This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
How about some culture war? https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/nov/30/how-gang-violence-took-hold-of-sweden-in-five-charts
While I imagine the Guardian is persona non grata around here, this seems to me to be pretty stunning. Sweden, long the darling of the left, is now “… in the grip of a rise in gang violence and shootings that has taken citizens and leaders by surprise. In the words of the prime minister, Ulf Kristersson, this year: “Sweden has never before seen anything like this. No other country in Europe is seeing anything like this.””
I’m leery of rephrasing the article excessively, but it does note that gun crime and narcotics have been rising since 2013, and that the gun murder rate in the capital of Stockholm is now 30 times that of London.
The fairly standard claim (this is the Guardian, after all) is that this has to do with poverty, not migration.
So… Is the solution, now that mass migration has been accomplished, to make sure that they have just as much money as the original Swedes? Given the Swedish welfare state was already extremely generous, which drove all the immigration, is that feasible?
Hurray for strict gun control laws and enforcement! It really works!
Of course, the number of knife murders in London is about 5x higher than the number of gun murders, so little wonder why the Guardian picked that very specific statistic to focus on.
Meanwhile, if my 5 minutes of Googling and napkin math are correct, gun murder rate in New York is about 90x higher than London. So Stockholm is still putting out rookie numbers, really.
1/3 of the NYC murder rate is not a rookie number at all.
NYC has a relatively low homicide rate, it’s similar to Moscow’s and less than 1/20th of the truly high crime American cities like St Louis and New Orleans.
Memorably, an acquaintance once described a business trip to St. Louis with the interesting contract term that "under no circumstances should you stay at a hotel within ten miles of the office."
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Americans really don’t appreciate how good we have it in terms of our pool of immigrants. Immigrants in America are awesome. Low crime, hard workers, values that mesh well with the native population. Even our “bad” immigrants commit crimes at the same rate as native whites and are much better behaved after adjusting for income.
https://siepr.stanford.edu/news/mythical-tie-between-immigration-and-crime
Some thoughts:
There are probably many factors specific to the US (and probably Canada too) that make this true, but the big ones are probably (a) geography and (b) extremely positive selection caused by various policies and reputation.
It’s hard to understand how badly informed most Americans are about our immigrants. Besides the data linked above my anecdotal interactions with blue collar Hispanic immigrants is unbelievably positive. My experience with white collar immigrants is that they’re just like me but with an accent. The most anti immigrant people seem to have had no interactions with immigrants as far as I can tell.
Besides the obvious “they’re taking our jobs” economic fallacy (immigration creates more demand for labor too), the whole “elites don’t mind immigration because immigrants don’t compete with them economically” is prima facie absurd. Have you seen the composition of google’s workforce? Other elite institutions?
US immigration is freaking awesome but Europeans should be careful about generalizing because everything in Europe seems set up to attract a much much worse pool of immigrants, from an ultra generous welfare state (real or imagined) to geographical proximity to regions with lot of emigrating bad hombres.
I am anti-immigrant and have had ample interactions with them. They are not just like you and me. If they were, why do they insist on speaking their native language in public? Why do I have to press 1 for English? Why do they wear their old culture's clothing? Why do they congregate in communities with their own instead of assimilating?
I can't imagine immigrating to another country and refusing to speak their language and wear their clothing. I'd be overcome with embarrassment and shame at such a flagrant display of disrespect and hostility to the country that was gracious enough to accept me in.
There are certainly many immigrants that assimilate, but it doesn't take many defectors to change the character of a community.
If white Americans wore their own culture's clothing, rather than dressing like stoner slobs, then America would be a better place. The same is also true, but less so, in western Europe. At least the immigrants are making an effort to dress well.
More options
Context Copy link
I could not care less about what languages somebody else chooses to speak, their sense of fashion, and the geographic origin of who they like hanging out with. That's their personal business. Why be so offended and take it as a personal insult when others are not a mirror of your manner of speaking, fashion sense, and social life? Why is it an act of hostility? Attempting to force somebody else to speak, dress, etc the same as you sounds like much more of hostile action than just coexistence with you doing you and them doing them.
Because they're coming to a new country and signaling that they don't intend to integrate. They intend to change the culture to conform to their way of doing things. How do you not see that as profoundly disrespectful and hostile? It'd be like if I invited you into my home and you recognized that I do things certain ways - no shoes indoors, toilet seats stay lowered, lights stay off when not in use - and you disregard it and do what the fuck you want. Except, unlike in the analogy, I can't kick you out once you got here.
No wonder you're confused about why some people are anti-immigrant.
If America had a high-standards culture like Japan I would see it as utterly degenerate for immigrants to do anything but try to uphold it, but we're talking about the West, here, which has always held to barbaric if practical customs.
More options
Context Copy link
"Integration" is inherently give-and-take. Unlike your example with the house, you don't own your culture alone, it is shared, and so the extent to which it demands conformism is shared too.
It is kind of ironic that you referred negatively to communism, yet are coming off as if you would ideally want every newborn and new arrival to sync into lockstep with one snapshot of native culture, forever. If I'm incorrect, please explain: how does your model of respect towards native culture allow for any sort of change and evolution? Is it that one "earns" the right to deviate by becoming/being fully native? Would it be fine to start dressing and talking differently after being born there?
And I advocate for other people who share my culture to agree to keep it from changing in a negative way, and that includes preventing too much immigration.
Yes. Just like I don't think people who are members of totalitarian ideologies should be allowed to immigrate to the US (and indeed they aren't, I don't think Americans who are members of totalitarian ideologies should be punished for it.
Residents of a country have more rights and freedoms in that country than people who aren't residents of that country.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
People who are pro-immigration keep using this bizarre line of argument that essentially amounts to "You think this bad thing is happening now, but it happened in the past, too!" ...As if we must think it was a good thing when it happened in the past? No, it was bad then and it's bad now. Do you get it yet?
The argument is that all "natives" were immigrants once. At the very least anti-immigrationists should then clarify that they want the specific current shade of "native".
But that statement does not entail either 1) that it was a good thing that the ancestors of current natives once immigrated; or 2) that further immigration is desirable.
No, but it does challenge the moral authority somewhat. I'm an immigrant to the US, so if I am unhappy at immigration (generally) then I am at least somewhat hypocritical. If I had the courage of my convictions I would go back to the UK.
Someone who thinks their ancestors moving to the US was wrong, but does not at least attempt to move back to their ancestral nation is similarly displaying some (lesser!) level of hypocrisy. Exactly the same way that communists are often challenged about engaging in capitalism while living in a capitalist culture. Or that Christians who think abortion is murder are challenged that they should really be overthrowing the government to prevent a new (in their eyes) Holocaust every year.
Now hypocrisy is not the be all and end all of course, most people do not sacrifice everything for their principles, because doing so has great costs. But rhetorically and morally it is an appropriate attack vector. Which is why it used all the time.
If you really had the courage of your convictions (and to clarify most people do not, including myself!) you would move (presumably) to Europe. The fact you do not, is evidence of a sort that you accept that principle can be traded off against other things. And if it can be traded off for you then it can be traded off for other people, including those currently immigrating that you wish would not.
In other words it is an argument that demonstrates your principle is not an absolute, but rather negotiable. And then (as per the old saw) you're just haggling over price. Which moves you into a kind of utilitarian trade off of cost vs benefit conversation. And most of those costs and benefits will be subjective. It's no longer about whether it is right or wrong, but how much, who and when. And your position is lost.
Furthermore for people who think the US is in pretty good shape now, the rebuttal can now simply be: "Yeah and it worked out pretty well then, so why do you think today will be different?" Now you have to defend a position which even most Conservatives today will reject, that Irish and Italian and German immigration made the country worse, when many of the people nominally on your side will be descended from said Irish, Italians and Germans. And it plays into Progressive talking points "You are absolutely correct, we SHOULD give the native peoples more say, because the colonization WAS wrong. Let's set up a First Nations Voice, pay reparations etc. etc."
That's the dichotomy and why many Conservative Americans aren't anti-immigration (even if they are anti-illegal immigration), because that would invalidate their own history of ancestors at Ellis Island or Plymouth Rock and so on and why the "nation of immigrants" rhetoric still has strong purchase on the right. The emotional valence (for someone proud of their country and history) of saying, "Yes my ancestors were morally wrong for moving to the US and seeking a better life" is a heavy one for most people. And feelings trump facts in my experience.
That plus the dichotomy of "Land of the Free" vs Slavery and Jim Crow et al, are two of the most powerful historical forces that shape both the left and the right in America in my view.
This is a common argument, but I think it's only hypocritical if you're assuming a standpoint of moral universalism. If someone cares about themselves and not other people then a 'immigration for me but not for ye' argument has no hypocrisy. They simply want to get the best that they can for themselves and regard further immigration to be a detriment.
More options
Context Copy link
Whether Irish, German and Italian immigration made America “worse” is a matter of opinion (and I think the same can fairly be said of modern mass immigration, at least some of the time).
But it did, undoubtedly, make it different. The America that exists today where the white population is 25% Anglo (or whatever it is) and the hypothetical America where the white population is 80%+ Anglo (as it still is in Australia) are two very different places. You can feel the difference if you go to those few parts of America (eg. Utah, non-French or Irish parts of coastal New England) that are still substantially of UK descent. Again, modern America and modern Australia are similarly wealthy countries with a similar quality of life, it’s relatively unlikely the US would be some paradise without the Italians and Irish and Germans and so on.
But entire cities like Boston were wholly colonized by other peoples, from top to bottom. The culture that inhabited them before large scale Irish migration is dead and gone. Conservatives did mourn the passing of Anglo-America. Many did so loudly and publicly, many were anguished. Did they fail to stop it? Sure. Does that mean they were wrong to try?
Personally, as a descendant (at least in large part on one side of my family) of 19th century migrants to the US from Eastern and Central Europe, I’m obviously grateful that I exist. But I’m also sad that Anglo-America as it was is a vanished country, one that in all my travels I shall never visit.
More options
Context Copy link
I'm an immigrant to the US as well. I understand the argument, but I don't think it's compelling. If I think the tax rate on my bracket should be higher, am I a hypocrite for not donating to the IRS? I don't think people are necessarily hypocrites for availing themselves of legal avenues to better their lives, even if they recognize that it would be better if policy were to change to preclude that option. This is one reason why I don't mistreat immigrants, even though I resent their presence and wish more than anything else that they weren't allowed in: they were following the law.
There's also the self-serving argument that I think my presence in the US actually decreases the amount of cultural change the US is going through as a result of immigration, just given how thoroughly Americanized I am compared to the median American (which is weighed down by the 14% who are foreign-born, and mostly not from Canada like me or the UK like you). But of course I'd say that, and of course you shouldn't believe me. It also doesn't matter.
The point is that a polity has the right to decide who can immigrate, and the failure of the founding stock to limit immigration to X,Y,Z groups does not compel the present polity to permit further immigration. And the fact that some people may be hypocrites or some people are unwilling to bite the bullet and say that their own Irish/Italian/German ancestors should have been forbidden to immigrate does not mean arguments against immigration - even voiced by those descendants of past immigration - are uncompelling.
The presence of an unrepentant thief who says, "thievery should be punished" is not a good argument against his proposition.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Illegal immigration costs the US taxpayer $150 billion a year in govt expenditure out/revenue in terms but said report feels free to sideline incarcerations for immigration-related offenses as though that's not 'real' crime...
Besides, 'they're taking our jobs' is undeniable fact, for certain groups of 'our'. Illegal immigrants are a subset of immigrants. Illegal immigrants can get paid cash-in-hand and are more competitive than legal workers with the accompanying tax and regulatory demerits (from the point of view of employers). In a market economy, those who can work more cheaply will take the jobs of those who are more expensive to pay.
Finally, legal immigration automatically depresses wages and employment for domestic workers in that same industry. Just because immigration is not obviously harmful to us white-collar workers generally (though it certainly can be), it does not follow that it's good for everyone:
https://www.nber.org/papers/w23153
https://docs.iza.org/dp9107.pdf
And besides the economic aspects of mass immigration, we also have to deal with the social aspects of mass immigration. Allegiance to foreign powers, decline in communal/national feeling...
It seems relevant to note that a large percentage of illegal immigrants work in sectors which can't hire native workers at wages reasonable for the skill level, eg meatpacking plants.
A massive influx of slave labor (from Gaul, if I recall correctly) destroyed the economy of the late Roman Republic as surely as Chinese and illegal immigrant slave labor have the potential to destroy America's (if they haven't already; Canada's and Europe's are well on its way.) It created a massive influx of urban poor, too.
The whole point of going to China (or Mexico, Japan, SEA, Africa, etc.) is that you don't have to pay nearly as much in wages or for materials, the local government handles slave revolts for you, and you don't have to pay for novel solutions to environmental regulations (which are, in part if not in intent, designed to make sure US industry remains minimally competitive). It was always going to result in very specific people getting rich at the expense of everyone else.
Interestingly, that also implies that the unpleasantness of a job will lead to increased prices for the goods that job produces; ironically the solution to "but we want to ban farming because muh whatever" might come from "working in meat-packing plants is awful enough that people are demanding software engineer salaries to work in them" more than anything else.
More options
Context Copy link
Then those businesses should go bankrupt and be replaced by ones willing to pay real wages. I'm perfectly happy to pay a bit more for my steak if it means the immigrants are no longer hanging around depressing wages and inflating property prices.
I won't remark upon you specifically, but the howling from the most anti-immigrant voters in the US about inflation suggests this isn't the case for most people. They like the idea of getting rid of immigrants, but they absolutely do not want to get rid of the benefits of immigrants.
YES THEY DO!
The "benefits" of immigrants are not evenly distributed, and in fact tend to accumulate at the higher levels of society. The people who benefit from illegal immigrants are not the people on wages who now have to compete for their labour, but the people who benefit from keeping the costs of services and manufacturing low - and do you think those people are living in the same kinds of real estate that illegal immigrants drive up the prices for? Talk about the economic benefits of migrants tends to talk about how they benefit "the economy" in abstract as a way to avoid talking about the actual impacts, positive and negative, that they have.
And as for those anti-immigrant voters, I'm extremely confident that a lot of them would be more than happy to pay a bit more for their steak in exchange for losing the negative consequences of illegal immigration, because those negative consequences involve them paying more and getting paid less.
More options
Context Copy link
The fact that people are lamenting inflation in the last few years does not mean that they would be against all policies that would cause inflation. The inflation of the last few years is regarded by people on the right as an unforced error with no significant beneficial trade-offs. Just pure loss. By contrast, substantially reducing immigration - even if it resulted in slightly higher grocery bills - would be a substantial benefit (from their perspective) worth the tradeoff.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I grew up in a blue collar family. I've known/worked with/lived next to many blue collar immigrant families. That main issue for everyone is illegal immigration. Having workers that don't have to pay income tax and companies that don't have to pay payroll tax, OSHA regs, etc., creates an unfair market which hurts blue collar wages.
The amount of eye rolling I've gotten from 'informed white collar Americans' basically pointing to a bad study and tell me I'm wrong is waaay too high.
I seems like you're the one with no actual interactions with the people you are talking about.
As a lilly white former trady in the brown zone FROM the brown zone: big shrug lol.
I also just don't believe it when people tell me their solution to immigration is to eg. criminalize it even harder instead of paying like 20000 guys total to just roll around various job sites factories and farm feilds, do green card checks, and fucking ANIHILATE any company that fails to pass.
If hiring illegals to do osha violating skut work for pennies is punished with a stern finger wag is it actually a crime?
It's the classic identiterian nationalist/ rich dude who thinks the first guy is a fucking idiot coalition imo.
Just bring back legal temp workers, let them stay for a harvest season and then if they can do that a couple years in a row without driving drunk or some shit let them apply for a green card and don't make into a 8 year long Brazil style nightmare to actually get.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Our immigrant pool is ... fine, certainly not awesome. It could be so much better than it already is if US immigration was intentionally administered in the interest of good immigrants. IQ tests, demonstrations of technical skill, unlimited in number but very expensive paid sponsorships, maybe with a culture exam or something if you care about that. Instead, there's generic administrative stasis and a political tug of war between 'poor mexican immigrants :(' and 'And Some, I Assume, Are Good People', and only minor improvements get done by pro skilled immigration interest groups.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Much of the refugee migration was out of Iraq, Syria destruction so off the back of US war mongering and lingering cold war stuff. We shouldn't forget these root causes when we champion the next intervention.
Almost all Swedish Somalis arrived because Sweden wanted them, they weren’t even asylum seekers who arrived illegally, as it was with Germany and Syrians in 2015, the Somalis in Sweden (and many other migrants) were invited in by the ‘humanitarian superpower’. They didn’t have to be.
So it’s hard to care much, as an American, when Sweden could just have ignored supposedly American conflicts and not imported these people.
Yes, that's true - the buck stops domestically for such places that volunteer for mass immigration from war-torn places.
More options
Context Copy link
Did the majority of Swedish Somalis arrive on commercial flights as ‘tourists’, or were they brought over as refugees?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Soo... We are going to ignore everything that happened after WWII? The cold war was just 'stuff'? And then you're going to talk about root causes?
What do you think is the cause of the 'US war mongering'?
I imagine it's strategic foreign policy driven by national interest, access to resources etc. Basically having geopolitical influence in a region.
But individual instances of the mongering are more contingent and serve more localised benefits such as the military industrial complex, profiteers.
The actual instances of intervention are often due to power politics of some form and the consequences down the road ultimately reveal that the various strategic rationalisations are just a facade and the only reason that remains is that the US seeks to be ruthless and brutish to peoples all over the world, to show that is maximus brutish/ruthless and sustain itself as a hegemony, with the most likely aim to turn regions into shitholes, to reduce their potential for power, or ideally set them up as useful clients and to hell with whoever gets murdered locally as a result.
Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of civilians are killed in indiscriminate bombing and millions flee. In Syria a client state of a relatively weak rival power remains, the region is broadly thrown into turmoil, raising potential stochastic damage down the track. Next, do the same with Iran...
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Oh, that's rich. The problem isn't culture or absolute poverty but wealth inequality? Let them in, they're harmless...but then they become criminals because the natives are wealthier than them?
Sort of a double win if you're a social democrat: not only do you get diversity, but also a way to extort support for your policies via the threat that the alternative will lead to violence.
More options
Context Copy link
To play devils’ advocate, yeah, that’s definitely a thing that can happen. “Paycheck to paycheck” is riskier than a stable job with house and extended family.
Paycheck to paycheck doesn't describe wealth inequality, it describes poverty.
It doesn’t describe either of those things, but typically rather poor fiscal management/high spending relative to income.
More options
Context Copy link
Most people who live "paycheck to paycheck" do so of their own volition. It does not describe poverty, just poor financial ability.
More options
Context Copy link
That’s true. I was thinking of cost of living, and how that could lead to tighter margins.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Let’s play the base rate game!
Judging by this first shitty, unlabeled bar graph, it’s skyrocketed to about 0.4/100k Swedes. The population of Stockholm is about 1 million. So just this year, at least 4 people were shot and killed. Surely higher, if the nation’s shootings are concentrated in that city.
Awful only in comparison to London. Meanwhile, in the United States, I wanted to find a comparable city. But this chart bottomed out at 2.1/100k. Clearly the Swedes need to import Asian and Hispanic immigrants if they want to keep up with the US.
Point taken. More than 10 people were probably murdered with a gun, then.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
How long are normies and Conservatives going to continue to accept this tripe? At what point is accepting the reality of the situation going to stop being "Far Right" or "Dissident Right" and just be "the right?" I would say someone like Hlynka represents the absolute boundary of a Conservative who should know better by virtue of intelligence and exposure to arguments that thoroughly destruct the narrative embodied in this report, but remains indelibly committed to prevailing grand narratives of liberalism and Judeo-Christian civilization.
A European identity is inevitable, it's only a question of when it goes from being a "far right" to just "right" wing position. There have already been recent election victories around stopping mass immigration and demographic change in Europe, so when can we stop calling sensible people who oppose demographic replacement of European people in their homelands "far right?"
Just take a look at The Proud Boys, supposedly a white supremacist group, but every time I see a picture of a get-together, half or more appear to be mixed race.
More options
Context Copy link
Of course a European identity is going to be racialized. The existence of non-white or mixed race people in Europe isn't going to change the gravity of the situation.
The Pan-European identity is defined by Christendom, not whiteness (which is fake anyway). Always was, probably always will be. Muslims and Gypsies are the outgroup. Hindus are a broadly-friendly fargroup. I can't speak for every country in Europe, but in the UK immigrants from Christian Africa are fine - we have two of them in a Tory Cabinet.
God is dead, Christianity is on the decline. The common heritage and ancestry of European people is far more real than Abrahamic Religion, at least in the material sense.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I think it will depend on country and won’t be pan-European. Places that essentially have one large native bloc and one (overwhelmingly) Muslim migrant bloc with no intermarriage will see different dynamics to those with many minority groups, many of which aren’t Muslim and have higher intermarriage rates with natives. Easy to imagine UK wignats taking the step of overtly allying with Hindus and possibly Sikhs if tensions deteriorate further, for example; French ones probably don’t care much about the Vietnamese. Opinions on Jews will vary, as will those on growing numbers of Latin American migrants in Iberia and increasingly elsewhere (eg. Ireland).
I think there are going to be many different movements, gambits, compromises and so on, and what happens in Ireland or Norway won’t be neatly repeated in Italy or France.
If you extend "wignats" to include the populist right of the Tory party, this has already happened - the first time a Tory made a sectarian appeal to Hindus was Zac Goldsmith's 2016 campaign for Mayor of London. 2nd-generation immigrants from Christian Africa are also ingroup for similar reasons. Looking at photos, the Tory front bench is darker-skinned than the Labour front bench, and I don't think this will change in my lifetime. (After the next election, I expect Priti Patel and Suella Braverman to rejoin the shadow cabinet, and Kemi Badenoch and James Cleverly to stay in it). Priti Patel is also the leading Hinjew in Britain - and that alliance is getting stronger every time a Pakistani joins a pro-Palestinian march.
Across Europe, the nativist right movements that are appealing to younger people tend to be single-issue anti-Muslim. "The Poles are taking our jerbs" focus-grouped as a losing message in the Brexit referendum, which is why Cummings and Farage didn't run on it.
I don't think this is a conscious (from the POV of the candidate) 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' thing with the Tories though, e.g. Zac Goldsmith had a bizarre set of views that didn't line up neatly with Hindu voters, but the PR/election gurus presumably realised that was the way to go.
I think it's generally underrated how the British class system is sort of race/ethnicity neutral- the upper crust were (and are?) MUCH more comfortable in the company of a Maharajah or a Chief of the Whatever tribe vs. Steve from Sunderland or Paul from Poplar. And related, I think it's underrated how the British imperial light-touch multicultural divide and rule system that was used in e.g. the Raj has basically been transplanted to modern multicultural Britain.
Regardless, the main point is that it is pretty circumstantial that in modern Britain we have this Islam-Labour, anti-Islam (Hindu, African Christian) Tory alignment. Go back to say 1920 and the British intellectual class was fascinated by Persianate literature, the Mughals were seen as the civilising force etc. etc. It is almost certainly down to the fact that (mostly) Gujarati East African Indians or the initial waves of upper class Nigerians are incomparable to say the Mirpuris who dominate Bradford. One is a market dominant minority, the other largely rural labourers. Of course in 2023 this isn't necessarily true- many Hindu or African Christian migrants are working class and so forth.
It isn't that far away a world where the initial Muslim migrants to the UK were Nehru/Zanzibari types and the non-Muslims were Dravidian peasants. And I imagine in that world the left-right, Islam-anti-Islam alignment may be different.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
What's your evidence that Conservatives accept this tripe in any meaningful sense at all? Opposition to mass immigration is a mainstream Right idea at the population level; the idea that such opposition is evidence of being "far right" is Blue propaganda and always has been.
Conservatives frame their opposition to mass immigration within the exact same dialectic of this report! It's not about race, it's about jobs and wealth inequality and welfare and rule of law, 'they have to come legally!'. Conservatives are playing the exact same game as the writers of this report and the journalists reporting on it. It's no wonder their arguments have completely failed to prevent mass immigration and demographic change.
So just to be clear, your question is ‘when will conservatives switch from saying that non western immigrants are not a good fit for cultural reasons, to saying that brown people do not belong in Europe because they are not white?’
Because swedens current ruling party is the Sweden democrats. Geert wilders is about to become PM of the Netherlands. AFD is the most popular party in Germany, and FN is basically the mainstream Conservative Party in France at this point.
Sweden's current "ruling party", to the extent it has one, is the Moderate party. The Sweden Democrats agreed to provide support to the Moderates and their allies to form the government in exchange for tougher immigration policies, but there is still a cordon sanitaire against the SDs - they have no portfolios in the Swedish Cabinet despite being the second-largest party in parliament and having more seats than the Moderates. Similar dynamics play out in most European parliamentary systems; it's very much an open question as to whether Dutch center-right types will simply let the Netherlands be rudderless rather than support Wilders becoming PM.
That's fair, I overstated my case. But it seems like the statement "the fastest growing section of the European right is opposed to immigration from nonwestern countries, although they do not use racial terminology" is not only defensible but trivially true, and also an answer to SS's main question.
I suspect that at least some of these right wing parties avoid the use of racial terminology because of European hate speech laws, not political correctness.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link