I need to read up more on administrative law dynamics and organizational structure surrounding immigration law.
Your points about ocean barrier, expense of plane ticket etc are well taken (ive also acknowledged both, and i agree that no econ collapse is imminent or likely).
I think demand can be also derived from activist sentiment, and I think committed ideologues can enter positions in which they can steer or subvert immigration policy (BIA judges).
You’re also rather wrong on the revolutionary angle. That the Bolshevik revolution only happened because of German weapons and money is a tired trope that totally ignores A: Lenin’s genius and B: They were the only game in town.
And why on earth would the far left NEED a revolution in America? They’ve captured the institutions. Revolutionary violence would be akin to self harm.
Most revolutions have several necessary but insufficient components. If I say that "German support was necessary," I am not arguing that there weren't other options. You're historically if you think the Bolshevik party was "the only game in town." The monarchists, social democrats, Mensheviks, and anarchists all were available to form coalitions in 1917. It took years for the Bolsheviks to emerge victorious in the struggle, they weren't dominant at all in 1917.
As for the German support, the stories of German gold that was used as anti Bolshevik propaganda had SOME validity to them. Exactly how much will likely never be known, given the nature of the people involved.
In either case it’s dwarfed by the financial support the Bolshevik had from other corners: Particularly Russian nobility and business men, and of course their “expropriations”.
They weren’t the only game in town in 1917 literally, but politically and socially they were.
Monarchism had utterly failed.
The Bourgeoisie and their Kadet fantasies as well.
Mensheviks had disqualified themselves with their support for the war, as had the SRs who were also too focused on their rural constituency.
That left the Bolsheviks with their simple slogan of bread, land and peace. Or as Lenin later said, power had been left in the streets, it just needed to be picked up. And the only ones who could do that in 1917 and genuinely represent the broad wishes of the people, were the Bolsheviks.
The optimal Russian WWI strategy in 1917 should have been to stay on the defensive and not launch any new offensives at all, or at worst launch a new offensive against the Ottoman Empire and not against Germany. If that was not possible, however, Russia should have simply let the Germans occupy all of European Russia and subsequently waged an insurgency against the Germans. At least that way, a whole lot of German divisions would be permanently stuck occupying Russia and could not be used on the Western Front.
That basically was the strategy for much of the war. Front barely moved for years. The optimal Russian strategy would really have been to sue for a peace without annexation ASAP.
Germany wasn’t particularly interested in occupying Russia. Were only at war because they were allied with Austria-Hungary.
Unfortunately they were led by a very flawed Zar, whose sense of obligation to foreign powers weighed heavier than the lives of Russians.
The optimal Russian strategy was not to get involved in WWI at all, since Serbia certainly wasn't worth a World War, and neither were Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, the Memelland, Ottoman Armenia, Constantinople, or the Straits. But Yeah, once WWI started and it became clear that WWI was going to be a long war, then Russia should have sued for peace on the best terms possible as soon as possible and then sought to revive the Three Emperors' League post-war. (Destroying the Three Emperors' League and allying with France was another stupid Russian decision that made an eventual World War much more likely.)
I don't fully blame the Russian government in 1917 for fighting on, though, since by that point in time, a lot of Russian lives had already been lost in WWI and US entry into WWI made an eventual Entente victory in WWI much more likely. But if Russians were unwilling to fight in 1917, then they should have just let Germany occupy them and waste a lot of German divisions that way and hope that the Entente will save their bacon in the very end.
Well… When the crisis in 1914 started, nobody really knew where it would lead.
(A scary comparison with today and Ukraine BTW. Afraid of losing prestige, NATO keeps escalating. Nobody wants a war, yet everyone takes step after step that follow there.)
Absolutely agree on the Emperors League. Really, the whole shitshow in a sense began when the German Kaiser fired Bismarck. Bismarck was keenly aware of the strength and importance of a Russo-German alliance, or at least good relations.
With Bismarck gone, Russia started its drift towards UK and France.
It was a grave mistake to continue fighting in 1917. People were desperate for peace, where as the politicians were mere concerned with diplomacy and prestige.
A dangerous lesson about the elites being out of touch with reality and the people.
Here's the part of the article you neglected to read:
“But Biden is a communist!"
Right-wingers probably agree that a leftist revolution is not likely, but many of them would maintain that the revolution already happened, in 1965. The logic of Civil Rights, they argue, leads inevitably to mass immigration. Billions must immigrate.
I think that mass immigration can be viewed from a much less ideological lens, where we assume that policy makers are neither stupid nor insensitive to corporate lobbying.
First of all, “Biden is a communist!” is meaningless. Is he a Marxist who believes dialectic materialism is a concrete science? No. Is he a communist in the sense that his administration is far to the left on many issues? Yes.
Secondly, civil rights are irrelevant here. It’s the 1965 immigration and nationalities act that opened the floodgates to immigration.
You seem to be interpreting my statement in quotations as a claim of mine, rather than a quotation of my enemies. You're disagreeing with me without even understanding my point.
The Socialist Revolutionaries were an alternative to the Bolsheviks in Russia, no? But unlike with the Bolsheviks, their support in urban areas was very weak, to my knowledge.
Yes and no. There were different factions of SRs. Some were quite close to the Bolsheviks. (Many of the Left SR joined them.)
The main problem were that many of the SRs were tainted by their participation in the failed provisional government and wanted to continue the war. They also were concentrated and primarily concerned with the countryside and wanted their constituent assembly.
The Bolshevik were the only credible alternative with their Bread, Land, Peace. And the only ones who weren’t afraid of governing so to speak.
Any chance that if Kerensky doesn’t make a preemptive failed move on the Bolsheviks on October 24, 1917, then the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets could have created a Bolshevik-dominated but still multiparty Soviet government? Or would such a government have eventually become a one-party state through Bolshevik machinations even in such a scenario?
I think you are basically correct, but really just because of geography. Infinity Bomalians is totally possible in Europe, and only the rise of the Far Right can/will stop it. America is a very blessed country in many ways.
Europe seems doomed because it is demographically elderly, low in religious fertility, has few energy resources (bearish on nuclear), no continental cultural unity, and is going the way of Japanese stagflation.
Quick numbers: Turkish GDP per capita is $14,630, EU GDP per capita is $56,970. If Turkey remains at 4% growth per year, and EU remains at 1%, then Turkey will surpass the EU by 2071.
Concerning the HBD aspect, you could argue that this would coincide with or be in a feedback loop with demographic shifts: as Turkey gets better, Europeans move there and start running businesses (as they do in South Africa); as the EU gets worse, it fills up with Africans who make reform impossible. EU experiences brain drain, Turkey receives brain gain. Once this tipping point is reached, Africans will stop bothering to migrate to Europe and will probably start leaving of their own accord.
Won't Europeans prefer moving to the US or other parts of the Anglosphere over moving to Turkey? Unless perhaps they are of Turkish descent or are otherwise Muslim?
Turkey's chief key advantage over Europe is it doesn't have a large old population demanding gerontocratic policies, but its TFR falls about 0.8% per year and is now below 2. Economic growth will start stalling out around 2050, if it doesn't happen earlier for some unexpected political or military reason.
But I agree in general that what will eventually halt the flow of Bomalians to western Europe is most likely that it will become so crummy they no longer see the point in coming.
What about Israel? Would Israel's secure border fences and overpopulation protect it from Infinity Bomalians?
As a side note, the best thing that the Israeli right can do to avoid making the Israeli left even think about endorsing any version of Infinite Bomalians would be not to touch Israel's immigration policy at all. Once one side touches it to their advantage, the other side could also touch it in the other direction to their own advantage. And let's be real here, millions of Africans in Israel will almost certainly overwhelmingly vote for the Israeli left, not for the Israeli right.
Not persuaded. Much publication bias is ideological in origin so it is very dubious that policymakers relying on research will have the necessary data at hand (for instance the persistent claim that diversity is good for firms). Most likely mass immigration will continue until pogroms and race riots. And race riots not just between natives and immigrants, but between immigrant groups.
And still that appears not to have made much of a dent in Britain. The violence will likely be significant before people adjust. Even then leftists will use the excuse that those communities are rioting because of poverty and the usual excuses.
The part about South Africans disliking other African migrants is not persuasive. People will want to live in rich countries and then demand more of their coethnics be permitted entry for the psychological comfort it provides.
83% of Britain is white. You act as if Britain is "worse" or "further down the line" than America, and that's absolutely not true.
1. Communist governments have never had open borders.
2. Communists disincentivize immigration by making the economy less attractive to immigrants.
3. Leftists perform positions, until these positions bump up against consequences, then they are disposed of. ("luxury beliefs")
4. We have an open border with Mexico because it costs more money to close than to passively leave it open. That's not the case with Africa.
5. There's no such thing as "open borders with Africa" because we don't share a border with Africa. Most Africans don't fly into Europe -- they go by land or by boat.
6. The cost of airfare hasn't decreased in 15 years and Africans can't afford to fly. It's $600, which is like an American spending $14,846. They don't have saving, they're just surviving.
7. Our refugee program spends hundreds of thousands per refugee. The program would go bankrupt under a communist government.
@Australopithecus afarensis point 4 below is crucial and appears to throw a wrench in your chain of argument.
the USSR point was perplexing to me and I now realize its entirely a red herring as they were a wholly different breed of leftist.
I also dont see much evidence for leftists dropping performative views once they bump up against reality. I dont know where in the world we actually see this. There are still white leftists in South Africa.
Sure there are people who promote insane leftist ideas (like allowing africans to enter the country) who are cynical and pragmatic. These people—perhaps business interests supporting mass migration—might drop their support once the consequences become apparent or when their bottom line is jeopardized.
But (and this leads to my next point) those more pragmatic actors arent necessarily steering immigration policy. You outline some strict bifurcation between activists and apparently cooler heads who actually steer immigration policy (the latter doing so for largely mercenary reasons).
i dont see any basis for this division. Activists are in no way siloed off from the levers of control of immigration policy.
During the drumpf admin there were scores of nonprofits who worked in symbiosis with district courts to stymy trump’s policies for half of his term.
In short, I think Austra wrote a very powerful refutation of your article.
The growing cohort he mentions will be smaller and on average less dysfunctional than the Africans who go to Europe, due to expense and the ocean barrier creating a positive selection effect (and ive acknowledged as much from the jump).
But that cohort will still suck, and they will still be a destabilizing force that consumes public resources and makes a politics of technological advancement and first world living standards impossible
I didn't say white leftists don't exist in South Africa. My response is that African reduction of poverty is not a sure thing and slower than the global average; even if Africa quadruples its population it will still be dwarfed by Chinese immigrants in an open borders scenario. Thirdly, we can actually track the movements of African immigrants to figure out where they go. They go primarily to Europe and Asia. More Africans end up in Asia (mostly Middle East) than in North America: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1321673/african-migrants-living-outside-africa-by-region/
Now part of this is because north Africa is part of Africa -- if we separate out the Middle East then this "Asian" confusion goes away. Still, more sub-Saharan Africans go to Europe than to North America. There is no reason to believe that Europe will close its borders but America will not. Due to geography and proximity, as well as higher levels of unemployment benefits, Europe will continue to absorb a significant proportion of African expats. All of that is assuming an open borders scenario, which I suspect will not remain the case in the next 10 years.
Nope, did not say Britain is further down the line. I was referring narrowly to how inconsequential the Hindu-Muslim fighting in Leicester, England seem to have been.
The ways Britain is worse are different. Primarily regulations and a dismal economy. Incidentally my hunch is that the quality of immigration to the UK is a consequence of this. Britain could have chosen to be more choosy otherwise.
1. This is correct and also not relevant. There are different strains of leftist thought. The American left is less interested in state control of “the commanding heights” of industry and more interested in their vision of justice by demographic category.
2. Yes. Unintentionally, but yes. (Funny thing, my father wanted to emigrate to the USSR but was discouraged by the weakness of the Soviet economy.)
3. Kind of; mostly very complicated. There are elaborate mechanisms of rationalizations people go through. If I was a leftist I could see myself arguing that cities would be safer if we just redistributed more. Frog in a boiling pot.
4. People still enter into other Latin American countries and then cross the southern border.
I am glad global poverty is in decline. But that also makes it more possible to afford airfare. In the aughts I used to hear that half of illegal immigrants just flew in and did not leave. Is that still true? In any case there is still the option to fly to Latin America and travel northwards.
In any case Africa has growing economies and the population may triple by the end of the century. The cohort of people who can afford to travel will only grow.
5. See four.
Actually an interesting study would assess the SES of those fly to Latin America and travel north versus those who take overland routes and boats across the Mediterranean.
6. See four.
7. See one.
IMO perpetually increasing the USG’s debt is a bad gamble, but the government has proven willing to continue massive deficits.
Did some cursory Google searches. Apparently the American debt-to-GDP ratio is 110%. Japan is at >260%.
The national debt is $35.77 trillion. I found $133,000 as the cost per refugee.
You can, then, stay well below Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio, doubt the national debt, and afford ≈ 269 million “refugees.”
This is just a cursory Google search so very likely the numbers are off.
Still, I could off by an order of magnitude and the numbers would still be enormous.
Let's say 50% of Chinese people, 10% of Indians, and 1% of Africans can afford a plane ticket. This equates to 500 million Chinese, 50 million Indians, and 10 million Africans. Even if the Chinese and Indian population decreases 50% over the next century, and the African population quadruples, this will be 250 million Chinese, 25 million Indians, and 40 million Africans. Even in a true open borders scenario, African immigrants would still not be the largest immigrant group.
The other thing to consider is network effects. Immigrants tend to go to places where they have family members or pre-existing communities. This is why America has "Chinatown." African immigration is much higher in Europe than it is in America. I expect Africans to prefer Europe over America because Europe also tends to have a more robust healthcare system with better unemployment benefits. Europe is more socialist, which will attract immigrants. If Europe didn't exist, I would be more likely to believe that Africans would only go to America.
1. Communist governments have never been in favor of open borders once they take power.
2. Communist governments disincentivize immigration anyway by making the economy less attractive to immigrants with their policies.
3. Leftists love performative extreme positions, until these positions bump up against real consequences, then they are quickly disposed of. (I disagree with the concept of "luxury beliefs" generally but here it might be applicable)
4. We have an open border with Mexico because it costs more money to close the border than it does to just let them across. There's no such thing as "open borders with Africa" because the cost of airfare hasn't decreased at all in the last 15 years and most Africans can't afford a plane ticket. It's $600, which is the equivalent of an American spending $14,846 on a plane ticket. Most people don't have that kind of money to spend -- they're just surviving, they have no savings.
5. Our currently refugee program spends hundreds of thousands per refugee. If we increase the number of refugees, the program is going to bankrupt the country.
> These leftists, historically, have never gained power. The Soviet Union certainly didn’t have open borders. Instead, it had the most extensive and bureaucratic internal system of borders of any country in history
The Soviets didn’t have open borders, but it’s not like immigrants were lining up to move to the USSR anyways. It was a shithole. They did, on the other hand, constantly move ethnic groups in their country around and force them to blend into each other. If they needed mass emigration they probably wouldn’t have had that much of a problem with it, unless the Russians got too upset about it (other ethnic groups were less relevant).
Also, the only leftists historically relevant here are the Soviets. It’s the only state sort of analogous to western states that got taken over by communism. So “have never gained power” has not that much oomph.
African immigration is mostly a European issue, I don’t suspect it will be that significant in America u less Africa really reaches its tipping point
Chechens were kept in Chechnya. No one was forced to breed with each other, lol. The Germans were deported to Kazakhstan, but that was a punishment against the Germans by forcibly deporting them to a backwater. It's the complete opposite of importing migrants to Volgograd, which is what Putin is now doing.
Russian (and Eastern European migrant) Jewry was forced to assimilate into the Russian population, and a lot of groups were deported to Kazakhstan. Not just Germans. Also, technically the German deportations began far earlier during the Dekulakization process, since around 15% of Kulaks were German ethnically and around 30% of farmland in Ukraine and Southern Russia was owned by Germans
I think the tipping point will be the 14x projected population increase.
I never committed to a specific number and I dont endorse some of the predictions Deepleft seeks to refute here (such as likelihood of medium term economic collapse).
Ive always acknowledged ocean barrier makes USA better positioned.
I just think we will see increasing numbers. And these people will inevitably be a drag on our welfare system, productivity etc.
As we get more welfare cases and crime prone populations, more resources time energy will be spent managing/avoiding them, and diverted from more productive pursuits
I gotta admit, it takes chutzpah to claim that “don’t worry, this immigration thing totally isn’t real!” While millions literally sneak across the border.
Then again, you did the old hand wavy leftie gaslighting thing. Conservatives are worried about immigration PERIOD. Not just immigration from a particular continent.
And yes, a “meritocratic” immigration system is also bad. Just look at Canada.
Perhaps American leftists ought to look to Europe, close borders and only allow a small amount of legal immigrants, while deporting illegal immigrants? (Who are of course put in detention centers while their claim is processed.)
But nah, that would undo the Holy Alliance between the Uniparty, corporate interests and wild eyed crazy Marxists.
Is there a difference between Mexican and African immigration?
Depends, what kind of immigration are we talking about. Legal? Illegal? Refugees?
While there are differences the most consequential result is the same: Driving down wages through supply/demand, increased housing pressure and use of resources, becoming a user of public funds without contributing first.
Also, many, if not most who come across from Mexico aren’t Mexican, though that is neither here nor there.
Legal, illegal, refugees, doesn't matter: Mexicans and Africans are different. If you can't admit that, you're not arguing in good faith. Your attempt to obfuscate this truth by saying that "most Mexican immigrants aren't even Mexican" is just dodging the issue at hand.
And details matter. There is a big difference between refugees, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
Nobody denies that SOME legal immigration in limited numbers MAY be a good thing. And at least isn’t as destabilizing and destructive as unchecked illegal immigration.
Mexican vs. Central American also matters. Different level of education, harder to deport. A much harder claim to defend in immigration court.
I don't understand why non- Canadians think the Canadian immigration system is something to admire. The government basically dumps hordes of low-value Indians everywhere it can. Even leftists are starting to talk about mass deportation. On top of that, the reasons people give for not liking immigrants have become much more explicitly ethnic/racial, especially over the past year.
"I have warned that this form of elite Immigration is much more threatening to the mythic fabric of America, because elite immigrants will have a much more top-down impact on our military, media, and financial system than waves of low-skilled migrants from Mexico."
Interesting point. Yea, some I'd say under the influence of "left-HBD" are concerned about intelligent immigrant scammers. Being mugged at the ATM is one thing, but high-tech financial fraud can wipe you out completely.
"My prediction is that America follows Canada, Britain, Australia, and Silicon Valley in pursuing a merit-based immigration system. That means less Haitians and more Chinese and Indians. I have warned that this form of elite Immigration is much more threatening to the mythic fabric of America, because elite immigrants will have a much more top-down impact on our military, media, and financial system than waves of low-skilled migrants from Mexico. Conservatives, by fear-mongering over the non-existent threat of infinite Bomalians, distract from the real crisis on the horizon."
Such a system should also significantly help the Democrats. By trending more in the GOP direction, people of color are actually helping the Democrats by possibly making the Democrats more hostile to importing huge numbers of additional low-skilled immigrants (future GOP voters) in the future. By importing cognitive elites, Democrats get additional voters and could also win back some working-class voters who have been alienated by them in the past.
The bipartisan border bill is the first step in this direction. It still allows some people in, but not as much as before.
nations with high birth rates have always been more susceptible to violence but nowadays they just expel the excess number of men to europe/america and this is especially so in south america where there havent been any wars really
"I don’t mean that policy is optimal or fair to the white working class. White nationalists would love to kick out all the refugees and give the unemployed drug addicts of Springfield, Ohio shiny new pickup trucks, so they could drive around playing “Pour Me a Drink,” by Post Malone, or whatever they listen to."
Ah yes, those world famous "Deplorables". They're just so dysfunctional, aren't they? Of course, they don't deserve any kind of consideration or help from their own government.
Given your haircut and glasses, you have nothing to do with these people and actively seek to distinguish yourself from them. If so, then your "concern" mirrors the coddling of blacks by wokists. It's really just meaningless moral signaling on your part. If you love these people so much, go live in Springfield, Ohio, and volunteer your time helping them. Live in their community and contribute to it. I'm not stopping you! Nope -- you won't do it, because you're a hypocrite who uses these poor people as a pawn to feel superior to me in your moralistic hierarchy.
When I point out the obvious that these people represent a hostile culture to progress and educated Americans, who would gladly pogrom all liberals if they got the chance, you react as if I have slain the sacred cow. These people, "unemployed drug addicts," are already on food stamps. They already receive help. You're strawmanning me, suggesting I want to abolish government aid, which I never said. I am arguing against infinite aid at the expense of all other programs. How much aid is enough? $40k per year? $100k? $1 million? Good luck solving what is essentially a religious / drug problem by dumping more money on dysfunctional addicts. That has a great track record of working! They surely won't dump it down a black hole, or burn it in a pile. You might want to look up the bankruptcy rate of lottery winners. Educate yourself.
How do the Sikhs come to Canada if they are low-skilled? Do they have enough points on Canada's points system? Or is an exception made for them if they are viewed as temporary labor, but then they are eventually allowed to permanently stay in Canada?
Permanent residency and eventually Canadian citizenship?
If so, then it’s a great deal for them! Honestly, the US should try copying Canada in regards to this. Would many Sikhs and other Indians be interested? I have no doubt that many Latin Americans would be interested in this proposal.
I appreciate the shoutout! Will have to read the article this weekend and respond. I like your writing
I need to read up more on administrative law dynamics and organizational structure surrounding immigration law.
Your points about ocean barrier, expense of plane ticket etc are well taken (ive also acknowledged both, and i agree that no econ collapse is imminent or likely).
I think demand can be also derived from activist sentiment, and I think committed ideologues can enter positions in which they can steer or subvert immigration policy (BIA judges).
Just popping in to say I very much like your work, and the saltiness in the comments.
You’re also rather wrong on the revolutionary angle. That the Bolshevik revolution only happened because of German weapons and money is a tired trope that totally ignores A: Lenin’s genius and B: They were the only game in town.
And why on earth would the far left NEED a revolution in America? They’ve captured the institutions. Revolutionary violence would be akin to self harm.
Most revolutions have several necessary but insufficient components. If I say that "German support was necessary," I am not arguing that there weren't other options. You're historically if you think the Bolshevik party was "the only game in town." The monarchists, social democrats, Mensheviks, and anarchists all were available to form coalitions in 1917. It took years for the Bolsheviks to emerge victorious in the struggle, they weren't dominant at all in 1917.
As for the German support, the stories of German gold that was used as anti Bolshevik propaganda had SOME validity to them. Exactly how much will likely never be known, given the nature of the people involved.
In either case it’s dwarfed by the financial support the Bolshevik had from other corners: Particularly Russian nobility and business men, and of course their “expropriations”.
They weren’t the only game in town in 1917 literally, but politically and socially they were.
Monarchism had utterly failed.
The Bourgeoisie and their Kadet fantasies as well.
Mensheviks had disqualified themselves with their support for the war, as had the SRs who were also too focused on their rural constituency.
That left the Bolsheviks with their simple slogan of bread, land and peace. Or as Lenin later said, power had been left in the streets, it just needed to be picked up. And the only ones who could do that in 1917 and genuinely represent the broad wishes of the people, were the Bolsheviks.
The optimal Russian WWI strategy in 1917 should have been to stay on the defensive and not launch any new offensives at all, or at worst launch a new offensive against the Ottoman Empire and not against Germany. If that was not possible, however, Russia should have simply let the Germans occupy all of European Russia and subsequently waged an insurgency against the Germans. At least that way, a whole lot of German divisions would be permanently stuck occupying Russia and could not be used on the Western Front.
That basically was the strategy for much of the war. Front barely moved for years. The optimal Russian strategy would really have been to sue for a peace without annexation ASAP.
Germany wasn’t particularly interested in occupying Russia. Were only at war because they were allied with Austria-Hungary.
Unfortunately they were led by a very flawed Zar, whose sense of obligation to foreign powers weighed heavier than the lives of Russians.
The optimal Russian strategy was not to get involved in WWI at all, since Serbia certainly wasn't worth a World War, and neither were Galicia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, the Memelland, Ottoman Armenia, Constantinople, or the Straits. But Yeah, once WWI started and it became clear that WWI was going to be a long war, then Russia should have sued for peace on the best terms possible as soon as possible and then sought to revive the Three Emperors' League post-war. (Destroying the Three Emperors' League and allying with France was another stupid Russian decision that made an eventual World War much more likely.)
I don't fully blame the Russian government in 1917 for fighting on, though, since by that point in time, a lot of Russian lives had already been lost in WWI and US entry into WWI made an eventual Entente victory in WWI much more likely. But if Russians were unwilling to fight in 1917, then they should have just let Germany occupy them and waste a lot of German divisions that way and hope that the Entente will save their bacon in the very end.
Well… When the crisis in 1914 started, nobody really knew where it would lead.
(A scary comparison with today and Ukraine BTW. Afraid of losing prestige, NATO keeps escalating. Nobody wants a war, yet everyone takes step after step that follow there.)
Absolutely agree on the Emperors League. Really, the whole shitshow in a sense began when the German Kaiser fired Bismarck. Bismarck was keenly aware of the strength and importance of a Russo-German alliance, or at least good relations.
With Bismarck gone, Russia started its drift towards UK and France.
It was a grave mistake to continue fighting in 1917. People were desperate for peace, where as the politicians were mere concerned with diplomacy and prestige.
A dangerous lesson about the elites being out of touch with reality and the people.
Here's the part of the article you neglected to read:
“But Biden is a communist!"
Right-wingers probably agree that a leftist revolution is not likely, but many of them would maintain that the revolution already happened, in 1965. The logic of Civil Rights, they argue, leads inevitably to mass immigration. Billions must immigrate.
I think that mass immigration can be viewed from a much less ideological lens, where we assume that policy makers are neither stupid nor insensitive to corporate lobbying.
First of all, “Biden is a communist!” is meaningless. Is he a Marxist who believes dialectic materialism is a concrete science? No. Is he a communist in the sense that his administration is far to the left on many issues? Yes.
Secondly, civil rights are irrelevant here. It’s the 1965 immigration and nationalities act that opened the floodgates to immigration.
You seem to be interpreting my statement in quotations as a claim of mine, rather than a quotation of my enemies. You're disagreeing with me without even understanding my point.
The Socialist Revolutionaries were an alternative to the Bolsheviks in Russia, no? But unlike with the Bolsheviks, their support in urban areas was very weak, to my knowledge.
Yes and no. There were different factions of SRs. Some were quite close to the Bolsheviks. (Many of the Left SR joined them.)
The main problem were that many of the SRs were tainted by their participation in the failed provisional government and wanted to continue the war. They also were concentrated and primarily concerned with the countryside and wanted their constituent assembly.
The Bolshevik were the only credible alternative with their Bread, Land, Peace. And the only ones who weren’t afraid of governing so to speak.
Any chance that if Kerensky doesn’t make a preemptive failed move on the Bolsheviks on October 24, 1917, then the Second All-Russian Congress of Soviets could have created a Bolshevik-dominated but still multiparty Soviet government? Or would such a government have eventually become a one-party state through Bolshevik machinations even in such a scenario?
I think you are basically correct, but really just because of geography. Infinity Bomalians is totally possible in Europe, and only the rise of the Far Right can/will stop it. America is a very blessed country in many ways.
Europe seems doomed because it is demographically elderly, low in religious fertility, has few energy resources (bearish on nuclear), no continental cultural unity, and is going the way of Japanese stagflation.
Quick numbers: Turkish GDP per capita is $14,630, EU GDP per capita is $56,970. If Turkey remains at 4% growth per year, and EU remains at 1%, then Turkey will surpass the EU by 2071.
Concerning the HBD aspect, you could argue that this would coincide with or be in a feedback loop with demographic shifts: as Turkey gets better, Europeans move there and start running businesses (as they do in South Africa); as the EU gets worse, it fills up with Africans who make reform impossible. EU experiences brain drain, Turkey receives brain gain. Once this tipping point is reached, Africans will stop bothering to migrate to Europe and will probably start leaving of their own accord.
Won't Europeans prefer moving to the US or other parts of the Anglosphere over moving to Turkey? Unless perhaps they are of Turkish descent or are otherwise Muslim?
Turkey's chief key advantage over Europe is it doesn't have a large old population demanding gerontocratic policies, but its TFR falls about 0.8% per year and is now below 2. Economic growth will start stalling out around 2050, if it doesn't happen earlier for some unexpected political or military reason.
But I agree in general that what will eventually halt the flow of Bomalians to western Europe is most likely that it will become so crummy they no longer see the point in coming.
What about Israel? Would Israel's secure border fences and overpopulation protect it from Infinity Bomalians?
As a side note, the best thing that the Israeli right can do to avoid making the Israeli left even think about endorsing any version of Infinite Bomalians would be not to touch Israel's immigration policy at all. Once one side touches it to their advantage, the other side could also touch it in the other direction to their own advantage. And let's be real here, millions of Africans in Israel will almost certainly overwhelmingly vote for the Israeli left, not for the Israeli right.
Not persuaded. Much publication bias is ideological in origin so it is very dubious that policymakers relying on research will have the necessary data at hand (for instance the persistent claim that diversity is good for firms). Most likely mass immigration will continue until pogroms and race riots. And race riots not just between natives and immigrants, but between immigrant groups.
And still that appears not to have made much of a dent in Britain. The violence will likely be significant before people adjust. Even then leftists will use the excuse that those communities are rioting because of poverty and the usual excuses.
The part about South Africans disliking other African migrants is not persuasive. People will want to live in rich countries and then demand more of their coethnics be permitted entry for the psychological comfort it provides.
83% of Britain is white. You act as if Britain is "worse" or "further down the line" than America, and that's absolutely not true.
1. Communist governments have never had open borders.
2. Communists disincentivize immigration by making the economy less attractive to immigrants.
3. Leftists perform positions, until these positions bump up against consequences, then they are disposed of. ("luxury beliefs")
4. We have an open border with Mexico because it costs more money to close than to passively leave it open. That's not the case with Africa.
5. There's no such thing as "open borders with Africa" because we don't share a border with Africa. Most Africans don't fly into Europe -- they go by land or by boat.
6. The cost of airfare hasn't decreased in 15 years and Africans can't afford to fly. It's $600, which is like an American spending $14,846. They don't have saving, they're just surviving.
7. Our refugee program spends hundreds of thousands per refugee. The program would go bankrupt under a communist government.
@Australopithecus afarensis point 4 below is crucial and appears to throw a wrench in your chain of argument.
the USSR point was perplexing to me and I now realize its entirely a red herring as they were a wholly different breed of leftist.
I also dont see much evidence for leftists dropping performative views once they bump up against reality. I dont know where in the world we actually see this. There are still white leftists in South Africa.
See here for a empirical refutation of luxury beliefs in the american context: https://manhattan.institute/article/is-defunding-the-police-a-luxury-belief.
Sure there are people who promote insane leftist ideas (like allowing africans to enter the country) who are cynical and pragmatic. These people—perhaps business interests supporting mass migration—might drop their support once the consequences become apparent or when their bottom line is jeopardized.
But (and this leads to my next point) those more pragmatic actors arent necessarily steering immigration policy. You outline some strict bifurcation between activists and apparently cooler heads who actually steer immigration policy (the latter doing so for largely mercenary reasons).
i dont see any basis for this division. Activists are in no way siloed off from the levers of control of immigration policy.
During the drumpf admin there were scores of nonprofits who worked in symbiosis with district courts to stymy trump’s policies for half of his term.
BIA judges are also insulated from removal to a certain extent. https://www.vdare.name/posts/bill-barr-moving-to-control-the-immigration-judges-by-decertifying-their-union.
In short, I think Austra wrote a very powerful refutation of your article.
The growing cohort he mentions will be smaller and on average less dysfunctional than the Africans who go to Europe, due to expense and the ocean barrier creating a positive selection effect (and ive acknowledged as much from the jump).
But that cohort will still suck, and they will still be a destabilizing force that consumes public resources and makes a politics of technological advancement and first world living standards impossible
I didn't say white leftists don't exist in South Africa. My response is that African reduction of poverty is not a sure thing and slower than the global average; even if Africa quadruples its population it will still be dwarfed by Chinese immigrants in an open borders scenario. Thirdly, we can actually track the movements of African immigrants to figure out where they go. They go primarily to Europe and Asia. More Africans end up in Asia (mostly Middle East) than in North America: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1321673/african-migrants-living-outside-africa-by-region/
Now part of this is because north Africa is part of Africa -- if we separate out the Middle East then this "Asian" confusion goes away. Still, more sub-Saharan Africans go to Europe than to North America. There is no reason to believe that Europe will close its borders but America will not. Due to geography and proximity, as well as higher levels of unemployment benefits, Europe will continue to absorb a significant proportion of African expats. All of that is assuming an open borders scenario, which I suspect will not remain the case in the next 10 years.
Nope, did not say Britain is further down the line. I was referring narrowly to how inconsequential the Hindu-Muslim fighting in Leicester, England seem to have been.
The ways Britain is worse are different. Primarily regulations and a dismal economy. Incidentally my hunch is that the quality of immigration to the UK is a consequence of this. Britain could have chosen to be more choosy otherwise.
1. This is correct and also not relevant. There are different strains of leftist thought. The American left is less interested in state control of “the commanding heights” of industry and more interested in their vision of justice by demographic category.
2. Yes. Unintentionally, but yes. (Funny thing, my father wanted to emigrate to the USSR but was discouraged by the weakness of the Soviet economy.)
3. Kind of; mostly very complicated. There are elaborate mechanisms of rationalizations people go through. If I was a leftist I could see myself arguing that cities would be safer if we just redistributed more. Frog in a boiling pot.
4. People still enter into other Latin American countries and then cross the southern border.
I am glad global poverty is in decline. But that also makes it more possible to afford airfare. In the aughts I used to hear that half of illegal immigrants just flew in and did not leave. Is that still true? In any case there is still the option to fly to Latin America and travel northwards.
In any case Africa has growing economies and the population may triple by the end of the century. The cohort of people who can afford to travel will only grow.
5. See four.
Actually an interesting study would assess the SES of those fly to Latin America and travel north versus those who take overland routes and boats across the Mediterranean.
6. See four.
7. See one.
IMO perpetually increasing the USG’s debt is a bad gamble, but the government has proven willing to continue massive deficits.
Did some cursory Google searches. Apparently the American debt-to-GDP ratio is 110%. Japan is at >260%.
The national debt is $35.77 trillion. I found $133,000 as the cost per refugee.
You can, then, stay well below Japan’s debt-to-GDP ratio, doubt the national debt, and afford ≈ 269 million “refugees.”
This is just a cursory Google search so very likely the numbers are off.
Still, I could off by an order of magnitude and the numbers would still be enormous.
Regarding the reduction of global poverty, that is true for Latin America and Asia, but the evidence in Africa is less convincing:
https://ourworldindata.org/data-insights/extreme-poverty-though-vastly-reduced-is-still-very-high-in-sub-saharan-africa
Let's model this as follows:
Let's say 50% of Chinese people, 10% of Indians, and 1% of Africans can afford a plane ticket. This equates to 500 million Chinese, 50 million Indians, and 10 million Africans. Even if the Chinese and Indian population decreases 50% over the next century, and the African population quadruples, this will be 250 million Chinese, 25 million Indians, and 40 million Africans. Even in a true open borders scenario, African immigrants would still not be the largest immigrant group.
The other thing to consider is network effects. Immigrants tend to go to places where they have family members or pre-existing communities. This is why America has "Chinatown." African immigration is much higher in Europe than it is in America. I expect Africans to prefer Europe over America because Europe also tends to have a more robust healthcare system with better unemployment benefits. Europe is more socialist, which will attract immigrants. If Europe didn't exist, I would be more likely to believe that Africans would only go to America.
Point 4 is crucial. Great arguments
True for now to 2050, but may be different in the future due to climate refugees.
I'll try to tighten up my argument:
1. Communist governments have never been in favor of open borders once they take power.
2. Communist governments disincentivize immigration anyway by making the economy less attractive to immigrants with their policies.
3. Leftists love performative extreme positions, until these positions bump up against real consequences, then they are quickly disposed of. (I disagree with the concept of "luxury beliefs" generally but here it might be applicable)
4. We have an open border with Mexico because it costs more money to close the border than it does to just let them across. There's no such thing as "open borders with Africa" because the cost of airfare hasn't decreased at all in the last 15 years and most Africans can't afford a plane ticket. It's $600, which is the equivalent of an American spending $14,846 on a plane ticket. Most people don't have that kind of money to spend -- they're just surviving, they have no savings.
5. Our currently refugee program spends hundreds of thousands per refugee. If we increase the number of refugees, the program is going to bankrupt the country.
> These leftists, historically, have never gained power. The Soviet Union certainly didn’t have open borders. Instead, it had the most extensive and bureaucratic internal system of borders of any country in history
The Soviets didn’t have open borders, but it’s not like immigrants were lining up to move to the USSR anyways. It was a shithole. They did, on the other hand, constantly move ethnic groups in their country around and force them to blend into each other. If they needed mass emigration they probably wouldn’t have had that much of a problem with it, unless the Russians got too upset about it (other ethnic groups were less relevant).
Also, the only leftists historically relevant here are the Soviets. It’s the only state sort of analogous to western states that got taken over by communism. So “have never gained power” has not that much oomph.
African immigration is mostly a European issue, I don’t suspect it will be that significant in America u less Africa really reaches its tipping point
Chechens were kept in Chechnya. No one was forced to breed with each other, lol. The Germans were deported to Kazakhstan, but that was a punishment against the Germans by forcibly deporting them to a backwater. It's the complete opposite of importing migrants to Volgograd, which is what Putin is now doing.
Chechens actually were deported to Central Asia by Stalin during WWII but were allowed to return to Chechnya under Khrushchev IIRC.
Russian (and Eastern European migrant) Jewry was forced to assimilate into the Russian population, and a lot of groups were deported to Kazakhstan. Not just Germans. Also, technically the German deportations began far earlier during the Dekulakization process, since around 15% of Kulaks were German ethnically and around 30% of farmland in Ukraine and Southern Russia was owned by Germans
I think the tipping point will be the 14x projected population increase.
I never committed to a specific number and I dont endorse some of the predictions Deepleft seeks to refute here (such as likelihood of medium term economic collapse).
Ive always acknowledged ocean barrier makes USA better positioned.
I just think we will see increasing numbers. And these people will inevitably be a drag on our welfare system, productivity etc.
As we get more welfare cases and crime prone populations, more resources time energy will be spent managing/avoiding them, and diverted from more productive pursuits
From Africa, we could get a lot of cognitive elites, no? Future Wakandans, if you will!
Fair point!
Yeah, that's the way to bet based on past immigration patterns:
https://jsmp.dk/posts/2019-09-26-braindrain/immigration.html
Yeah we will be getting a better stock of african than Europe will due ti selection effect of who can cross ocean etc.
They will still largely suck and dampen our QOL/governance
I gotta admit, it takes chutzpah to claim that “don’t worry, this immigration thing totally isn’t real!” While millions literally sneak across the border.
Then again, you did the old hand wavy leftie gaslighting thing. Conservatives are worried about immigration PERIOD. Not just immigration from a particular continent.
And yes, a “meritocratic” immigration system is also bad. Just look at Canada.
Perhaps American leftists ought to look to Europe, close borders and only allow a small amount of legal immigrants, while deporting illegal immigrants? (Who are of course put in detention centers while their claim is processed.)
But nah, that would undo the Holy Alliance between the Uniparty, corporate interests and wild eyed crazy Marxists.
There is a huge difference between Mexican and African immigration, and if you can't admit that, you are dishonest or a coward.
Is there a difference between Mexican and African immigration?
Depends, what kind of immigration are we talking about. Legal? Illegal? Refugees?
While there are differences the most consequential result is the same: Driving down wages through supply/demand, increased housing pressure and use of resources, becoming a user of public funds without contributing first.
Also, many, if not most who come across from Mexico aren’t Mexican, though that is neither here nor there.
Legal, illegal, refugees, doesn't matter: Mexicans and Africans are different. If you can't admit that, you're not arguing in good faith. Your attempt to obfuscate this truth by saying that "most Mexican immigrants aren't even Mexican" is just dodging the issue at hand.
Mexicans are different from Africans, sure.
And details matter. There is a big difference between refugees, legal immigrants and illegal immigrants.
Nobody denies that SOME legal immigration in limited numbers MAY be a good thing. And at least isn’t as destabilizing and destructive as unchecked illegal immigration.
Mexican vs. Central American also matters. Different level of education, harder to deport. A much harder claim to defend in immigration court.
This isn’t obfuscation, this is reality.
I had to ask you twice -- that's the obfuscation. You strawman me saying "immigration isn't real," which I never claimed.
I don't understand why non- Canadians think the Canadian immigration system is something to admire. The government basically dumps hordes of low-value Indians everywhere it can. Even leftists are starting to talk about mass deportation. On top of that, the reasons people give for not liking immigrants have become much more explicitly ethnic/racial, especially over the past year.
"I have warned that this form of elite Immigration is much more threatening to the mythic fabric of America, because elite immigrants will have a much more top-down impact on our military, media, and financial system than waves of low-skilled migrants from Mexico."
Interesting point. Yea, some I'd say under the influence of "left-HBD" are concerned about intelligent immigrant scammers. Being mugged at the ATM is one thing, but high-tech financial fraud can wipe you out completely.
"My prediction is that America follows Canada, Britain, Australia, and Silicon Valley in pursuing a merit-based immigration system. That means less Haitians and more Chinese and Indians. I have warned that this form of elite Immigration is much more threatening to the mythic fabric of America, because elite immigrants will have a much more top-down impact on our military, media, and financial system than waves of low-skilled migrants from Mexico. Conservatives, by fear-mongering over the non-existent threat of infinite Bomalians, distract from the real crisis on the horizon."
Such a system should also significantly help the Democrats. By trending more in the GOP direction, people of color are actually helping the Democrats by possibly making the Democrats more hostile to importing huge numbers of additional low-skilled immigrants (future GOP voters) in the future. By importing cognitive elites, Democrats get additional voters and could also win back some working-class voters who have been alienated by them in the past.
The bipartisan border bill is the first step in this direction. It still allows some people in, but not as much as before.
>implying Canadian, Britain, and Australia follow merit-based immigration policies
…
They do more than the US, no? Though the US still attracts a lot of Old World immigrants based on merit.
nations with high birth rates have always been more susceptible to violence but nowadays they just expel the excess number of men to europe/america and this is especially so in south america where there havent been any wars really
"I don’t mean that policy is optimal or fair to the white working class. White nationalists would love to kick out all the refugees and give the unemployed drug addicts of Springfield, Ohio shiny new pickup trucks, so they could drive around playing “Pour Me a Drink,” by Post Malone, or whatever they listen to."
Ah yes, those world famous "Deplorables". They're just so dysfunctional, aren't they? Of course, they don't deserve any kind of consideration or help from their own government.
Given your haircut and glasses, you have nothing to do with these people and actively seek to distinguish yourself from them. If so, then your "concern" mirrors the coddling of blacks by wokists. It's really just meaningless moral signaling on your part. If you love these people so much, go live in Springfield, Ohio, and volunteer your time helping them. Live in their community and contribute to it. I'm not stopping you! Nope -- you won't do it, because you're a hypocrite who uses these poor people as a pawn to feel superior to me in your moralistic hierarchy.
When I point out the obvious that these people represent a hostile culture to progress and educated Americans, who would gladly pogrom all liberals if they got the chance, you react as if I have slain the sacred cow. These people, "unemployed drug addicts," are already on food stamps. They already receive help. You're strawmanning me, suggesting I want to abolish government aid, which I never said. I am arguing against infinite aid at the expense of all other programs. How much aid is enough? $40k per year? $100k? $1 million? Good luck solving what is essentially a religious / drug problem by dumping more money on dysfunctional addicts. That has a great track record of working! They surely won't dump it down a black hole, or burn it in a pile. You might want to look up the bankruptcy rate of lottery winners. Educate yourself.
Appreciate your comment Griffin. This article focused on low-skilled immigration, but I have other articles on high-skilled immigration:
https://deepleft.substack.com/p/elite-immigration
I actually don't get what you're saying lol.
How do the Sikhs come to Canada if they are low-skilled? Do they have enough points on Canada's points system? Or is an exception made for them if they are viewed as temporary labor, but then they are eventually allowed to permanently stay in Canada?
Permanent residency and eventually Canadian citizenship?
If so, then it’s a great deal for them! Honestly, the US should try copying Canada in regards to this. Would many Sikhs and other Indians be interested? I have no doubt that many Latin Americans would be interested in this proposal.
Are your low-skilled immigrants primarily Indians? If so, are they allowed to permanently stay in Canada and eventually become Canadian citizens?