may abuse its power, in this case deporting and/or harassing people who should not, like "good" foreigners or natives, because they're not much different than the targets and there's no larger force to hold it accountable.

Depending on your criteria, foreigners that should be deported may be indistinguishable from those that should not.

Again, it's fine if Sweden only removes people who overtly infringe on Swedish culture (i.e. break laws or repeatedly break important basic norms; I do advocate leeway for new immigrants who can’t be expected to know the entire language or unspoken rules, but they should be explicitly taught then must eventually learn a bare minimum). Maybe that's a large ratio like 700K, and I think a deportation force tasked with this would be smaller, and less likely to target natives or assimilating immigrants, because they act different.

It's a shame if no country is interested in "assimilation" because (my proposal of) it doesn't require dropping the foreign culture, just parts that directly conflict with the host culture (e.g. immigrants can continue native traditions and speak their native language, but must follow the host's law and learn the host's language well enough to communicate).

The deportation force must not genocide people and successfully deport a large ratio of foreigners, (since the policy is remigration) many with deep ties to their community. Inevitably they will resist. Inevitably many natives will join their resistance. Inevitably, news will spotlight some especially cruel deportations, and local economies will suffer, increasing resistance. Deportation is very invasive: it's effectively kidnapping from heavily-guarded areas, here large communities of mostly citizens. All this means mass remigration can only be accomplished by a powerful, nonlocal force that is brutal towards citizens.

Ok so Sweden already deports people without doing all of this right now. So personally I don't think Sweden will turn into Nazi Germany, I think the more likely thing to happen is that Sweden just does more of whatever they are doing now.

making LLMs more diverse,

This is genuinely the most retarded thing I have ever read on this website

I don't understand why people here trivialize this.

Its because you have this post talking about Sweden and Somalia and migration and Nazis, and then at the end I read your solution was to get diverse LLMs. What the fuck are you talking about?

So tell me, is Sweden deporting Swedish citizens (naturalized or children of naturalized) of non-swede ethnicity, or are they revoking residency status of non-citizens?

Because that sounds a lot like a bailey and a motte. The plan that was proposed here as far as I understand was to do the first one, a severe betrayal of the deal that was offered to those who took it, which for those who have renounced previous citizenships might mean stripping them of the only citizenship they have left, and then trying to send them back against their will to a place that doesn't have any inclination to claim jurisdiction over them. That Sweden can do the second one, a move that, despite liberal tears, was always uncontroversially a possibility for non-citizen residents has very little relevance.

So tell me, is Sweden deporting Swedish citizens (naturalized or children of naturalized) of non-swede ethnicity, or are they revoking residency status of non-citizens?

No I am not going to tell you because I don't really care what they decide on.

But. If they do decide to deport a bunch of them, they can do that without killing them all and/or bringing about the fourth reich.

If they do decide to deport a bunch of them, they can do that without killing them all and/or bringing about the fourth reich.

If they did decide to deport Swedish citizens of non-swede ethnicity, they could technically avoid killing them all or bringing about the fourth reich, in the way that you could drive a car into a crowd and avoid killing anyone by just driving around them. It is not literally the fourth reich but you would be embarking on the path that led to the third reich, which happened not because of some freak moral failing of the german people, but because making laws that explicitly treat differently people based on their ethnicity, with the goal of getting rid of the unwanted ones, is inherently a morally treacherous path. How do you define unwanted ethnicities that deserve being stripped of their rights as citizens? Are ethnic finns or norwedgians to be expelled too? What about western europeans, like french? Southern europeans? Maybe you'll need to explicitely say which ethnicities are "good" and "bad"? Just by asking questions that arise naturally from the proposed process, the parallels emerge on their own. Eventually you'll be asking yourself if the Japanese are still honorary aryans.

It is not literally the fourth reich but you would be embarking on the path that led to the third reich, which happened not because of some freak moral failing of the german people, but because making laws that explicitly treat differently people based on their ethnicity, with the goal of getting rid of the unwanted ones, is inherently a morally treacherous path.

In 2013 the Dominican Republic stripped birthright citizenship from every Haitian born in the country. Their stated goals were to get rid of an unwanted people, and those people were not wanted explicitly due to their ethnicity. They applied it retroactively, all the way back to 1929. They stripped citizenship from people who had only ever known the DR solely because of their ethnicity. Since then they have deported hundreds of thousands of Haitians.

None of the things you say will happen in Sweden happened in the DR. They did not genocide. They did not turn into the fourth reich. Doing this was not some impossible pedestrian dodging task.

plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states

What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?

More specifically, how do you imagine this happening for Somalis in Sweden? Somalia doesn't even have a functioning government that deserves the name, let alone one that would willingly accept and provide the infrastructure to take in millions of highly reluctant coethnics that they often won't even have a language in common with. There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp, sending a fleet of prison ships to the Horn of Africa, conquering a beachhead and forced-marching boatloads of people onto it at gunpoint (probably also with a temporary holding camp/fortification at the target site, so the first 500k can't interfere with unloading the second 500k). Then you get all the problems with rounding up the people you want to send off at home, deciding what to do with the third-generation Somalis, half-Somalis and quarter-Somalis, Somalis being hidden by and protected by sympathetic Swedes, possible Somalis who swear they are Ethiopian, et cetera et cetera. You can't just slow-walk it either, because your flotilla that is parked off of Somalia is draining the budget more than the welfare payments did. Soon you find that between the ballooning military operation and the home front, you have to take a lot of inspiration from everyone's favourite continentals in the late 1930s.

Remove all gibs, most of the settlers will just naturally wander off in search of somewhere else they feel offers a somewhat better deal. It's not like they're teleporting from Somalia to Sweden in the first place, they've generally chained their way across multiple destinations to get to affluent Western welfare states in the first place.

High risk high reward

High reward: they all filter away to Germany and Finland in search of a better welfare state

High risk: they don't, and now you have a even more poor, even more violent population of Somali's et al

Inb4 "now you have?"

It can always get worse!

What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?

I mean, I think some of the various places that expelled their Jews in the Middle Ages would fit those criteria, at least if you interpret a) as including "the target country doesn't really want them but is unwilling to just kill them all when they show up anyway".

What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?

My position is that you can do mass deportations (remigrations) without genociding people.

This is in opposition to OP who I quoted there and now here: "infrastructure (military tactics) to effectively implement remigration is dangerous for your own sake."

There is no reason that, domestically, you cannot build and use deportation infrastructure that deports people without murdering them. Suggesting otherwise, like you, is insane and totally baseless.

More specifically, how do you imagine this happening for Somalis in Sweden? Somalia doesn't even have a functioning government that deserves the name, let alone one that would willingly accept and provide the infrastructure to take in millions of highly reluctant coethnics that they often won't even have a language in common with. There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp, sending a fleet of prison ships to the Horn of Africa, conquering a beachhead and forced-marching boatloads of people onto it at gunpoint (probably also with a temporary holding camp/fortification at the target site, so the first 500k can't interfere with unloading the second 500k).

So a few things

  1. Google says there are 80k somalis in sweden. Not a million
  2. Somalia does not have a functioning government. Just send them on boats or planes. They can't actually do anything to stop it.
  3. Literally just put them on a plane
  4. You are hysterical. Like what are you even saying here?

"There's no obvious route that doesn't look like the Swedish military filling up a concentration camp"

ummmm if you really really had to put them in a camp, just put them in a camp and then DON'T MURDER THEM. If you really had to do all the insane things in your fantasy, just do them and DON'T KILL THEM. How are you so mind raped that you immediately go to quadroon Ann Frank hiding in a sauna to dodge deportation flotillas instead of just like not murdering people? Huh?

Then you get all the problems with rounding up the people you want to send off at home, deciding what to do with the third-generation Somalis, half-Somalis and quarter-Somalis, Somalis being hidden by and protected by sympathetic Swedes, possible Somalis who swear they are Ethiopian, et cetera et cetera. You can't just slow-walk it either, because your flotilla that is parked off of Somalia is draining the budget more than the welfare payments did. Soon you find that between the ballooning military operation and the home front, you have to take a lot of inspiration from everyone's favourite continentals in the late 1930s.

Look I don't really care what criteria the swedes end up on. Reasonable minds can disagree on the appropriate percentages to achieve desomalianification. But you can do that without killing them. You can just give them a plane ticket and be done with it. You have concocted this this scenario with beachheads and expeditionary forces and a million somalis being carted off at gunpoint... why? Why would that happen? Its Somalia. They don't have a functional government. They don't have a navy. They don't have an air force. They don't control their borders. They don't control their own territory.

Maybe just bribe them? Send them to Rwanda instead? Do some negotiations with them to change their mind? Tell them Sweden will recognize Somalialand? Literally anything else than what you said? You can deport people without murdering them! The US deports orders of magnitudes more than Sweden, (mostly) murder free!

You literally claimed, in the line of yours I quoted, that there are "plenty" of examples. Can you actually produce one, or should I take your response as you retreating to a weaker claim (from "plenty of countries have..." to "there is no reason to believe it couldn't be done")?

This is what I said:

plenty of countries have done mass deportations without turning into genocidal states.

Examples that support my claim are Operation Wetback in the 50s, as well as whatever DJT is doing today.

This is what you asked:

What's an example, meeting your criteria of (a) the target countries don't take the people in voluntary and (b) no military force is involved?

You have added your own qualifiers of (a) and (b) to my position. These are not my words, these are your words. You should know this, you wrote them. I did not write them. I just quote them. I am not going to give you examples of a position you have foisted upon me.

If I had said this then you would have a point:

plenty of countries have done mass deportations to target countries that don't take the people in voluntary and without using military force and / or turning into genocidal states.

But I did not say this above. I only said this here.

(a) is difficult to give an example of because it is rare to have a country that doesn't accept its own. Which is why I did not say this in my original claim.

I increasing believe personality traits differ amongst the races and it’s not just athleticism or IQ. You actually do kill a community by having diversity because every race finds the other ones annoying. White people are too loud for Asians. Blacks are too loud for whites. Everyone enjoys their neighborhood more when they just have their own people. The Tower of Babel was an underrated work of theology.

I’ve never had an actual bro that was East Asian. We have fundamentally different taste that makes that very hard. So even though many of them are the best immigrants they also tend to ruin the vibes. Nobody is going to a SEC school if they were 90% Asian. For all the hate Indians get a % of them can fully assimilate culturally. I’ve got plenty of Indian bro-friends.

Getting the political will for remigration is of course hard. Argentina found solutions to this a long time time ago and they a much less violent society than America. Sometimes you just need to do hard things.

Anti-migration is not a policy that is right or left wing. Bernie Sanders use to be anti-migration. It only became a partisan issue because everything has become a partisan issue in the US.

I’ve never had an actual bro that was East Asian.

My lived experience (heh) is that the East Asian bros somehow end up more-bro. Some kind of overfitting thing.

I’ve met plenty of Asians that were just kinda… normal. Granted they were all Vietnamese. But still. Likewise plenty of super white acting blacks, and liberals are basically white people acting like orientals.

orientals

What are you talking about? I can’t think of any interpretation of this word that remotely describes “liberals.” Is it just for negative associations?

The blue tribe adoption of typically asiatic fixations and quixosis.

Okay, there’s no way that’s a real word.

It is too a real word, I just invented it.

Dang. Doing your part to keep the English language alive and kicking.

It's not (except as a coinage by the eponymous douchebag music producer), but "quixotic" is, as is "quixotism"; the latter may be meant.

There's no all-encompassing definition of Confucianist Asians of which ardent nationalists will accept, so Oriental is a crude but acceptable exonym. At least, that's my guess. You try grouping Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and Vietnamese cultures with a single name.

East Asian.

Tends to refer more to Indians/Bangladeshi than actual Asians (which are called exactly that), though that might not be as true in the US.

India and Bangladesh are unambiguously South Asia.

Yeah, but you can't call them Indians (which they are) because we already have a group called that, because once upon a time some European tourists misidentified our Indians for their Indians.

Such is life.

More comments

I’ve come across the Vietnamese argument before. I don’t personally know any but they seem like in the Houston/Louisiana area extremely well assimilated. That’s also an environment with a lot of similarities to their homeland. Even sharing some French culture for centuries.

I’ve never had an actual bro that was East Asian

You have never meet an East Asian person that was basically just an Asian white guy? I find that almost hard to believe.

In "Summer Heights High", Ja'amie King is the most popular girl in school, hangs out with the other popular girls, and at one point she says something about how Asians are awful, looks at her popular-girl Asian friend and says "not you. I mean like math asians, you're hot asian". I often think of that when I see a fully white-acting Asian woman in like Hollywood or wherever. Hot Asian, not math Asian.

The problem with personal experiences is that a major part of what we get out of an interaction is what preconceived notions we went into the interaction with. If you have a contempt for East Asians and a personal belief that they are fundamentally alien from you and different, then you probably won't end up bros, no.

How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them?

Send them anyways. Or depose the government of Australia and send them all there, as was traditional.

What if it's too expensive?

There's no way it's more expensive than keeping them.

What if it's dangerous for them?

As the saying goes, "remigration is the moderate solution."

not only morally

Why? What is the foundation of a secular morality that says Europe has infinite debts to the world?

If God is dead, then there is no morality in sacrificing yourself to save people that are only treating you as a paypig to be replaced.

making LLMs more diverse, further improving translation tools and incentivizing ethnic stores to include more cultural nuance

ah, starting to think someone's having a fun bit of trolling.

Honestly, sending immigrants to Australia (with its vast empty space and functioning government, so they can live safely but not interfere) and paying them seems like it could work. I’m not intentionally trolling, but there’s probably a serious caveat obvious to anyone who’s actually familiar with geopolitics (as opposed to tech); OTOH in the desert regions, I don’t see how they’d get food and shelter or what they’d do in exchange to not drain from the rest of society.

The Australian outback is a terrible place to resettle anyone. It's far more expensive than the coastal cities because the logistics of doing anything there are terrible. Trucking food for thousands of kilometres, diesel generators, dodgy satellite internet... Everything has to be imported and the climate is horrid. Government employees need to get bonuses to work there. Doctors sometimes have to be flown around on light aeroplanes to reach patients! There are barely any jobs either, the whole area is a welfare sink besides the mineral-rich parts. And mining is mechanized, unskilled labour is not really needed.

The Australian government also struggles to provide security there, the outback is crime-ridden. Alice Springs is one of the most violent cities in the world. Mostly that's due to the indigenous population being quite violent but an infusion of exciting new ethnic conflicts and the criminal refuse of other nations wouldn't make anything better.

Previously when the Australian government incentivized prospective immigrants to move to Darwin, Perth and other remoter areas of Australia by providing expedited Permanent Residency they went in great numbers. Darwin is still about 40% foreign-born if I remember correctly.

Australia's already got a pile of refugees from Sudan and Somalia that it's struggling badly to make anything productive of, and has turned off the refugee tap for them consequentially (though still allows family reunification visas so hasn't hit peak population). They'll get airdropped into shit suburbs of Australia's existing metropolises then enthusiastically take the government teat for as much as they can, like the already-present ones.

Australia doesn't want second-hand Somalians. In the event Somalia doesn't want second-hand Somalians either (and somehow can prevent it) Somaliland is right there angling for brownie points. Land flights of Somalians in Hargeisa while it still technically counts as repatriation, bribe Somaliland with an economic deal, and recognize the nation of Somaliland down the line. Pressure should build for Somalia to allow all the Somali refugees, cared for by the gracious and functional protection of Somaliland, to allow the repatriation of these individuals.

What is the reasoning for Somalia not wanting Somalians? I assume our Somalians are at a minimum somewhat filtered. They had to be smart enough to get the NGOs to fly them in. Is it just Somalia doing their own people a solid by refusing to let them come back?

My loose understanding of Somalia is there's a bunch of different ethnic/clan structures. A lot of the ones currently entrenched in the USA are from a ethnic subgroup that was dominant a couple decades ago but got overthrown, so the return issue gets complicated on both sides. Somalia doesn't want a bunch of relatively-rich, educated members of a clan that's not currently in vogue airdropped on the country. The US Somalians don't want to deal with the state of the country as-is.

This kinda thing complicates a lot of refugee population issues. My understanding of the Rohingya, for instance, is that they were essentially the Easternmost Bangladeshi population that expanded into the Westernmost part of Burma during the British control (since the British didn't meaningfully police immigration between the two). Once Burma became independent, they immediately did their best to kick the Rohingya out since they'd make up about 30% of the population and are distinctly good at breeding. Bangladesh refused to take them since they were a borderline failed state but the population is now kinda strung out between the two countries.

Also further complicated since my loose understanding is that the part of Myanmar that the Rohingya lived in historically swapped hands rather frequently between Muslim Bengali entities and Burmese entities. The Burmese were the last to hold it prior to the British annexation, but that was arguably due to the British breaking the Bengali entity first and the Burmese sweeping in on essentially undefended territory. Consequentially it's quite hard to allocate who actually has responsibility for the Rohingya population since there's distinct arguments that can be made for them being Bangladeshi, them being Burmese or even Rohingyastan

I don't know if Somalia does not want Somalians, but remigration generally agitates family who benefit from remittances sent to the homeland, the diaspora getting sent back, and nationalist or tribal offense to 'We don't want your kind.' All the same reasons Mexico's government has and will condemn mass deportation of its nationals working illegally in the US.

Also people forget that bailing to an affluent Western country is an expensive privilege that's generally only available to the upper echelons of society in the countries of origin. Cases like Ilhan Omar where she was daughter of a very important cog in the deposed military are extreme, but hardly unusual. Somalia doesn't want the deposed intelligentsia randomly dropped back on them, especially in a way that'd likely put them under an international microscope.

Having sufficient willpower, finances and clout to get through the various layers of bureaucracy, bribery and fleeing to get moving isn't easy. These people have sufficient clout in the homeland to get the narratives they want pushed.

For Mexico that changed sometime post 1980. I think it was post WW2 Mexico wanted remigration because they wanted the labor to industrialize.

But yes I can agree remittance etc is a strong argument for a country to refuse remigration.

Australia

Point of order - Australia is less habitable than it appears, the population heat map looks the way it does for a reason, same with Canada.

Now ingenuity can make it work but the empty space is unused for a reason.

Now ingenuity can make it work but the empty space is unused for a reason.

"Make this place liveable, and you can stay" doesn't sound like bad criterion for a residence permit.

That’s a terrible criterion.

It works if there are spots you want occupied but they’re hard to find or reach. When travel involved a wagon train that described a lot of land. Today, it’s roughly none. The arable land is owned and farmed. The adequate pasture is owned and ranched. The mineral deposits are owned and mined.

Neoliberals would hate this criterion because it doesn’t get them cheap labor. Social conservatives because you’re actively encouraging foreign enclaves. Ethnonationalists because you’re benefiting a foreigner and not a native. Bleeding-heart liberals because you’ll generate lots of corpses. Libertarians…they might be up for it, actually, but I’m not sure they actually exist in the wild.

Airdropping migrants into the outback, Fortnite style, buys you nothing.

Airdropping migrants into the outback, Fortnite style, buys you nothing.

I mean Israel is quite similar to that/built on what was historically very marginal land and managed to make something of it whilst being actively invaded by neighbors

Airdropping migrants into the outback, Fortnite style, buys you nothing.

Anakin_glaring_back_at_Padme.png

The whole point is it gets you fewer immigrants at worst, and people who cracked terraforming at best.

The Dutch cracked terraforming centuries ago, and if there was a market to support it, it would not be a lost art.

But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically. Comparing anything right-wing to Nazism is an overused cliche, but it fits here: AFAIK Nazis initially planned to just deport the Jews somewhere (Madagascar), but ended up brutally overworking and exterminating them, because their end goal was to get rid of them and that was easiest. How would you get rid of immigrants if Somalia etc. won't accept them? What if it's too expensive? What if it's dangerous for them? What about women and children?

Fairly easy. You do naval blockade on Somalia until they accept them. Their welfare is none of our concern. You arrest Somali politicians. If needed military strikes. You change the constitution that only Swedes have human rights in Sweden. You go with the least amount of cruelty to achieve your goal, but you shouldn't let the cruelty itself distract you.

Actually someone on X did a post on it. The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

To do this, Sweden would have to

  • Convert a proportional-to-population majority of the parliaments of Europe
  • Have those parliaments send representatives to PACE (Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe) such that they have a bare majority
  • Have government put forth based judicial nominees to the ECHR and PACE approve then
  • Bring a case overturning all that precedent
  • Remigrate

In practice, there is no way for Sweden as a national unit, to accomplish this.

The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

Which is an excellent argument in favor of colonialism, if the ECHR actually had principles other than slow suicide.

Underrated retort

The gist of it is that right now, the ECHR considers (dubiously, but so it is) refoulment to be akin torture.

Edit: Rewrote the post. Original version was too inflammatory.

Then Sweden should start influencing the court and the judges with what they have at their disposal. USA is already doing some stuff to Nicolas Guillou. If enough EU countries get fed up with ECHR and start putting serious pressure on the institution and staff eventually they will become more reasonable. At some point some pan European institutions will have to be subverted to be dealt with Europe problems. The pan European bodies are most at fault for them anyway.

Ya know, Ken White, of Popehat fame, just posted a lengthy, whiny screed about how ridiculous it is that Bluesky(!), of all places, gave him a timeout for saying someone should kill Elon Musk.

Must have been shocking to him that even Bluesky balks at calls for murder of your political enemies (when your enemies are, after all, objectively evil people who need to die to prevent more evil).

The Motte is not Bluesky. However, we still tend to draw the line at explicit calls for assassination. And no doubt if someone called for assassinating Elon Musk here, it would get lots of reports and downvotes.

We give people a long leash-- you can even Kulak-post about how violence is good, actually-- but specifically saying "kill these people" is getting pretty close to the sort of thing that could get Zorba served with a warrant, or whatever they do in Europe.

Don't do this.

Fair point. Rewrote to something hopefully more appropriate.

Can we not do this?

...or leave the ECHR. The Brits are already floating the idea...

Which would trigger an immediate shitstorm.

why?

Do you mean for Sweden or the UK?

That the UK left the EU but is still subject to the much dumber ECHR seems silly to begin with.

Even putting aside that not everyone is the US with a ton of materiel sitting around*, why would you do this? This risks destroying already fragile states, and then there's nobody to negotiate with. There are ways to pressure nations like Somalia - no aid, cutting off remittances - that don't rise to this level.

And, of course, if you are cutting out human rights law (the real problem) there's nothing stopping you from dumping them in whatever third country will have them (e.g. Rwanda) and then turning a blind eye to how they handle them (most likely drive them back home with "incentives").

* Remember Libya? And those were countries that maintained some military capacity.

I would change how deportations works then. It is not a country's job to care where people go or aid them. You order them out. If they stay after the deadline you remove protection of the law from them. Compliance is their problem, not yours.

Fairly easy. You do naval blockade on Somalia until they accept them. Their welfare is none of our concern. You arrest Somali politicians. If needed military strikes. You change the constitution that only Swedes have human rights in Sweden. You go with the least amount of cruelty to achieve your goal, but you shouldn't let the cruelty itself distract you.

Sweden is going to have to rather decidedly alter its armed forces if this is the plan. Time to start building nuclear-powered supercarriers.

  • Step 1: conscript Somalians
  • Step 2: invade Somalia with your conscripts

Problem solved.

Manchus and Mongolians more or less did this to China. Armies of conscripted (enslaved?) Chinese assaulting Chinese fortifications under the leadership of foreign conquerors. Mongols who don't know how to build seige weapons motivating more technically inclined Chinese people to make and deploy them.

So they get drone industry too. Everyone wins. With modern warfare humans are optional.

and increasing nationalism as a side-effect of addressing the elephant in the room: convincing most of the population to like their government (maybe by having it do something notable for the public and advertising it, and electing new parties with less out-of-touch politicians, even Örebro if they tone down remigration).

This runs into problems, because one of the things the public wants from its government is to be against immigration, which many governments can't be.

It also has deeper challenges because the government of European countries seem to have people who believe - with some justice - that nationalism is a reactionary force that can organize people against immigration and the new multicultural state. This is on top of their general tendency to see it as a bit low class and cringe.

This is why Starmer's attempts to seize patriotism rang a bit hollow; his supporters would be the ones to write worried op-eds about the spread of English flags in public. Before him, I don't think Sunak cared at all either way, that's why it didn't occur to him that missing the anniversary of D-Day would be an issue.

I do think we need some radical solution to fix societal decay, although it may emerge outside policy, like a technological breakthrough, or just younger generations replacing older ones and having a drastically different culture

Why would younger generations replacing new ones not accelerate the cultural decay? Older people can maintain a good status quo as well as a bad one.

Nationalism and immigration don’t need to conflict: nationalism and large-scale immigration can’t work except with a large suppressed underclass, but a small ratio of immigrants can be patriotic (towards their host) and the host culture’s identity and cohesion can remain.

A large ratio of the population supports at least some immigration (the Swiss referendum to cap the population failed). My understanding is that most people are unhappy because their economy is failing, institutions are overwhelmed, culture is broken…all problems worsened and maybe primarily caused by immigration, but I doubt extreme remigration will solve them. Reducing corruption, improving police enforcement, and moderate immigration reform would at least improve them.

On the other side, politicians who believe nationalism is intrinsically bad (or anti-immigrant) are wrong and should be voted out. Starmer’s image is ruined; unfortunately for him, the best way for a leftist party to get nationalist support is to publicly disavow him and other Labor politicians, or at least publicly disavow his failed policies.

National identity and imports must be balanced for culture: too much national identity creates a waning culture of nostalgia, too much imports creates an incoherent diluted culture, only a good amount of both creates a culture that improves over time.

Why would younger generations replacing new ones not accelerate the cultural decay? Older people can maintain a good status quo as well as a bad one.

Because the decay may be caused by most people having the opinions of zoomers and millennials, but living under gen X and boomer status quo, thus feeling oppressed.

A large ratio of the population supports at least some immigration (the Swiss referendum to cap the population failed).

To clarify, that referendum failed because it was stupid. Capping the population directly requires dissolving all ~20 bilateral agreements with the EU in the near future, which has been voted on several times before and which is (for prudent economic reasons) extremely unpopular with the constituency. It would be more catastrophic than Brexit, economically.

And the EU has repeatedly been very clear on the matter: if Switzerland wants to keep its current level of economic integration into the EU, freedom of movement is not optional. All bilateral agreements will be dissolved if freedom of movement goes.

So, the referendum was a pointless populist gesture. The votes it got (45%) was from people who want to cancel all the ties to the EU anyway, and people who didn't care enough to understand this simple point.

Is this why the French hated it, despite the Germans voting for it?

No, that's the normal pattern. The German speaking region always votes a few points more right wing than the rest of the country, pretty much no matter the question.

And the EU has repeatedly been very clear on the matter: if Switzerland wants to keep its current level of economic integration into the EU, freedom of movement is not optional. All bilateral agreements will be dissolved if freedom of movement goes.

I'm not following. Why couldn't they leave the borders open for EU citizens, and close them for anyone else? Or even if absolute freedom of movement is non-negotiable, there's all sorts of stuff you can control, like work permits, residence permits, and welfare.

Because that's not what they voted about. They voted about putting a hard limit on their population. And realistically, limiting immigration from non-EU countries wouldn't have bought them much time - that's consistently less than a quarter of new immigrants. But again, they didn't vote about that. They could have, but decided to vote on something else.

So is it freedom of movement that's demanded, or deeper labour market integration? IIRC, even between EU countries, freedom of movement does not imply you get to stay anywhere you want long term, unconditionally.

So is it freedom of movement that's demanded, or deeper labour market integration?

It's the latter, and more. Automatic work permit, full access to the education system at every level, full access to the health care system, ect.

No limits on where you move, live, study, work, retire.

Nationalism and immigration don’t need to conflict: nationalism and large-scale immigration can’t work except with a large suppressed underclass, but a small ratio of immigrants can be patriotic (towards their host) and the host culture’s identity and cohesion can remain.

I agree, but it's unlikely to be much relevant. Large scale immigration is going to be the policy, because industrialized populations stopped having kids. This is one reason the ruling class feel they cannot stop. There is not going to be any sort of post-Ellis Island pause-and-assimilate because the demographic conditions are just going to get worse and worse.

Similarly, the demands of the asylum system make large scale immigration the most likely outcome, and immigration from adversely selected migrants at that.

A large ratio of the population supports at least some immigration

I'll grant it. But A strong plurality want significantly less immigration and you should also factor in the fact that most people aren't political junkies and don't actually know how many migrants are being let in. IIRC, in Harper's time Canadians consistently underestimated it and being informed, dropped their support for immigration. When Trudeau made it undeniable it nearly destroyed the Liberals.

Britain has consistently voted for right wing parties and causes, people simply haven't gotten what they wanted.

I'm sure plenty of people would like some moderate solution that resolved the issue without maximal unpleasantness, but that's not what happens. Now they're trending more and more to the extremes to resolve it.

My understanding is that most people are unhappy because their economy is failing, institutions are overwhelmed, culture is broken…all problems worsened and maybe primarily caused by immigration, but I doubt extreme remigration will solve them. Reducing corruption, improving police enforcement, and moderate immigration reform would at least improve them.

You're just asserting this though. It's not always about something else, sometimes people just don't want migrants. Now, Westerners know that it's taboo to say this but it's not actually odd. Outside of the West nations like Japan take far fewer migrants than the Bryan Caplans of the world insist would be good for them. South Africans complain about Nigerian migrants. Britons complained about Polish migrants who I bet they'd now take gladly. People also just don't like migration and the sense that their culture is slipping away. That's a part of the equation that can't be written off to talk about other things. The left-wing view that all problems that come from tribes interacting are just atavistic interpretations of an underlying material issue is an ideological precept, not a fact.

This is precisely why the pro-migrant establishment is not trusted by nationalists: a nationalist cannot say "I just want my country to stay similar to its past and to continue to primarily represent my group", they will be told what other, more legitimate reasons they can have to complain.

But even on the purely material plane there are issues that would be solved by just strangling the importation or removing certain groups. It is a matter of fact that many immigrant groups never pay for themselves due to disproportionate welfare usage.. Removing them would solve this fiscal problem, preventing more of them would ameliorate it. Many immigrant groups have a higher rate of crime. Removing them would resolve this problem.

It's also a bit strange to act as if You Can Just Do Things, when immigration changes the very nature of the government. Is it possible that the reason one cannot fix these issues is that immigrant voting blocs can veto things they don't like? Is it possible the UK police behaves in what seems like absurd ways because the existence of ethnic blocs (and the risk of being considered racist towards them - which would be of lower salience in a more homogeneous country) make the "two-tier" behavior the path of least resistance?

If immigrants are changing the level of resistance you would face doing a thing it doesn't make sense to say that you can just improve things anyway while getting more immigration. They've manifestly failed to do that, and the more migration you have the harder it is.

On the other side, politicians who believe nationalism is intrinsically bad (or anti-immigrant) are wrong and should be voted out.

I mean, this is just a case-in-point of the problem: immigrants vote too, and people are able to understand that white guilt politicians are better for their interests. Obviously, for now, you can vote the Starmers out. Surely at some point that stops being viable? If so, how does that factor into your proposed solution of migration-but-more-moderate?

National identity and imports must be balanced for culture: too much national identity creates a waning culture of nostalgia, too much imports creates an incoherent diluted culture, only a good amount of both creates a culture that improves over time.

You're going to have to give me some example of the dangers of this supposed nostalgia, and maybe show why those dangers are worse than losing any sense of shared destiny/creating mutual ethnic strife and so on that we already see.

People who intrinsically dislike immigrants: I don’t appeal to, but I’m sure they’re the minority, even prominent anti-immigrant politicians have immigrant friends/family (e.g. the AfD leader’s Sri Lankan wife).

People who don’t want a majority of immigrants in their community: I think that’s fair, and I’d support an immigration policy that caps number of immigrants at some ratio of the population (even refugees, because too many will overwhelm the system and there are other safe countries).

Although as you mention, small-scale immigration may not happen, in that case I doubt remigration would either.

You're going to have to give me some example of the dangers of this supposed nostalgia, and maybe show why those dangers are worse than losing any sense of shared destiny/creating mutual ethnic strife and so on that we already see

A culture can survive without foreign imports, as this is what the “culture” of the entire planet does.

But:

  • It can’t compete with cultures that take the best advancements from others

  • It can’t focus too much on nostalgia. Some is OK, but it must experiment and evolve new characteristics. Otherwise it’s the nation equivalent of “peaked in high school”, guaranteed to become incompatible with the rest of the changing world

People who intrinsically dislike immigrants: I don’t appeal to, but I’m sure they’re the minority, even prominent anti-immigrant politicians have immigrant friends/family (e.g. the AfD leader’s Sri Lankan wife).

Never ask a woman her age, a man his salary, or a white supremacist the race of his girlfriend.

Not all immigrants are created equal. Class, culture, race, ethnicity and religion matter a whole lot.

People who intrinsically dislike immigrants

They don't have to intrinsically dislike immigrants. They can just dislike mass migration. Or mass migration from certain groups. "Immigrants" flattens things too much. Many nations took Ukrainian refugees with much less noise than would come from taking Somali refugees. I assume there're reasons for this.

even prominent anti-immigrant politicians have immigrant friends/family (e.g. the AfD leader’s Sri Lankan wife).

I mean, case in point.

Although as you mention, small-scale immigration may not happen, in that case I doubt remigration would either.

Fair. I don't think so either. But it's not that I don't think, if the government was magically replaced by Stephen Millers, it wouldn't work.

But:

  • It can’t compete with cultures that take the best advancements from others
  • It can’t focus too much on nostalgia. Some is OK, but it must experiment and evolve new characteristics. Otherwise it’s the nation equivalent of “peaked in high school”, guaranteed to become incompatible with the rest of the changing world

How would you rate the East Asian countries like Japan on these criteria?

Japan took inspiration from other cultures: manga and anime are directly inspired by Western comics and cartoons.

Yes, I know. That's the point: you don't actually need immigration to compete economically or have a vibrant culture. So I'm not sure the relevance. Seems like a false dilemma. You can learn how to make a croissant without importing Paris.

Yeah. I spend a decent amount of time in China and I've seen more diversity and quality in European cuisines in the average top end Beijing or Guangzhou mall (without any Europeans in the kitchen) than I have in most European countries.

you don't actually need immigration to compete economically or have a vibrant culture

That's true.

There's still some relevance: if you import from other cultures, it's less likely you oppose immigration from them (at least the experts of whatever you imported). But I admit it's possible.

Is it possible the UK police behaves in what seems like absurd ways because the existence of ethnic blocs (and the risk of being considered racist towards them - which would be of lower salience in a more homogeneous country) make the "two-tier" behavior the path of least resistance?

More the latter than the first. Muslims can't be more than about 10% of the UK's population, so they don't have the numbers to politically veto or violently resist a serious attempt by the UK authorities to enforce order on them. That this hasn't happened is because the native Brits in charge of the country are to a large degree ideologically committed to appeasing them.

But remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically.

Consider that perhaps your ethics need to adapt, or die. A growing part of the population doesn't share them to begin with, and your society is failing at curbing the influx, and failing at assimilating the newcomers into your system of ethics. You know the line - If the rule has brought you to this, then what good was the rule? Dogged adherence to ethics that are proving less practicable and cost-efficient by the day, even while hostile actors have figured out how to exploit them, is to nobody's benefit. The natives will lose their country, the newcomers will no longer have a highly ethical society to exploit, and future people looking back will shrug and say "must have been a nice place, for a while, but then they lost the will to take charge of their fate and just let the whole thing careen into a wall". Paralysis by ethics is not some triumph of doing the right thing; it's proving that there can be entirely too much of a thing that was good in moderation, and then it will all go into history's dustbin and be forgotten as anything other than a negative example to steer clear of.

The conclusion drawn from it will not be "you have to be nice, even when it's difficult, and if it proves too difficult, then dammit, you just have to figure something out to make it work anyways". It will be "if you're a nice loser, then you're just a loser, and nothing in this world will be truly yours".

I ramble. I rant. I despair at this fixation on ethics as an overriding necessity. Is Western Civilization really so despicable that we must destroy it rather than adjust our ethics? Are our ethics really so supremely perfect, so outright sacred, that they brook no improvement? Remigration is only one topic of several where this phenomenon comes to the fore, but it is arguably the most salient.

In wanting to be the polar opposite of the nazis, we are repeating their chiefest mistake - starting from an incorrect conclusion, we do with great determination what is wrong, to our detriment and doom.

I despair at this fixation on ethics as an overriding necessity. Is Western Civilization really so despicable that we must destroy it rather than adjust our ethics? Are our ethics really so supremely perfect, so outright sacred, that they brook no improvement?

You seem to be jumping here from one argument to the other. "Before we burn everything down in pursuit of them, are we really sure that our understanding of ethics is correct?" is a different, and in my view, more valid point than "What good are ethics in general if they don't produce good material outcomes?", as you have it elsewhere in the post. Ethics, in my view, are meaningless if they are not, in fact, a statement of ideals worth dying for, of lines so dark that it is better to die than to cross them. Ethics are not a guide to material success, they are a distinct, orthogonal reward axis for human behavior relative to material success - otherwise The Prince would be a great work of moral philosophy. Saying that you are against morality if its precepts sometimes lead to self-sacrificial behavior and reap only scorn of your children's children is as much as to say that you don't believe in morality. Morality is what you get eaten by lions in Caesar's circus about.

Now again, I'm sympathetic to the other point. I don't actually think that ethics require us to burn down Western Civilization, as a matter of fact. But if they did this would not be an indictment of ethics as a concept.

I'm sympathetic to the Ruat Caelum stance. Really. But that's clearly not what Europe and/or Western Civilization are taking here. We're don't have a clearly defined line in the sand that we're willing to die for, but a vaguely-gestured-at clustering of sandheaps that we're willing to throw up our hands and be passive for. There isn't a Cato The Younger taking a hardass stance for his particular philosophy or a Christian Martyr calmly walking into a lion's maw; it's old housewives and schoolmarms using "ethics" as an excuse to lecture and censor, young activists and orbiters using "ethics" as an excuse to enhance their social status, and there is no hard consensus definition of what the ethics are, how they are to be put into practice, what the outcome is expected to be, and why they are worth sticking to.

By your definition, ethics are practically nonexistent in the real world, and belong only to rare outliers. They are not the the mass phenomenon that drives immigration policy in the West.

By your definition, ethics are practically nonexistent in the real world, and belong only to rare outliers.

Well, I wouldn't say that. In the first place, I think there are a number of ethical lines that most ordinary people would rather die than cross or see crossed, they just mostly don't come up. For example, I believe that the vast majority of people I encounter in my day-to-day life, including on this forum, would rather lay down their own lives rather than allow a toddler to be brutally raped. Also and as a separate matter, I think there are even more ethical lines which people believe in their conscience they should defend unto death, even if, in practice, they might falter; ethical lines where if they fell short of defending them with everything they've got, they'd feel guilty afterwards.

They are not the the mass phenomenon that drives immigration policy in the West.

Agreed.

This sounds just like the debate between deontology vs consequentialism in ethics. For people who prefer the former, then it doesn't matter what consequences following ethical rules results in; even if it causes maximal suffering for everyone in every situation all the time, with no positive side-effects, as long as the ethics were followed properly, that is better than if the ethics weren't followed properly and resulted in prosperity and less suffering, with no negative side-effects. For people who prefer the latter, then the truthiness of some set of ethics is contingent upon the consequences that follow from people following those ethics and, as such, ethics that lead to maximal suffering for everyone all the time with no positive side-effects is just bad ethics that ought to be scrapped.

This has nothing to do with whether some set of ethics would require some sort of sacrifice sometimes, which is orthogonal to the issue. The original comment seems to be not about some sort of sacrifice for the sake of ethics, but rather a set of ethics that, when followed, just results in negative consequences and hence, from a certain point of view, is just bad ethics.

even if it causes maximal suffering for everyone in every situation all the time, with no positive side-effects, as long as the ethics were followed properly, that is better than if the ethics weren't followed properly and resulted in prosperity and less suffering, with no negative side-effects

I think you are confusing consequentialism with utilitarianism. Consequentialism judges ends rather than means, but it does not require 'gross hedonic product' to be the only criterion by which to compare outcomes. We might say, for example, that as one of many discrete terminal values, we want the number of starving children in the world to be 0. A policy designed to achieve this end by any means necessary, up to and including the end of Western civilization as we know it, would still be a policy driven by consequentualism (i.e. a policy that is judged on outcomes, rather than the virtuousness of the means used to achieve them).

I'm not sure where you're getting that in my comment, as I mentioned nothing about gross hedonic product, which is certainly not an antonym of "suffering" or synonym of "positive... effects" which are the terms I used.

The very introduction of "suffering" seems to me to evidence a degree of confusion between consequentialism and utilitarianism; consequentialism needn't have anything to do with pleasure, suffering, or whatever else. A paperclip maximizer is a consequentialist, so long as it believes that it should take whatever actions maximize paperclip amount in the long term (up to and including destroying paperclips while its human handlers are watching, so as to demonstrate its supposed human-friendliness), rather than only engage in actions with directly create paperclips. There is no contradiction between being a consequentialist, and believing that the ethical course of action requires us to destroy civilization and cause untold suffering in the process; it all depends what consequences you're looking at.

I think you just have a misread of what is meant by "suffering," considering you seem to pair it with "pleasure" as if they're particularly related. "Suffering" isn't an antonym to "pleasure," not is it a synonym to "pain." "Suffering" just means "getting a less desirable consequence than some alternative." It's intrinsically tied to consequentialism, because getting a consequence one dislikes is intrinsically suffering, and consequentialism has to do with determining ethics based on the consequences that they produce.

A paperclip maximizer, to whatever extent it can "believe" things or experience qualia or whatever, is "suffering" if it's not maximizing paperclips, definitionally.

A growing part of the population doesn't share them to begin with, and your society is failing at curbing the influx, and failing at assimilating the newcomers into your system of ethics.

I'd focus most of our efforts there.

Good luck, while multiculturalist doctrine holds as the motte that their ways are just as valid as ours, and that it is desirable to preserve them, and as the bailey that our ways are evil and need to be expunged.

Assimilation faces the same resistance and is even harder to do against resistance.

'Despicable' might be too strong a word. 'Fatally infected by slave morality and pathological altruism' maybe?

I'm fairly sure that this is not how the humanitarian-ethics crowd sees it.

Ethics need to be changed but I’m arguing for moderation. I won’t really argue where the line is drawn, except that it shouldn’t be drawn at “remigration” or deporting immigrants who clearly seem to be contributing and assimilating.

You’re right that the polar opposite of Nazis are also bad, which is why “Nazis also did X” is a fallacy: Nazis made the trains run on time, and imprisoned dangerous criminals, both ethical. But when they imprisoned innocent Jews and were unnecessarily cruel it was unethical.

If you are nice to everyone you will be taken advantage of, but if you are mean to everyone you will be shunned. In an apocalypse, if you spare someone, they may hunt you later or have some skill that becomes vital later. There’s no simple answer.

Remigration isn't a solution. First, because I can't imagine how to do it remotely ethically.

Something sooner or later will snap, and whatever happens will not be "ethical." Either the parasites will successfully consume the host, at which point there will be no more host to feast on so they'll die, or the host immune response will trigger and maybe the host can burn them off before it dies (much of the time when the body dies "from disease", it's actually dying from being unable to endure the force of its own immune response!)

Regardless, I'd say the prognosis is not good.

as well as those who work "made-up services" that the party deems serve no societal function, such as bureaucrats, consultants, public sector communications specialists, strategists and HR-specialists.

Will these also be deported?

First, actual bullshit jobs must be consolidated and eliminated.

Then, they’ll either get useful jobs or (if immigrants) low welfare. They may voluntarily deport.

With AI and robotics, there’s a chance most people will be unemployable. Then presumably the nation has much more resources, so I’d propose taking in more refugees, though not too many that it would destroy culture or overwhelm public services, and prioritizing those that assimilate (or can still contribute).

Segregated communities (which do and will form naturally), then policing their border.

Has the formation of ghettos ever turned out well? Usually, you'd want to do the opposite. Force integration, encourage assimilation. Teach the language, the culture, make attending mandatory. Even if they re-migrate (voluntary or not) later, you almost certainly will get better social outcomes for the host population that way - and outcomes for people not caged in ghettos is certainly better. Most famously, Singapore was rather successful in integrating their (poorer, less educated, majority Muslim) Malay minority into society by doing just that - they went as far as requiring single appartment buildings to mirror the ethical make-up of Singapore itself. No ghettos, by any means necessary.

In the end, it sounds like you want to minimize welfare spending, so you can't keep up ghetto containment very well anyway since everybody needs to get to work.

My impression is that most able-bodied refugees will voluntarily take low-paying jobs.

That's not very leftist of you. Doing that will depress working class power, making your native low-skilled population poorer, which is exactly the reason most right-wing governments absolutely suck at limiting immigration effectively.

Has the formation of ghettos ever turned out well?

Yes, often. The US is full of former ghettos where integration eventually happened; the ghetto provided a place those who could not integrate could survive (but at a disadvantage) while their children and grandchildren integrated.

I mean, you can't really force it. You would have to break up their communities by force and reeducate them, in a "kill the Indian and save the man" kind of way. Perhaps it is not physically impossible, but it would certainly require the kind of cruelty you are trying to avoid here. Probably more cruelty than remigration (even deporting them all) would entail. Arabs are not Malays. They need to, fundamentally, stop being Arabs if they are to be individual members of Western societies.

The Middle East is the area of the world that has been multicultural for the longest time, it being the crossroads of continents. And what kind of culture survives such churn while keeping itself intact? One that is extremely clannish, inward-looking, and outwardly hostile to the point that individual members can't defect because everyone else hates them and will reject them. There are multiple cultures in the Middle East but they're all like that and even the Israelis, who used to be relatively European in their outlook, are in the process of becoming exactly this.

The other alternative, besides this and remigration, is to accept that multiculturalism is here to stay and make it official by organizing something like the Ottoman millet system, which seems to be what Brainwavez was getting at. Keep everyone apart and make interethnic interactions into explicitly ethnic interactions, so that the entire community can be held accountable for the actions of the members, so that in turn communities will police their own rather than risk collective retaliation. In other words, prison rules. And this would mean for Europeans to adopt this Middle-Eastern "multicultural" mindset.

But the fiction that we're all individuals before the law, part of the same society, cannot keep standing forever when it is so clearly not the case anymore.

But the Middle East is awful! The whole point of remigration is that you don't have adopt the Middle-Eastern mindset and can readopt the wholesome, high productivity Lockean one.

The other alternative, besides this and remigration, is to accept that multiculturalism is here to stay and make it official by organizing something like the Ottoman millet system, which seems to be what Brainwavez was getting at. Keep everyone apart and make interethnic interactions into explicitly ethnic interactions, so that the entire community can be held accountable for the actions of the members, so that in turn communities will police their own rather than risk collective retaliation. In other words, prison rules. And this would mean for Europeans to adopt this Middle-Eastern "multicultural" mindset.

Retvrn to Rum

I mean, you can't really force it. You would have to break up their communities by force and reeducate them, in a "kill the Indian and save the man" kind of way. Perhaps it is not physically impossible, but it would certainly require the kind of cruelty you are trying to avoid here.

I think it could be done way less cruel. Start with the ghettos - most immigrants live in rentals, and you can require apartment buildings and/or street blocks to be inhabited (in the case of Sweden) by exactly 80% natives, 7% Arabs, 2% Finns, 1% Poles, ect - by law. A bit draconian for the land lord, who now needs to choose from a far smaller pool of applicants, but not exactly horrible. And if you remove the ghettos, being "clannish, inward-looking, and outwardly hostile" becomes a lot harder.

The education could be a requirement for the work permit or welfare payments. Target women and children specifically. In the end I'm an optimist, I think the western value system itself is so superior, it will propagate itself eventually when/if enough friction towards active resistance is introduced. Get woman and children out of the house early and consistently, enforce language.

Singapore is a small city-state where everyone is living in each other's laps already, and to add to that most of its housing is government-built. ~80% of people live in public housing, which gives the government a lot of control over housing allocation without having to force any private landlord to do anything. Someone who moves from one end of Singapore to the other can still easily see his friends, go to his job, etc. This is also already an officially racialized society with everyone's ethnicity being written on their ID cards.

European countries are much bigger and lack all of these things. There's no official ethnic registration, at best there's the "migration background" thing that only goes back one generation. It would have to be established. Is it time to riot yet?

In the Netherlands, only about a quarter of people live in public housing. Over two thirds own their house. The remainder live in private rentals. You would have to nationalize the housing stock, or regulate housing sales to the point of de facto nationalizing the housing stock. Is it time to riot yet?

Also in the Netherlands, the big cities are majority-minority already whereas much of the countryside has few immigrants, and when they do, it's Poles. Equalizing the population would mean making people move far away from their jobs and families. They're not going to like that. Is it time to riot yet? Etc.

This solution has been tried and failed in the US. We did school bussing. And affirmative action. And it failed to solve Americans original sin. We still have a large not fully assimilated ADOS class.

ADOS is a special case and probably not assimilable for the reasons Jefferson pointed out, bolstered by HBD reasons. They will never forgive the original sin as long as they are visibly less successful than whites, and they will always be visible less successful than whites if they aren't receiving continuous bolstering to an extent greater than ever practiced -- and any such bolstering depends on the acceptance by both groups of the relevance of the sin.

You may be right that assimilation is better. I think it is whenever possible. So the ghettos are only for those who refuse or can’t do the bare minimum assimilation (which doesn’t require abandoning their culture, just adherence to laws and manners), and (probably would naturally end up) in worse conditions. Anyone who can learn to do the bare minimum should be encouraged to leave, and their children should be exposed to both inside and outside education and experience, then can choose for themselves when they reach adulthood.

I don’t support keeping jobs scarce to empower the working class, like I support self-checkout and robotics. Because I believe increased efficiency (if not automation) is inevitable in the long run. More importantly, in my original comment I explained that the alternative to at least some refugees is fascist infrastructure (unless there’s another effective way to prevent desperate immigrants supported by a sizable fraction of the population; I’d like to hear any proposals), which would probably be worse for the working class than whatever we have now.

I want the working class to have better conditions, but my proposal is for them to leave owners who’d exploit them: building and promoting cooperatives, voting for antitrust and pro-small-business regulations, building connections (with immigrants and upper classes), in the meantime living off welfare or getting better jobs themselves. I support the extra inefficiency of small businesses because it has advantages (familiarity, variety, less enshittification), and I think preventing monopolies is more feasible (even if not generally feasible) than preventing efficiency gains; alternatively, near-monopolies are fine if they avoid enshittification, citizens aren’t being overworked or starving (maybe there’s UBI), and there are emergency alternatives (hence near-monopolies).

Whoa. Nice to see leftists divest themselves of their ideological cruft and try for new direction. I'm curious to see where this goes, and hope you will give us updates in the future.

Nice to see leftists divest themselves of their ideological cruft and try for new direction

Is it?

The Chomsky line is that the point of propaganda is not to tell you what to think, it's to set the limits of the debate.

"You can't do remigration but we can do other various policy wonk things like 'better vetting'" is more or less the left-wing position already. I don't think remigration is going to happen, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't actually solve it.

"You can't do X Direct Thing, you must solve the Deeper Issue" is already the default left-wing response to anything. It's the response to the European heatwave: "Far from attacking the root causes of global-warming, activists said, recourse to la clim was merely attenuating the effects of global-warming."

It's the response to crime: you can't just arrest people, we have to look at the root causes etc.

It's the go-to.

Are you referring to the Örebro party or my response?

“You can't do remigration but we can do other various policy wonk things” (to alleviate the Deeper Issue of cultural decline) is my response. Although “set the limits of the debate” is inaccurate: I was hoping commenters would discuss Mullvad’s co-CEO’s endorsement and backlash, but for example, even though I think remigration is wrong enough to have written a long response, I still endorse Mullvad (if anything, their official stance shows a strong commitment to free speech, which is far more important than any unofficial opinion of even a co-founder). And I don’t oppose AC nor arresting criminals (I do support lighter sentences in the US for non-violent crimes, and believe addressing what motivates crime is important; but if someone uses obviously bad judgement, I don’t have sympathy for them, and they should be prevented from further infractions and punished to deter others).

I don't know why exactly, but I can't really parse this post. It reads as a string of non-sequiturs to me. Maybe my English just isn't strong enough, or it's my midwit brain failing to grasp it.

Tried yesterday and again today, and I still just don't get it.

You got 20 upvotes as of now, so I'm fairly sure it's just me.

The comment is about the claim that this reflects a "new direction" for the left and pointing out that this is actually exactly just the existing, well-worn standard operating procedure, by way of e.g. making remigration seem completely out of bounds or targeting "the bigger issue" or root cause at the sacrifice of actually solving whatever issue is at hand directly.

Yeah, I also was quite surprised when I found out that one of my most stridently left-wing friend, a palestine supporter no less, is in favor of work camps for asylum seekers. His logic is simple: War is horrible. ANYTHING is better than war. However, we can't even afford our current asylum scheme due to excessive burden from welfare. Turning away asylum seekers is in his opinion horribly unethical no matter what, and any kind of basic sanity check has an intolerably high false positive rate (for example, anything that requires an ID punishes people who may have lost them while fleeing, while ironically being easier to produce for pure economic immigrants who can organize their move as they want). So the conclusion is straightforward, better to let them live in shitty conditions and force them to work than abandoning them.

It's pretty internally consistent, and not entirely unreasonable imo. As the economy and the social situation in Europe gets worse, I think we will see an increase in this style of tough-minded leftist thought. I don't really trust them to not devolve fully into communist-style totalitarianism, though, so it's not something I'm looking forward to.

What productive work can be given to a camp in a Western country at this point, though? Most of the menial stuff left is either customer service or care work for the elderly/children, neither of which scale particularly well in that format.

Imagine the public reaction to a bunch of Muslim maybe-terrorist maybe-pedophile 19 year old boys running a daycare as the condition of asylum.

I think cruel "work camps" will also not be most efficient: refugees will do the bare minimum, and learn to hate your country, which may haunt it later even if they're deported once their home country becomes stable (which may never happen anyways).

My impression is that most able-bodied refugees will voluntarily take low-paying jobs. So I'd propose something more modest: ensure welfare is below unskilled labor, allow refugees to accept unskilled labor (AFAIK some countries don't do this and give the refugees welfare), reduce under-the-table jobs by reducing taxes and regulations for over-the-table ones. And most importantly (which may seem out-there, but I think should be obviously part of any program imposed on any group), ask refugees what they want and think would be a good system; obviously if they say "pay us for doing nothing" don't do that, but even that is useful as an indication they're not assimilating.

ask refugees what they want and think would be a good system

lol. The sheep asked the wolf what he wanted for dinner.

I think cruel "work camps" will also not be most efficient: refugees will do the bare minimum, and learn to hate your country, which may haunt it later even if they're deported once their home country becomes stable (which may never happen anyways).

Does it actually matter? What vengeance will a stable Syria take?

This reminds of all of the "soft power" talk: there's never really a concrete explanation of the downside. It's one thing if we're talking about people from Hong Kong or China but most refugees don't come from countries whose opinion matters that much, quite frankly.

The Arabs use a bunch of us Third Worlders as human machinery and nothing has ever come of it (speaking from direct experience: their long history as slavers counts for fucking nothing amongst Africans who watch American slavery movies*). China is fucking over the Uighurs and they were defended by Saudi Arabia. Japan takes few migrants and yet everyone loves Akira Toriyama.

The reason the West has to care what people think is because of immigration in the first place. It doesn't matter if Haitians hate the US for deporting their coethnics back home; it is precisely because a bunch of immigrants - and their allies - can vote that it's even a problem in the first place.

If it were true that it would haunt nations, America's flirtation with racist and anti-immigrant leaders like Trump would make a bunch of people go home. It's a sort of guilt round robin where the sort of people prone to guilt (left-wingers) coach the people who will guilt them into folding and then hold that up to their fellow citizens as a justification to do what they wanted to do anyway. The important thing is not the refugees, it's the citizens.

* If I hear about Bilal one more time...

What vengeance will a stable Syria take?

You may be right. But look at Palestine: the nation itself seems to barely affect Israel, but it has garnered support which may shift politics in larger nations.

Well, the worst drop in Israel's approval happened following an attack that was serious so I wouldn't say "barely". But, in any case, that's because Israel has the misfortune of being plopped right amongst the very nations Palestinians can inflame the most and depends on foreign support to survive there. And the foreign support it depends upon is now suspect because of ,in part, Muslim migration into many of those European countries.

The situation is different for America and even for a hypothetical low-migration Europe. There would still be important levers - like the oil embargoes of the past - but we can question if we'd see the same impact.

I don't perfectly remember the discussion since it was just some talking while simultaneously looking after our respective kids, but I think his intention was something like this: Asylum seekers get direct access to the job market from day one and some modest welfare. As time passes and they don't find work by themselves, they get reduced welfare and increasingly pushed into shitty jobs with shitty pay. Some % will still not start working and at some point they get shuffled into obligatory state organized work with minimal welfare. I told him this is basically work camps, he bit the bullet and said yes, he would support work camps if he gets unlimited asylum rights in return. And then elaborated roughly as I explained, that work camps are better than turning away asylum seekers at the border etc.

The main problem with letting asylum seekers immigrate is that the system is being gamed and most of them are not really asylum seekers. I'm not sure there would even be enough of them to be an issue if it was limited to genuine asylum seekers, so figuring out how to handle asylum seekers misses the point.

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats