I live in a "white" country and I like my nonwhite neighbors, some immigrant, some nth-generation, even ones who mostly socialize within their ethnic/cultural enclaves. I believe they belong here as much as I do. I don't want to give any money to racists who want to expunge them for some perceived ethnic transgressions. These parties are one step removed from extolling the virtues of the glorious Aryan race, and we all know where that leads.
This sentiment is just so utterly foreign to me that I can't comprehend how someone could rationally think this way. I mean, I'm a black man whose ancestors have lived in America since the slave ships, and I easily recognize that some people are more American than others. And Americans only have like 1% of the cultural and ethnic identity that most European nations have. Why are you blind to the importance of the deep historical roots that bind a nation together? Why do you think the very force (namely kinship ties) that has driven humanity forward for the last hundred thousand years has, in the blink of an eye, become irrelevant?
I come from a family of recent immigrants. We're considered white so we get a pass for behaviors that our nonwhite peers get side-eye for. My ethnicity has its own enclaves. Those enclaves get treated as a cute cultural artifact rather than a threat -- even worth visiting on a tourist trip. My ancestral culture lives under the protective umbrella of "Western culture," but in practice, the overlap with prevailing Protestant/Anglo culture is minimal along almost any axis.
And yet, we are all American by almost any reasonable definition. If anything, the people beating their chests for having some random ancestors on the mayflower or whatever are the impostors here. What have they actually done for this country?
Also, I'm kind of surprised that you believe these things as a black man. You do realize that a large percentage of the country doesn't consider you "true" American either, right? They can't kick you out, but they will do everything in their power to disenfranchise you and turn you into second-class citizens. The signaling could not be any more clear.
Yes, it is hard to pinpoint exactly what makes one an American. It is not hard at all to pinpoint what makes one an X for any given European nation. It is strange how much Americans project our weak identity to the rest of the western world.
Except: exactly the same rhetoric is being used by the far-right in America as it is in Europe and the Anglosphere. Strength or weakness of identity is irrelevant to the white nationalist project.
What epistemic value does "similar rhetoric" have? The relevant question is whether something is true and/or defensible. Identity does matter, to some nations and historical contexts more than others. It is silly to project the particulars of the US historical context to the rest of the world.
That doesn't answer the question. Identity does matter. Because Nazi Germany came to the wrong conclusion does not invalidate every premise used in their justification.
> This sentiment is just so utterly foreign to me that I can't comprehend how someone could rationally think this way
For someone who is so befuddled by the idea of being unbothered by a heterogeneous culture, you don't make any convincing argument against it. Why are you complaining about leftists who see immigration as inherently "good" if you can't even explain why it's bad? If it's so obviously bad, surely you can outline what will tangibly happen?
> I'm a black man whose ancestors have lived in America since the slave ships, and I easily recognize that some people are more American than others
If it's so easy to recognize, then what is it? What makes you American, and what makes you not American enough to be worthy of deportation? You aren't "easily recognizing" anything, you are having a feeling about people different from you and trying to rationalize it afterwards.
There is an obvious argument for immigration as an inherent good. It brings business, it brings talented specialists, it brings new ideas, it brings a bigger market. We are one of the most powerful countries on earth. If immigration was so obviously bad, do you think a nation of immigrants would be able to get to this point? Culture is our main export. We are a cultural powerhouse. We are envied by other countries for our soft power. That's what the Riyadh comedy festival was about. We are strong arguably because we are such a melting pot, and we have a rich cultural tapestry. Black culture exists specifically because people didn't assimilate to white culture, and it's fascinating to enough people that Koreans halfway across the world are emulating it.
The idea that we suddenly have a homogeneous "way to act" that is easily identifiable, and we need to deport people that don't act that way, is farcical and stupidly self-defeating. It's also laughably overconfident for a country that can't make cars or keep employed, tax paying citizens from drowning in medical debt. We should probably play to our strengths, not self-sabotage.
If the nation of immigrants is so great, why are so many people protecting themselves with guns and why are there so many lawyers to compensate for the absence of social trust?
And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success?
Having a good cultural distribution channel doesn't mean that it's inherently good. Japan has a great cultural soft power too, however I don't know if many people would tolerate life in Japan (for real). On the other side most people can't locate Denmark on a map but would love the life there.
> If the nation of immigrants is so great, why are so many people protecting themselves with guns
I think you'll find that's a particularly American problem - the UK, for example, is a nation of immigrants and we have basically zero guns (compared to the US.)
> And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success?
Because they have been told that immigrants are bad, that immigrants take their jobs, that immigrants sponge off the state[0], that immigrants are eating their pets, etc. All easily fact-checked and debunked but people, alas, are easily lead by media-driven bigotry.[1]
[0] Schrodinger's Immigrants: simultaneously taking your jobs whilst also sponging off the state.
[1] Now this we -do- have in the UK, largely from the same Murdochian sources.
The UK is historically not a notion of immigrants. The recent immigration carried massive problems (mass rapes among them), and a brutal authoritarian repression of free speech. The anti-weapon laws are systematically directed against the immigrants - I doubt that white british people threaten their neighbors with "ninja swords" or throw acid at the women who marry outside of their community.
> Because they have been told that immigrants are bad, that immigrants take their jobs, that immigrants sponge off the state[0], that immigrants are eating their pets, etc. All easily fact-checked and debunked but people, alas, are easily lead by media-driven bigotry.[1]
The fact that it applies too to black people, who are not really immigrants show that your argument is false. Besides, your point 1) is easy to refute, as the State can subsidize migrants to allow them to accept lower wages than the natives. By giving them free housing, for instance.
How many british girls will need to be raped so that you will start to see the reality? The only biggot here is you, along with the ones who allowed Henry Nowak's murder to happen. You are just an enabler for the british elite, who hates its native proles and has no problem replacing them with more obedient ones.
Americans have had guns since its birth, even if they live in one of the safest neighborhoods in the world. White suburbans buy whatever they think will keep them safe, even if the most dangerous thing they did in the last decade was drive to Target.
> And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success?
Because people who are citizens are being shipped to Texas even with their papers? A friend of mine was called the N word to his face by an ICE agent. Why would the existence of racism in the U.S. be evidence that immigration is bad? That's evidence that some people are racist and will blame all their problems on people that don't look like them. Nobody is denying that.
> Japan has a great cultural soft power too, however I don't know if many people would tolerate life in Japan
That supports what I said. They are a famously homogeneous culture that is difficult to live in, but still draws admirers through soft power. If you care about the values of your culture, it would behoove you to be seen favorably, and not run by fickle children who think 5% of the population is responsible for all their problems.
This is such a bizarre soup of dog whistles it's not really worth replying to, but I will say it's very funny to admit you aren't from America but say, with a straight face, that the suburbs are so dangerous you need guns. That is some premium propaganda you are huffing.
>Why are you complaining about leftists who see immigration as inherently "good" if you can't even explain why it's bad? If it's so obviously bad, surely you can outline what will tangibly happen?
This is just a bad faith misrepresentation of the context. Note the context of the OP is Swedish nationalism.
> You aren't "easily recognizing" anything, you are having a feeling about people different from you and trying to rationalize it afterwards.
It's not really that hard. Some traits off the top of my head: speaks English, values meritocracy and the rule of law, individualist over collectivist, ecumenical/egalitarian over sectarian, culturally Christian or downstream of it.
> If immigration was so obviously bad, do you think a nation of immigrants would be able to get to this point?
This point only makes sense if you assume immigrants are an undifferentiated lump. But of course this isn't true.
No it's not a bad faith interpretation, it's what you said. It doesn't matter if it's about Sweden, you said that about leftists.
> Some traits off the top of my head: speaks English, values meritocracy and the rule of law, individualist over collectivist, ecumenical/egalitarian over sectarian, culturally Christian or downstream of it.
Lol. Assuming you are talking about America, because that is what I referenced, this is ridiculous. You do not need to be Christian or believe in the rule of law to be American. Just look at the president. You are American if you are here. Quit being a shill for propaganda.
> This point only makes sense if you assume immigrants are an undifferentiated lump. But of course this isn't true.
No it doesn't. Not when you're arguing for a homogeneous culture.
You must be confused on what you were quoting, because I was directly asking what traits are so American that deviating from them is worthy of deportation, and those are the traits you wrote. Were you answering something else?
As a blacker man whose ancestors found their way to the Americas before the year of our Lord Jesus, what are you even talking about? America has never had "deep historical roots" to bind us together.
You'll notice my mention of European countries in my comment. You might have guessed that my point about deep historical roots was in reference to that.
What happens when they start to see their ethnicity or culture as political and fight to impose it, including using violence? Because at some point it will happen - democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism.
The USA, which is often touted as a "successful" melting pot model, is rife with similar problems.
Why is "civil war" the default situation here? How about domestic terrorism for instance?
Will you be on the side of the muslim terrorists who beheaded teachers and priests (among others), and killed 132 concert-goers (and injured 413 others) at the Bataclan in 2015? Will you tell the french people who were slaughtered that it was the price to live in a multicultural society?Damn.
Even if you don't go as far as terrorism, it's simple: multi-ethnic societies favor either identity politics (aka clientelism) or authoritarianism (only way to avoid it). The USA is a great example for this: the previous administration played identity politics to the maximum, and the new one used it to impose authoritarianism. It's very hard, if not impossible to escape this loop once you are in a minority-only society.
And of course you have to deal with collapsing social trust. The USA isn't the ultimate lawyer society, and the most armed one by pure chance. It's a logical consequence.
What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? Absolutely nothing. (Or, at least, as much as neo-Nazis have to do with the native white population.) Fact is, most people are extremely normal and just want to live in peace.
I'll be on the side of my nice Muslim neighbors (who did nothing wrong to anyone) against the red-faced white supremacist mobs. It is very obviously the correct moral position and will be viewed as such by our descendants.
In the US, the most heavily armed communities also tend to be the least diverse. It is largely a consequence of insular paranoia and hatred stoked by right-wing media.
> What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population?
They share the same religion and ethnicity. French muslims were actually a large contingent in Daesh forces. This is a classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. Every muslim will tell you that the Charlie Hebdo covers about Muhammad were "haram" - because that's exactly what their religion says.
Not that they are all bad people, just like you had nice soviets, or I'm sure that there a nice North Korean Juche party members, too.
You seem to be acting like an ostrich, putting your head in the sand to avoid problems. Face reality and read about Islam, which is inherently a political religion. Read also about the Muslim Brotherhood (or similar orgs).
> US armed communities.
How about latino gangs? Are they operating with nerf guns? Besides, the safest places in the US are those that are monoethnic, such as New Hampshire.
Your observation about multi-ethnic societies is rather interesting (though I would add slme caveats), but then you unfortunately are blinded by your preconceptions. The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism.
A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising. I would bet that Americans and foreigners in general are a large minority in Canadian far-right groups, for example.
The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer.
You can be anti-immigration without descending into racism and Islamophobia, actually it would greatly reinforce your points.
> The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism.
Yet there are no country with a majority of muslims where the minorities were not pushed out in the 20th and 21st century. Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Irak, Iran, and so on. Have you read the Quran?
If course, I guess that Iran mullahs and their supporters are not representative of Islam. Not are Talibans (widely supported). Nor are Daesh. Nor are Saudis (who pushed salafism). Nor are Hamas members. Nor ar Al-Qaida. Nor are Boko Haram. Nor are Philippinos islamic groups (>400 deaths between 2000 and 2007). Nor are Jemaah Islamiyah. C'mon this is ridiculous.
I grew up in beautiful and prosperous village in the Alps, the town next to us had a mosque that sent jihadists to Syria. I guess they were not real muslims?
> A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising.
There are many Portuguese in France, you don't hear about the behadings by Portuguese people. Same with Italians, Germans, Spaniards, and so on.
> The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer.
A teacher was beheaded 10 years after because he showed them in class. "Almost none" is doing a lot of work here. If that was true, every year teachers would show it as a way to discuss about religion and french laicity. But they don't because they know that there is a real risk to get a terrorist attack.
And everywhere in Europe it's the same. Theo Von Gogh was murdered for the same reason in 2004. Recently a guy burning a Quran in Sweden got stabbed by a bystander in the street. At which point are we allowed to say "enough"? It's obvious how it will end, in France for instance left-wing islamists open talk about taking power. Even after all of those bloody crimes.
I share the same(-ish) religion and ethnicity as white supremacist terrorists. Does this make me complicit in their degenerate world views? Obviously not.
All the same stuff was said about Jews in pre-Nazi Germany. It's always bullshit. Neither Muslims, nor Jews, nor white people, nor any broad group of people ever acts as a united bloc. Again: most people just want to live in peace and ensure a good future for their children.
The difference is that white supremacist who do domestic terrorism usually don't blow up in a concert hall crying "Jesus is great".
Violent white supremacism is a symptom of multiethnic societies. There is no reason to be one otherwise.
> Neither Muslims, nor Jews, nor white people, nor any broad group of people ever acts as a united bloc.
You don't understand. Quran says that you have to convert everyone to Islamic faith (and chariah law), and use force if necessary. It is forbidden to try to interpret what is written : the text is sacred.
This is why you have islamic terrorism in every muslim country, and countries with a large minority of muslims. White people in Thailand and other countries don't commit domestic terrorism because they don't have a proper reason to and do not share a common ideology or religion.
> Again: most people just want to live in peace and ensure a good future for their children.
Big fallacy here. I open a box of chocolate, and poison 10% of them. Then you have to eat 5 of them. Would you do it? After all, most are totally safe, I don't see why you are being such a bigot!
Overall the solution is simple: muslims can have their own countries where they can do what they want, and other people can have their own countries with their own rules. It's hardly painful for anyone. I don't see why we should absolutely mix everyone everywhere.
"Quran says that you have to convert everyone to Islamic faith"
Hey, remember the Crusades? This is not unique to Islam. Any religion can be made into a tool of peace or a tool of war. Wicked leaders will interpret their sacred texts however needed to further their political goals.
"Violent white supremacism is a symptom of multiethnic societies."
All modern societies are multiethnic societies. Once white supremacy is done with the obviously foreign-looking people, it will start to eliminate those who are not white enough, resulting in an existential and violent battle over determination of the "volk". As a descendant of white immigrants whose ancestors would not have been considered fully white in my country, I would not want to live in this environment. No doubt that I would be on the chopping block at some point for not sharing x% blood with some arbitrary progenitor.
"Overall the solution is simple: muslims can have their own countries where they can do what they want, and other people can have their own countries with their own rules."
Well, as a white person in a historically white country, I say Muslims are welcome to be my neighbors, and anyone who disagrees can go live somewhere else.
Crusades were 900 years ago, at a time most people didn't know how to read. Now people don't need leaders to interpret texts. Do you have more recent examples?
> All modern societies are multiethnic societies.
No? Most European societies weren't multiethnic 50 years ago. Poland doesn't have Islamic terrorism, because it has very few muslims. Guess we found the solution for avoiding Islamic terrorism?
> Once white supremacy is done with the obviously foreign-looking people, it will start to eliminate those who are not white enough, resulting in an existential and violent battle over determination of the "volk".
You are using an American definition here. In Europe you don't have "white" people, but French, Germans, Swedish and so on. White people are not inherently bad and what you describe applies better to muslims who have genocided or expelled non-muslim minorities of their countries. See Armenians for instance, or Christians. Or Jews. Or Yezidis. And so on.
"white person in a historically white country" and what happens when you are a minority and you are asked to pay the Jizya? Will you pay? Will you veil your daughter?
I mean, OK, to echo Capricorn2481, "this is such a bizarre soup of dog whistles it's not really worth replying to." Big scary mooslems gonna eat your babies. Blood libel all over again.
I prefer to keep living without this quivering fear of my neighbor and will continue to vote for multiculturalism. See you at the polls.
My comment wasn't about vulgarisation - it was about Freakonomics' loose approach to rigour and consequent debunking of, IIRC, most of the book.
A quick search for "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita" throws up similar debunkings[0] and yeah, I'll not be reading his books after seeing how grandiose his claims are compared with the actuality of what happened.
[0] Including one which recommends Dan Ariely - somewhat awkward nowadays.
Not in my experience, at least not at the national level. It's been said that Obama deported more illegals than anyone that came before. But Democrats couldn't run on that record because it was toxic to the progressives.
The USA has never had a leftist president. No president of the USA has ever sought to end capitalism.
I think you know that, and that you are alluding to that with quotation marks. But I'm not sure how the person you are replying to is using the term "left." I feel it is important to clarify when discussing how the Left views immigration.
Yes, some immigration is good. That doesn't mean all immigration is good. Are you willing to identify positive traits and limit immigration to those with those traits? Or do you balk at being selective? The defense of immigration always treats immigrants as one undifferentiated lump. But this is just the lumping fallacy.
>The "homogenous countries" started 2 world wars, one of them to "preserve their culture, ethnicities, identities". Would this not support the worldview that immigration has net benefits?
Oversimplification to the point of bad faith
>Also, can you explain how ethnic cleansing preserves culture and identities?
Not a defense, but rather support for your opinion, just take one look at Europe. Previously, they welcomed Syrians and middle Easterners escaping conflict. But in the last years, right wing majorities have emerged and grown based on increased crime and general nuisance, many are now against immigrants. Just yesterday the Danes are insisting on eliminating these nuisance loud "calls to worship" from Mosques. Immigrants that are not really being hired by locals, or not successful starting their own legitimate businesses, too often turn to organized crime - - they have to make a living somehow. Witness the violent protests recently in Ireland against immigrants. Witness all the bombings in Sweden, and of course the rapes of local women. Many of these immigrants come from less lawful countries, where it's often "dog eat dog" for survival.
I can't speak for Europe but in the US crime has been on a downward slope since the 90s, all while the percentage of immigrants in the US has gone up.
A few studies have shown that immigrants have a lower incidence of crime, especially undocumented ones. I don't know of any reputable studies (in the US) that show otherwise.
I don't want to speak for European countries. Never lived there, and I think people living there should be responsible for deciding how they navigate such issues.
In the USA, where I live, there is not much of an ethical or cultural defense to prevent immigration. The dominant culture, white people, are themselves immigrants. To deny others the right to live and work here is selfish at best. If some people are allowed here and some people are not, the only logically coherent next step is to return all land and resources back to Native American hands. If we do not have the stomach for such a bold transition, then the next best thing is to welcome everyone. To do otherwise means allowing and denying people a life here on extremely arbitrary, hypocritical reasons (and usually racist reasons, frankly). So, at least in the USA (and I believe more broadly, North and South America), the political Left must necessarily be pro-immigration if they wish to be anti-racist.
Speaking even more broadly, Leftists have generally be in favor of internationalist cooperation (a la the famous song The Internationale). But how exactly that relates to immigration policies is debatable.
Legal immigration to the US for an every day person is nearly impossible. You can’t just decide one day that you will move to the US and try to make a life there. European countries are orders of magnitude more open than the US.
I live in a "white" country and I like my nonwhite neighbors, some immigrant, some nth-generation, even ones who mostly socialize within their ethnic/cultural enclaves. I believe they belong here as much as I do. I don't want to give any money to racists who want to expunge them for some perceived ethnic transgressions. These parties are one step removed from extolling the virtues of the glorious Aryan race, and we all know where that leads.
>I believe they belong here as much as I do.
This sentiment is just so utterly foreign to me that I can't comprehend how someone could rationally think this way. I mean, I'm a black man whose ancestors have lived in America since the slave ships, and I easily recognize that some people are more American than others. And Americans only have like 1% of the cultural and ethnic identity that most European nations have. Why are you blind to the importance of the deep historical roots that bind a nation together? Why do you think the very force (namely kinship ties) that has driven humanity forward for the last hundred thousand years has, in the blink of an eye, become irrelevant?
I come from a family of recent immigrants. We're considered white so we get a pass for behaviors that our nonwhite peers get side-eye for. My ethnicity has its own enclaves. Those enclaves get treated as a cute cultural artifact rather than a threat -- even worth visiting on a tourist trip. My ancestral culture lives under the protective umbrella of "Western culture," but in practice, the overlap with prevailing Protestant/Anglo culture is minimal along almost any axis.
And yet, we are all American by almost any reasonable definition. If anything, the people beating their chests for having some random ancestors on the mayflower or whatever are the impostors here. What have they actually done for this country?
Also, I'm kind of surprised that you believe these things as a black man. You do realize that a large percentage of the country doesn't consider you "true" American either, right? They can't kick you out, but they will do everything in their power to disenfranchise you and turn you into second-class citizens. The signaling could not be any more clear.
Yes, it is hard to pinpoint exactly what makes one an American. It is not hard at all to pinpoint what makes one an X for any given European nation. It is strange how much Americans project our weak identity to the rest of the western world.
Except: exactly the same rhetoric is being used by the far-right in America as it is in Europe and the Anglosphere. Strength or weakness of identity is irrelevant to the white nationalist project.
What epistemic value does "similar rhetoric" have? The relevant question is whether something is true and/or defensible. Identity does matter, to some nations and historical contexts more than others. It is silly to project the particulars of the US historical context to the rest of the world.
The exact same argument would apply to the racial politics of Nazi germany or the Jim Crow South.
That doesn't answer the question. Identity does matter. Because Nazi Germany came to the wrong conclusion does not invalidate every premise used in their justification.
What was wrong about their conclusion that isn't equally wrong about the conclusions of these other white nationalist parties?
It's pretty clear to me that all these parties have racial animus (not ethnic identity) as their core, and we all know where that leads.
> This sentiment is just so utterly foreign to me that I can't comprehend how someone could rationally think this way
For someone who is so befuddled by the idea of being unbothered by a heterogeneous culture, you don't make any convincing argument against it. Why are you complaining about leftists who see immigration as inherently "good" if you can't even explain why it's bad? If it's so obviously bad, surely you can outline what will tangibly happen?
> I'm a black man whose ancestors have lived in America since the slave ships, and I easily recognize that some people are more American than others
If it's so easy to recognize, then what is it? What makes you American, and what makes you not American enough to be worthy of deportation? You aren't "easily recognizing" anything, you are having a feeling about people different from you and trying to rationalize it afterwards.
There is an obvious argument for immigration as an inherent good. It brings business, it brings talented specialists, it brings new ideas, it brings a bigger market. We are one of the most powerful countries on earth. If immigration was so obviously bad, do you think a nation of immigrants would be able to get to this point? Culture is our main export. We are a cultural powerhouse. We are envied by other countries for our soft power. That's what the Riyadh comedy festival was about. We are strong arguably because we are such a melting pot, and we have a rich cultural tapestry. Black culture exists specifically because people didn't assimilate to white culture, and it's fascinating to enough people that Koreans halfway across the world are emulating it.
The idea that we suddenly have a homogeneous "way to act" that is easily identifiable, and we need to deport people that don't act that way, is farcical and stupidly self-defeating. It's also laughably overconfident for a country that can't make cars or keep employed, tax paying citizens from drowning in medical debt. We should probably play to our strengths, not self-sabotage.
If the nation of immigrants is so great, why are so many people protecting themselves with guns and why are there so many lawyers to compensate for the absence of social trust?
And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success?
Having a good cultural distribution channel doesn't mean that it's inherently good. Japan has a great cultural soft power too, however I don't know if many people would tolerate life in Japan (for real). On the other side most people can't locate Denmark on a map but would love the life there.
> If the nation of immigrants is so great, why are so many people protecting themselves with guns
I think you'll find that's a particularly American problem - the UK, for example, is a nation of immigrants and we have basically zero guns (compared to the US.)
> And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success?
Because they have been told that immigrants are bad, that immigrants take their jobs, that immigrants sponge off the state[0], that immigrants are eating their pets, etc. All easily fact-checked and debunked but people, alas, are easily lead by media-driven bigotry.[1]
[0] Schrodinger's Immigrants: simultaneously taking your jobs whilst also sponging off the state.
[1] Now this we -do- have in the UK, largely from the same Murdochian sources.
The UK is historically not a notion of immigrants. The recent immigration carried massive problems (mass rapes among them), and a brutal authoritarian repression of free speech. The anti-weapon laws are systematically directed against the immigrants - I doubt that white british people threaten their neighbors with "ninja swords" or throw acid at the women who marry outside of their community.
> Because they have been told that immigrants are bad, that immigrants take their jobs, that immigrants sponge off the state[0], that immigrants are eating their pets, etc. All easily fact-checked and debunked but people, alas, are easily lead by media-driven bigotry.[1]
The fact that it applies too to black people, who are not really immigrants show that your argument is false. Besides, your point 1) is easy to refute, as the State can subsidize migrants to allow them to accept lower wages than the natives. By giving them free housing, for instance.
How many british girls will need to be raped so that you will start to see the reality? The only biggot here is you, along with the ones who allowed Henry Nowak's murder to happen. You are just an enabler for the british elite, who hates its native proles and has no problem replacing them with more obedient ones.
Hear hear
Americans have had guns since its birth, even if they live in one of the safest neighborhoods in the world. White suburbans buy whatever they think will keep them safe, even if the most dangerous thing they did in the last decade was drive to Target.
> And why are so many people still talking and being unhappy about race and ethnicity if that's a total success?
Because people who are citizens are being shipped to Texas even with their papers? A friend of mine was called the N word to his face by an ICE agent. Why would the existence of racism in the U.S. be evidence that immigration is bad? That's evidence that some people are racist and will blame all their problems on people that don't look like them. Nobody is denying that.
> Japan has a great cultural soft power too, however I don't know if many people would tolerate life in Japan
That supports what I said. They are a famously homogeneous culture that is difficult to live in, but still draws admirers through soft power. If you care about the values of your culture, it would behoove you to be seen favorably, and not run by fickle children who think 5% of the population is responsible for all their problems.
[flagged]
This is such a bizarre soup of dog whistles it's not really worth replying to, but I will say it's very funny to admit you aren't from America but say, with a straight face, that the suburbs are so dangerous you need guns. That is some premium propaganda you are huffing.
>Why are you complaining about leftists who see immigration as inherently "good" if you can't even explain why it's bad? If it's so obviously bad, surely you can outline what will tangibly happen?
This is just a bad faith misrepresentation of the context. Note the context of the OP is Swedish nationalism.
> You aren't "easily recognizing" anything, you are having a feeling about people different from you and trying to rationalize it afterwards.
It's not really that hard. Some traits off the top of my head: speaks English, values meritocracy and the rule of law, individualist over collectivist, ecumenical/egalitarian over sectarian, culturally Christian or downstream of it.
> If immigration was so obviously bad, do you think a nation of immigrants would be able to get to this point?
This point only makes sense if you assume immigrants are an undifferentiated lump. But of course this isn't true.
No it's not a bad faith interpretation, it's what you said. It doesn't matter if it's about Sweden, you said that about leftists.
> Some traits off the top of my head: speaks English, values meritocracy and the rule of law, individualist over collectivist, ecumenical/egalitarian over sectarian, culturally Christian or downstream of it.
Lol. Assuming you are talking about America, because that is what I referenced, this is ridiculous. You do not need to be Christian or believe in the rule of law to be American. Just look at the president. You are American if you are here. Quit being a shill for propaganda.
> This point only makes sense if you assume immigrants are an undifferentiated lump. But of course this isn't true.
No it doesn't. Not when you're arguing for a homogeneous culture.
>You do not need to be Christian or believe in the rule of law to be American.
A comically bad faith reading of what I said. Clearly no point in engaging.
You must be confused on what you were quoting, because I was directly asking what traits are so American that deviating from them is worthy of deportation, and those are the traits you wrote. Were you answering something else?
As a blacker man whose ancestors found their way to the Americas before the year of our Lord Jesus, what are you even talking about? America has never had "deep historical roots" to bind us together.
You'll notice my mention of European countries in my comment. You might have guessed that my point about deep historical roots was in reference to that.
What happens when they start to see their ethnicity or culture as political and fight to impose it, including using violence? Because at some point it will happen - democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism.
The USA, which is often touted as a "successful" melting pot model, is rife with similar problems.
Civil strife? If it comes to violence, I (a white person) certainly won't be on the side of the white nationalists. Same for most of my peers.
Many of us love living in multicultural societies and will fight to protect our neighbors and our way of life.
Why is "civil war" the default situation here? How about domestic terrorism for instance?
Will you be on the side of the muslim terrorists who beheaded teachers and priests (among others), and killed 132 concert-goers (and injured 413 others) at the Bataclan in 2015? Will you tell the french people who were slaughtered that it was the price to live in a multicultural society?Damn.
Even if you don't go as far as terrorism, it's simple: multi-ethnic societies favor either identity politics (aka clientelism) or authoritarianism (only way to avoid it). The USA is a great example for this: the previous administration played identity politics to the maximum, and the new one used it to impose authoritarianism. It's very hard, if not impossible to escape this loop once you are in a minority-only society.
And of course you have to deal with collapsing social trust. The USA isn't the ultimate lawyer society, and the most armed one by pure chance. It's a logical consequence.
What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population? Absolutely nothing. (Or, at least, as much as neo-Nazis have to do with the native white population.) Fact is, most people are extremely normal and just want to live in peace.
I'll be on the side of my nice Muslim neighbors (who did nothing wrong to anyone) against the red-faced white supremacist mobs. It is very obviously the correct moral position and will be viewed as such by our descendants.
In the US, the most heavily armed communities also tend to be the least diverse. It is largely a consequence of insular paranoia and hatred stoked by right-wing media.
> What do the Bataclan terrorists have to do with 99.9999% of the Muslim population?
They share the same religion and ethnicity. French muslims were actually a large contingent in Daesh forces. This is a classic "no true scotsman" fallacy. Every muslim will tell you that the Charlie Hebdo covers about Muhammad were "haram" - because that's exactly what their religion says.
Not that they are all bad people, just like you had nice soviets, or I'm sure that there a nice North Korean Juche party members, too.
You seem to be acting like an ostrich, putting your head in the sand to avoid problems. Face reality and read about Islam, which is inherently a political religion. Read also about the Muslim Brotherhood (or similar orgs).
> US armed communities.
How about latino gangs? Are they operating with nerf guns? Besides, the safest places in the US are those that are monoethnic, such as New Hampshire.
Your observation about multi-ethnic societies is rather interesting (though I would add slme caveats), but then you unfortunately are blinded by your preconceptions. The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism.
A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising. I would bet that Americans and foreigners in general are a large minority in Canadian far-right groups, for example.
The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer.
You can be anti-immigration without descending into racism and Islamophobia, actually it would greatly reinforce your points.
> The parent comment is right about 99.9...% of Muslims not being in any way related to terrorism.
Yet there are no country with a majority of muslims where the minorities were not pushed out in the 20th and 21st century. Turkey, Egypt, Syria, Irak, Iran, and so on. Have you read the Quran?
If course, I guess that Iran mullahs and their supporters are not representative of Islam. Not are Talibans (widely supported). Nor are Daesh. Nor are Saudis (who pushed salafism). Nor are Hamas members. Nor ar Al-Qaida. Nor are Boko Haram. Nor are Philippinos islamic groups (>400 deaths between 2000 and 2007). Nor are Jemaah Islamiyah. C'mon this is ridiculous.
I grew up in beautiful and prosperous village in the Alps, the town next to us had a mosque that sent jihadists to Syria. I guess they were not real muslims?
> A large country with 10% of Muslims being a large minority in a small terrorist force is not surprising.
There are many Portuguese in France, you don't hear about the behadings by Portuguese people. Same with Italians, Germans, Spaniards, and so on.
> The drawings of Muhammad were objectively haram, as you say, but almost none of the people who'd agree to that would also agree that murder was the right answer.
A teacher was beheaded 10 years after because he showed them in class. "Almost none" is doing a lot of work here. If that was true, every year teachers would show it as a way to discuss about religion and french laicity. But they don't because they know that there is a real risk to get a terrorist attack.
And everywhere in Europe it's the same. Theo Von Gogh was murdered for the same reason in 2004. Recently a guy burning a Quran in Sweden got stabbed by a bystander in the street. At which point are we allowed to say "enough"? It's obvious how it will end, in France for instance left-wing islamists open talk about taking power. Even after all of those bloody crimes.
A racist white guy knifed a bunch of innocent people in the UK recently. When do we say "enough" to that?
A country owns their home-grown lunatics. They have no responsibility for the rest of the world's lunatics.
I share the same(-ish) religion and ethnicity as white supremacist terrorists. Does this make me complicit in their degenerate world views? Obviously not.
All the same stuff was said about Jews in pre-Nazi Germany. It's always bullshit. Neither Muslims, nor Jews, nor white people, nor any broad group of people ever acts as a united bloc. Again: most people just want to live in peace and ensure a good future for their children.
The difference is that white supremacist who do domestic terrorism usually don't blow up in a concert hall crying "Jesus is great".
Violent white supremacism is a symptom of multiethnic societies. There is no reason to be one otherwise.
> Neither Muslims, nor Jews, nor white people, nor any broad group of people ever acts as a united bloc.
You don't understand. Quran says that you have to convert everyone to Islamic faith (and chariah law), and use force if necessary. It is forbidden to try to interpret what is written : the text is sacred.
This is why you have islamic terrorism in every muslim country, and countries with a large minority of muslims. White people in Thailand and other countries don't commit domestic terrorism because they don't have a proper reason to and do not share a common ideology or religion.
> Again: most people just want to live in peace and ensure a good future for their children.
Big fallacy here. I open a box of chocolate, and poison 10% of them. Then you have to eat 5 of them. Would you do it? After all, most are totally safe, I don't see why you are being such a bigot!
Overall the solution is simple: muslims can have their own countries where they can do what they want, and other people can have their own countries with their own rules. It's hardly painful for anyone. I don't see why we should absolutely mix everyone everywhere.
"Quran says that you have to convert everyone to Islamic faith"
Hey, remember the Crusades? This is not unique to Islam. Any religion can be made into a tool of peace or a tool of war. Wicked leaders will interpret their sacred texts however needed to further their political goals.
"Violent white supremacism is a symptom of multiethnic societies."
All modern societies are multiethnic societies. Once white supremacy is done with the obviously foreign-looking people, it will start to eliminate those who are not white enough, resulting in an existential and violent battle over determination of the "volk". As a descendant of white immigrants whose ancestors would not have been considered fully white in my country, I would not want to live in this environment. No doubt that I would be on the chopping block at some point for not sharing x% blood with some arbitrary progenitor.
"Overall the solution is simple: muslims can have their own countries where they can do what they want, and other people can have their own countries with their own rules."
Well, as a white person in a historically white country, I say Muslims are welcome to be my neighbors, and anyone who disagrees can go live somewhere else.
Crusades were 900 years ago, at a time most people didn't know how to read. Now people don't need leaders to interpret texts. Do you have more recent examples?
> All modern societies are multiethnic societies.
No? Most European societies weren't multiethnic 50 years ago. Poland doesn't have Islamic terrorism, because it has very few muslims. Guess we found the solution for avoiding Islamic terrorism?
> Once white supremacy is done with the obviously foreign-looking people, it will start to eliminate those who are not white enough, resulting in an existential and violent battle over determination of the "volk".
You are using an American definition here. In Europe you don't have "white" people, but French, Germans, Swedish and so on. White people are not inherently bad and what you describe applies better to muslims who have genocided or expelled non-muslim minorities of their countries. See Armenians for instance, or Christians. Or Jews. Or Yezidis. And so on.
"white person in a historically white country" and what happens when you are a minority and you are asked to pay the Jizya? Will you pay? Will you veil your daughter?
I mean, OK, to echo Capricorn2481, "this is such a bizarre soup of dog whistles it's not really worth replying to." Big scary mooslems gonna eat your babies. Blood libel all over again.
I prefer to keep living without this quivering fear of my neighbor and will continue to vote for multiculturalism. See you at the polls.
[flagged]
I'm actually a Christian from a conservative branch of the faith, but thanks for your input.
>democracy incentivizes clientelism and tribalism
Cite your peer reviewed sources.
This is a good intro by recognized researchers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dictator%27s_Handbook
If you want me to be more precise, I would say that clientelism and tribalism are especially rewarded for politicians in a multi-ethnic society.
Also a good definition: https://www.cambridge.org/core/elements/clientelism/E23ABE88...
"Michael C. Moynihan reviewing the book for The Wall Street Journal stated that the writing style is similar to that of Freakonomics."
Ouch. If someone said that about a book I'd written, I would simply move to a forest and never write a single word again. Quite the damning review.
I told you that it was an intro. Here is the more serious book, by the same authors:
https://direct.mit.edu/books/monograph/2425/The-Logic-of-Pol...
And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization, aside from comments from pedantic HNers.
> And there is nothing wrong with vulgarization
My comment wasn't about vulgarisation - it was about Freakonomics' loose approach to rigour and consequent debunking of, IIRC, most of the book.
A quick search for "Bruce Bueno de Mesquita" throws up similar debunkings[0] and yeah, I'll not be reading his books after seeing how grandiose his claims are compared with the actuality of what happened.
[0] Including one which recommends Dan Ariely - somewhat awkward nowadays.
> It's always taken as an axiom by leftists that immigration is an unconditional good, but never actually defended.
I'm not sure that is correct. Before Trump, "left" politicians (in the U.S.) campaigned on controlling immigration and deporting illegal immigrants.
Not in my experience, at least not at the national level. It's been said that Obama deported more illegals than anyone that came before. But Democrats couldn't run on that record because it was toxic to the progressives.
The USA has never had a leftist president. No president of the USA has ever sought to end capitalism.
I think you know that, and that you are alluding to that with quotation marks. But I'm not sure how the person you are replying to is using the term "left." I feel it is important to clarify when discussing how the Left views immigration.
Clarification aside, I agree with what you said.
[flagged]
Yes, some immigration is good. That doesn't mean all immigration is good. Are you willing to identify positive traits and limit immigration to those with those traits? Or do you balk at being selective? The defense of immigration always treats immigrants as one undifferentiated lump. But this is just the lumping fallacy.
>The "homogenous countries" started 2 world wars, one of them to "preserve their culture, ethnicities, identities". Would this not support the worldview that immigration has net benefits?
Oversimplification to the point of bad faith
>Also, can you explain how ethnic cleansing preserves culture and identities?
Obviously a disingenuous question
[dead]
Not a defense, but rather support for your opinion, just take one look at Europe. Previously, they welcomed Syrians and middle Easterners escaping conflict. But in the last years, right wing majorities have emerged and grown based on increased crime and general nuisance, many are now against immigrants. Just yesterday the Danes are insisting on eliminating these nuisance loud "calls to worship" from Mosques. Immigrants that are not really being hired by locals, or not successful starting their own legitimate businesses, too often turn to organized crime - - they have to make a living somehow. Witness the violent protests recently in Ireland against immigrants. Witness all the bombings in Sweden, and of course the rapes of local women. Many of these immigrants come from less lawful countries, where it's often "dog eat dog" for survival.
I can't speak for Europe but in the US crime has been on a downward slope since the 90s, all while the percentage of immigrants in the US has gone up.
A few studies have shown that immigrants have a lower incidence of crime, especially undocumented ones. I don't know of any reputable studies (in the US) that show otherwise.
The violent protests in Ireland were explicitly enflamed and coordinated by Musk and other right-wingers over social media: https://newrepublic.com/article/211936/elon-musk-race-war-be...
I don't want to speak for European countries. Never lived there, and I think people living there should be responsible for deciding how they navigate such issues.
In the USA, where I live, there is not much of an ethical or cultural defense to prevent immigration. The dominant culture, white people, are themselves immigrants. To deny others the right to live and work here is selfish at best. If some people are allowed here and some people are not, the only logically coherent next step is to return all land and resources back to Native American hands. If we do not have the stomach for such a bold transition, then the next best thing is to welcome everyone. To do otherwise means allowing and denying people a life here on extremely arbitrary, hypocritical reasons (and usually racist reasons, frankly). So, at least in the USA (and I believe more broadly, North and South America), the political Left must necessarily be pro-immigration if they wish to be anti-racist.
Speaking even more broadly, Leftists have generally be in favor of internationalist cooperation (a la the famous song The Internationale). But how exactly that relates to immigration policies is debatable.
Thanks for replying. I can see your point of view.
Legal immigration to the US for an every day person is nearly impossible. You can’t just decide one day that you will move to the US and try to make a life there. European countries are orders of magnitude more open than the US.
I agree, legal immigration is much too difficult and I think that's awful!