The Progress Party gets the rough media treatment today for a suggestion by immigration spokesman Per Sandberg that asylum seekers should be tagged with an electronic device, attached to the wrist or ancle, so they won't disappear while their applications are being processed. The idea is currently being considered in the UK, and Sandberg hopes to reduce the annual 3000 disappearences of asylum seekers by tagging primarily single males, who he claims are more likely to escape or break the law. (He's probably correct about the second.)

I see Sandberg's point, but I'm not convinced it's a good idea. Would it work at all - how easy are these things to remove? And would being treated like potential criminals really make asylum seekers less likely to commit crime, or more? I'm skeptical, but this is a concrete solution to a concrete problem, and it falls on the same security-liberty and works/doesn't work axes as all other forms of crime fighting, so we should be able to list upsides and downsides, how likely they are, have a nuanced discussion, and reach a conclusion without anyone getting seriously hurt. It's nothing to dress up in flame war gear for. It looks ridiculous, for one thing, and can only hurt your case.

Unfortunately, dressing up in flame war gear is exactly what opponents have done. Leader of NOAS, Norway's Organization for Asylum Seekers, Morten Tjessem, drags the discussion down to his own level by beating a strawman over the head with the dictionary (for some reason):

- Sandberg should read a dictionary, so he could learn that asylum seekers are not an animal race, but humans. [Tjessem] believes the Progress Party continues to score political points by smearing weak groups, including asylum seekers.

Even more disappointing, Trygve Nordby at UDI, the Norwegian Directorate of Immigration, which handles asylum cases, manages to Hitlerfy the debate on first attempt:

- This is a way to tag people which gives associations to ways one treated Jews during the war. We cannot treat humans this way.

Old-time blog nemesis Petter Nome, now at the Norwegian Refugee Council, reacts in a similar way:

- The proposal by the Progress Party's Per Sandberg gives associations to the yellow Jew stars of the nazi's. By comparing asylum seekers with hard criminals and pedophiles, he's branding a large group of innocent people.

The real damage of anti-racism, (the movement, not the idea that racism is wrong), is that it has taught people like Tjessem, Nordby and Nome that in an argument, you should repeat dogmas very stubbornly, and always pull out the biggest gun in your arsenal. I don't like Usenet, but one of its uses is to demonstrate a kind of rhetorical equivalent to MAD, mutual assured destruction. A flame war, like a nuclear war, is a lose-lose situation. You lose, your opponent loses, and the issue is buried in the rubble. It's better for everyone to use conventional weapons and avoid launching strikes that would force an escalation, ie. to be polite (conventional weapons) and stick to the issue, not the opponent's psychology (attack proxies, avoid homeland attack). This assumes there are two equally flame-able sides of the debate, which sadly there isn't. That is why people like Tjessem, Nordby and Nome can get away with using flame war rhetorics in mainstream media - there's absolutely no risk of retribution in kind. And cheap flame rhetorics, too. What skilled flame warrior would descend to a Hitler analogy in the first reply?

The way this should work is this: Anti-racists call Per Sandberg a wannabe-nazi. Supporters of Sandberg accuse anti-racists of being paid by immigrant mobsters to promote their working conditions. Etc. While this continues for a very long time, sensible people tire of the noise, and turn to more sensible voices. I will call this the Moore-Coulter effect, and it solves two problems at once: Having two strong sides keeps people's wits sharp, and each side having flaming capabilities keeps people polite. Is this realistic? I'm not sure, but our alternative, one strong side echoing broadly accepted dogmas with little opposition, is at least the cause of both problems: People of the dominant view get dull-witted for lack of challenge, and low risk of retribution increases the temptation to flame on first opportunity.

Of course, to be consistent, I should now accuse these people of being in the pay of immigrant mobsters etc. etc. I won't, but there are plenty of candidates beneath the media radar. One small but loud net (and Usenet) presence known as the "anti-psychopaths" fits the description well. Are you sure you want a flame war, Tjessem, Nordby and Nome? This is what it looks like, and it's not pretty.

(Update: Morten Tjessem replies that this article in Dagbladet gives a more nuanced picture of what NOAS believes about the Progress Party than the soundbite above.)

Interesting points you made here, Bjørn.

The main problem is that the rethoric made by Nome & Co are never challenged in the mainstream press in Norway, thus making "conventional" counter-arguments less effective. We see the same tendencies in the American press, where liberal dogma is passed on as truth by the mainstream media. It is difficult to overcome.

I wouldn't call this the Moore/Coulter effect though. Maybe the Moore/Savage effect? I think Michael Savage is more accurate comparison of Moore than Coulter is.

While Moore is a ranting lunatic with a phobia for the truth, Coulter is a meticulous researcher, albeit with a non-apologetic rightwing bias and a razor-sharp tongue.
Coulter's book has hundreds of valid footnotes, Moore's has none. Neither does Savage's book.

Just a comment to your quicklink about the danish politician Pia Kjærsgaard whom, The Independent falsely calls 'racist' - or the conservative Ian Taylor did.

My summery and explanation in danish:

http://www.uriasposten.dk/weblog/2003_09_28_archive.html#106476263242428257

In short: The danish supreme court ruled that the communist Karen Sunds were allowed to say that Pia Kjærsgaard had racist views. But the court DID NOT allow anyone to call her a racist, and more important. Karen Sunds were only allowed to do so, because she told the court that she used the r-word in a new meaning which werent racial, but only means 'make a difference' or something like that. The Supreme Court in my view, has allowed the r-word to be used as a insult like fool or idiot.

Ian Taylor and Independent Andy McSmith used racist four or five times - all in the 'ordinary' racial meaning of the word.

Pia Kjærsgaard won the case in local court and regional court, but lost in supreme court. The danish communistparty DKP/ML payed a part of Karen Sunds case, which from the start were ment to associate Pia Kjærsgaard with racist in the Hitlerish meaning.

Karen Sunds plan worked all the way - and you have to be leftwing to believe that the ruling not were some kind of political.

My documentation - in Uriasposten [the link above]

Sandberg did not suggest electronic device tagging. He suggested that the (technical) possibilities for electronic device tagging should be pursued. Such accuracy is vitally important in all interactions with the psychopaths as their Hitler flaming always starts with such nominalism (which in this case would have started anyway).

You have a sound anti-psycopathic view of how politics (regrettably) works. You describe what we call "the counter pressure" (mottrykket) perfectly well. Without a counter pressure we get exactly the imbalance where politically correct psychopaths can get away with repeating dogmas and using flame war rhetorics, there's absolutely no risk of retribution in kind. Anti-racism justifies the power of a new ruling class, gives money, power and position to polititians, bureaucrats, lawyers, experts, educators, and media people who justify and enforce it. The psychopaths cannot allow any normal democratic process that threatens their oligarchi. And with unlimited access to mainstream media, and no counter pressure, they immediately descend to Hitler analogies. That has proven to be the most effective way to silence any opposition.

So far we seem to agree. You do not approve of the anti-psychopathic Mutual Assured Destruction. Neither do many anti-psychopaths. We have a philosophy with a dichotomy that allows either view. I believe in MAD. That is the only language psychopaths can understand and respect.

Edvin Vik
Antipsykopatisk Senter

The reason why the right in the US has been effective and for the last twenty years has set the agenda, is because we recognize very well our opponent. I applaud your attempts to keep political discussion civilized. Yet remember the European left and the American left long ago disregarded the idea of civil discussion. Unless the right in Europe fights fire with fire you will continue to be steamrolled. Your dedication to fair play will get you nowhere if you allow the left to label you as racist, homophobic, etc. I fear the right in Europe will become extinct, unless the idea of morality and patriotism can be revived.

Edvin: How can you claim to believe in MAD, when the whole point of deterrence is to avoid the "mutual destruction" part? You're actively seeking it! What do you hope to achieve? Are you anywhere near achieving it on Usenet, or have you succeeded in nothing more than turning once interesting newsgroups into a cyber-version of Stalingrad?

I'm also curious to know how many polite rhetorical strategies are available to an anti-psychopath when your ideology is based on the assumption that the people who agree with you are _psychopaths_? I'm not talking about _how_ you call Petter Nome and his kind a psychopath, or _how_ he calls Per Sandberg (and Bush, and apparently anyone) a Hitler wannabe, but the fact that you do. That is in itself to use flame war rhetorics. There is only a very small correlation between being evil and being wrong, too small for that kind of rhetorics.

Dean: You're then suggesting that propaganda is more persuasive than argument - to call your opponent wrong is to argue, to call him evil is propaganda. You may have a point, but that is no reason to descend to that level, and you can still not escape the intellectually self-destructive aspect of flame war tactics. This is not about playing nice, it's about recognizing that we are all fallible humans with an instinct for self deception. There is _only one_ way for any ideological camp or movement to escape the herd and echo thinking of many of today's left-wingers, and that is by _not_ repeating their mistakes. These mistakes weren't "typically left-wing", they were typically human. They happened because otherwise well intentioned people thought they were fighting people who were evil, not just wrong, and adapted their tactics correspondingly.

When someone says "I believe in MAD" I should think they believe in the deterrence of MAD. MAD is deterrence, the ultimate response that builds the necessary credible counter pressure at all levels of escalation. That is what forces psychopaths to be rational and polite, so that we get interesting newsgroups. We get a real debate in the society about matters that are important to the electorate. Or what is your definition of interesting newsgroups, pax psychopathica? I suppose not. We do not believe in the chicken or egg dilemma. We know who started the flame war, and those who started it should end it, otherwise MAD (in the sense you seem to interpret the term, the button is pushed). And this works, the counter pressure has made norwegian net and Usenet more interesting. You can now sometimes discuss matters that were unthinkable of just a couple of years ago.

In the mainstream media there is no such counter pressure. The psychopaths here are more sophisticated, they do not often need to flame. But they can and will do it any time at their choice. They risk nothing, no retaliation. They know that accusations of racism always stick, and no matter how reckless or even cynical never hurt the accuser.

An anti-psychopath should start out using polite rhetorical strategies in all communication with non-psychopaths. Against psychopaths it is his choice what level of escalation he enters and indeed if the ultimate MAD is ever executed. However, we recommend that lack of respect should immediately be responded with lack of respect, the counter pressure be applied. And he has no choice other than to accept fellow-anti-psychopaths pressing the flame-war-button.

Edvin Vik
Antipsykopatisk Senter

hello bearstrong. reading some of your blog instantly gives me more faith in humanity. i have seen myself as a sort of red/black coloured guy when it comes to politics, then i added a splash of blue, and then i thought "what the heck", can colours really solve anything? anyway, you seem to be a very smart, balanced and rational guy (in the best sense of the word; not like somebody else who thinks he's the most rational guy in the world and therefore fail to see the irrationalism in that very notion - i will not mention names).

"They happened because otherwise well intentioned people thought they were fighting people who were evil, not just wrong, and adapted their tactics correspondingly."

that is very well put, almost nietzschean.

i have often felt that the greatest hells on earth happened when a lot of people thought they were fighting evil. the "evil" which the "good" then become; adapting tactics. like the ten million people (or not far from) who were burnt or otherwise killed by the christian church in the renaissance; people named hundreds of names to save their own skin, and anyone acting or thinking unusual was hunted down and killed. it was a war against satan, but looking back; what was the real evil? it might be the very same people who thought they were fighting evil.

do you know the philosophy of robert anton wilson? i highly recommend the book "the illuminatus! trilogy" written by him and robert shea. it's fiction, entertainment, but it's very clever and very funny. the book will confuse you (unless it hasn't already). it confused the hell out of me. it makes the reader reach for conclusions, then turn the conclusions on the head, over and over again. the soundest book i read that wasn't a "soundbook".

http://www.rawilson.com/main.shtml

otherwise, i recommend "the hour of slack", a downloadable radio show from the church of the subgenius... i think these guys are maybe discordians or anarchosyndicalists or perhaps evil whacko communists in disguise trying to secretly brainwash america (scary) into believing in j.r. "bob" dobbs - living master of slack:

http://www.subgenius.com

some of the biggest jokes sometimes also carry the biggest truths, if there are eyes to see them... that is also one of the best ways to carry controversial ideas; comedians rarely get shot; if mahatma gandhi or john lennon were comedians, maybe they would still be alive?

Trackback URL: http://bearstrong.net/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tb.cgi/468