What longform piece is missing from the Mass Deportation/Remigration discussion?

Two years ago a Palladium article was written that forcefully argued that the replacement of meritocracy with DEI wasn't simply a "design decision," but was instead sowing the seeds of an unwind of complex civilization. The article escaped the Muscular Centrist ghetto and was read by powerful people. "Competency Crisis" became buzzword every time a plane crashed, train derailed, or power grid went down.

The prior post makes the point that "America is already Brazil." Yes, while that's true, demographic transformation is not a one way street. Bad policy decisions caused the problems. Good policy decisions can fix the problems. The first step however is to forcefully argue that "demographics are destiny" only to the extent that leaders lack the will to change them.

What do folks think of the following plan of attack:

Beg the question that mass deportation is necessary and proper and go straight to historical examples. Start with "bad remigrations," such as Germans after WWII, the Partition of India, Xenophobia Riots in South Africa. What if the voice of muscular centrism is ignored until America devolves into a race war? Really bad things.

Next, contrast them with other less-violent remigrations: Pantsuit Deportations ("Paradigm Shift" in Denmark), Denmark humanely deporting German Refuguees after WWII, Bulgaria's Big Excursion, Operation Wetback, Return of Bosnians to Bosnia, Return of Vietnamese to Vietnam, Return of Rwandans to Rwanda, Return of Cambodians to Cambodia, departure of indo-fijians from Fiji.

Finally argue undoing 60 years of bad policy need is unlikely to be accomplished overnight, but "paradigm shift" could cause a bolus of expulsion
1) beginning with criminals, Biden parole-in-place criminals, TPS revocation, etc.
2) progressing to illegals
3) progressing to temporary visa holders
4) progressing to permanent visas granted unlawfully
5) progressing to citizenship granted unconstitutionally
After ten years of stabilization and progress, then the goal could shift to the lawful incentivization of Hart-Cellar Americans to repatriate.

American is unlikely to return to the 90/10 demographics of 1950, but it doesn't need to give the lower and middle classes back dignity and quality of life.

https://www.palladiummag.com/2023/06/01/complex-systems-wont-survive-the-competence-crisis/

Sure, sounds worth writing. You should go for it.

If you want it to become canonical outside the ghetto like the Competence Crisis article, then it might be better to leave (5) implicit or hypothetical for now.

I also think it'll be more persuasive if you reverse the order. Open with the examples of "good remigrations" which most readers have never heard about—this is the strongest new argument you're giving to your target audience, so it should go right up front. After that, you can go "of course not all remigrations look this way" and discuss the violent ones to contrast, maybe close with "and so here is how we'll make sure ours looks like the good ones and not the bad ones".

Depends what audience you're going for, but if you want it to become a touchstone for the mainstream powerful and influential people, then it's best to scare the hoes as little as possible (and no less than that). It's not just that they have to find it persuasive, they also have to feel it's safe to endorse it in public, where their mom and their political enemies can see it.

very helpful, thankyou

OP I don't see any discussion of the reasons to do all this. Everyone's going to assume it's yet another instance of knee-jerk reactionary racialism. "I just want to go back to when people like me had an unfair advantage". Yeah ok bro that's basically a stupid an uncharismatic motivation. You need to articulate the really solid objective reasons why society can't continue without doing this.

What the complex systems argument did so well was provide a very solid objective analysis that wasn't just dismissible as race-anxiety. What's the observable reason why the 1965 immigration specifically was worse, and needs to be reversed? I'll try to think of a few:

In the Denmark case (which obviously needs to lead such an article) the convincing problem was "they aren't integrating into our society and respecting our way of life, they are very disproportionately criminal, and they don't even pay net taxes into the pensions." (We don't want to lean too hard into some aspects of this because western "values" are retarded and mass pensions are inherently insolvent, but this is what played well politically).

I liked Arctotherium's recent article for providing an objective economic analysis of how ethnic cartelization is an inevitable result of mass migration and just bad for the economy. Even if the newcomers do good work, the market fragmentation externalities are really bad. This can obviously be extended to all manner of social things as well. It becomes "our kind can't really go to that neighborhood/city/region/industry/festival/etc anymore". You no longer live in a society, but only a caste. This is an argument for strong integration into WEIRD society.

A state is existentially dependent on its human capital and social substrate, but current states are acting like you can just trash the intangible trust and health of society and replace your high quality population with low quality people who have never really been civilized and everything will be just fine. It's totally insane.

There's a sort of precautionary fence argument against importing a ton of random foreigners who may stress your social systems in ways you aren't even prepared to imagine. This isn't even hypothetical anymore, so you can (and should) dig up a ton of the weird little scams and breakdowns and inefficiencies that support such caution. So many scams.

So much of the reason for mass immigration on the demand side is just demand to leech on the WERID social commons. Establish the argument that not all value held in a society is held privately on explicit property rights (open borders GMU economists are too autistic/dishonest to notice this). Societies involve a ton of socially-held common value that is only protected by relative stability and long-term enforcement of compatible customs. Mass immigration is the national equivalent of 1980s-style private equity trust liquidation. All the people here for that need to go back.

It's worth acknowledging the value of actual social diversity, meaning different endogenous subcultures living different ways dominating different parts of the economy etc. This is arguably one of the strengths of pre-20th century european society, and a major antidote to the monoculture-collapse that I would bet is coming in the 21st century. But this diversity must come from "inside the house" so to speak to be really balanced with the above social considerations. But this is maybe too theoretical and speculative to get into. Point being have some caution with Arctotherium's WEIRD-maximalism and gains-from-standardization arguments.

I agree with the other anon >>3031 that you want to lead with the normal, well-implemented european social democracy version of remigration. That's what it should look like, so that's what should be emphasized. The argument is basically that as a proof of possibility and acceptability, and then a bunch of arguments for necessity that aren't ethnic particularist.

I want to go on 2 different slightly tangents: (1) on the 'hard' vs 'soft' migration assimilation policies, with a contrast between a muscular assimilationist Singapore and an inclusionary Europe/West of 2015. (2) on the gender / age dynamics of immigration

(1) I think an important idea is to contrast the coddling, 'soft' immigration policies with say the muscular immigration policies of Singapore. Singapore, is multicultural success story. Whereas Europe tolerated the emergence of ethnic enclaves, offered welfare with very few strings attached and pursued soft on crime policies; Singapore deliberately forced integration in existing neighbourhoods and rejected ethnic enclaves, strictly enforced the rule of law, and made sure the people they accept would be the kinds of people who pay into the system.

Whereas US and Canada have birthright citizenship, Singapore reserves the right to cancel the citizenship of people for misconduct or fraud. They also don't allow for dual citizenship. Likewise Singapore requires a two year national service for male permanent residents, before they are granted citizenship.

Not sure this is where OP wants to go, but tactically it may be better to argue that multi-culturalism can succeed, that it's not inherently doomed and Singapore is the success story. If this is the premise, then actually I think you can go even further than the 5 points without scaring the hoes.

But if your premise is that multiculturalism is and was a mistake and we should abandon it, then the risk of scaring the hoes is much higher.

(2) I find the gender / age / marital status as relatively under-discussed relative to religion / race / culture. For example, in Canada, in 2015, in the 20–24 age bracket the ratio of men to women were near parity at ~100-105:100. After the Trudeau wave, this ratio has risen to ~125-130:100 (counting non-citizens). This is a demographic disaster.

It's also the case that it's often the young men that are particularly criminal, even if disproportionately from certain racial/cultural backgrounds. Likewise, people who come in as single young men/women would be easier to assimilate compared to families, provided they don't find their way into their respective ethnic enclaves. And single women would assimilate more easily compared to single men. But this probably doesn't remain true if they become 'incels' and stay single over the long term.

Not sure where I'm going with this. I think of outmarriage as a key step in assimilation. But not sure if these thoughts can be operationalized into a critical essay.