Borderless Meeting


Welcome viewer. 

Last week we covered Brenton Tarrant’s Christchurch Manifesto, and detailed his assessment of the problem space and his solution. To provide practical solutions to real problems, we need an accurate assessment of what is real. Lauren Southern’s 2019 documentary Borderless, was a natural follow up, her investigative reporting and her team’s EU speech chronicled the effects of the migrant crisis on Europeans and the Refugees, giving us more accurate information on the symptoms and causes, to judge Brenton’s solution and alternatives.

We will remain sympathetic to all parties involved.

Who are we?

Ben — Australian, and founder of Bevry
Trygve — Norwegian Composer, Musician, amateur philosopher

Together we are part of Bevry, an open community to transform isolated and competitive wisdom into collaborative wisdom, through weekly discussions like this, and software projects to facilitate them.


We will give a brief recap of last week’s episode, discussing Brenton’s manifesto, the problem space, and his proposed solution.

Then we will get into Southern’s documentary, her team’s observations, and a more accurate assessment of the problem and its solution space, with practical solutions we can all talk about and adopt.

Which was somewhat missing in our Brenton livestream.


First, a brief introduction to our personal objectives for this call. 


I think our coverage in our previous meeting would be sufficient for people who are concerned and curious, it would sufficiently create doubt and hopefully discontent in the manifesto's proposals, but for those whose social network are in the far-right and already feel compelled to eliminate the supposed threats, I think we need something more substantial than a few minutes of rhetoric for each argument. As they would bring our arguments from their own understanding, to their group, where the group in numbers would then argue with some well rehearsed and repeated rhetoric. To combat that level of indoctrination, I think we need a book, such that a book can be referenced and brought into such groups, and then have sufficient back and forth between the viewpoints. Something that is reference material, rather than just informative.

I didn’t catch the previous meeting, but I think addressing people on their terms is important if we are to come to any understanding. I therefore think it’s important to make sure we understand the consequences and true depths of the problems that concern people and the solutions that are proposed, even on the far right.

Brenton's proposed solution is:

  • Reduce demand for migration and get them to move back, by making them fear being in the western world, from terrorist attacks against them and by ruining opportunities by increasing instability overall.

And a criticism against it

Of note: Instability is generally unfavorable, as it makes everything less reliable. Fear doesn’t just go one way, therefore, even if you think this solution is reasonable, it should not be the favored solution unless absolutely desperate, as the “cure” might be worse than the disease. Insofar as terror-attacks are committed both by and against migrants, and opportunities are ruined for everyone, alternatives that don’t ruin opportunities, that don’t generate fear, that don’t make people more prone to act in short-term self-interest over long-term, are preferable and should be pursued over Brenton’s solution.

From a game theory perspective, we should regard society in terms of equilibria. Generally, we can either have an equilibrium that favors forgiveness (because there’s so little cheating that it is rarely punished), which is generally more effective at accomplishing any set goal, as people don’t have to expend costs to punish very often, or we can have an equilibrium where forgiveness is punished, which entails a lot of punishment and distrust as people take advantage of others at nearly every turn. In the latter, efficiency only exists in closed sub-cultures. In the short term, it is beneficial for the individual, but in the long term, it’s detrimental to everyone. As Brenton’s solution pursues instability and fear, it encourages decision-making that would push for this latter kind of equilibrium. This kind of equilibrium is to a large extent responsible for making migrants want to emigrate from their countries in the first place, and is not in any way desirable for one’s own country. This is all without considering the migrants’ ability to go back should you be able to make them want to do so. If they’ve gotten tricked into what amounts to slavery, this might not be their choice to make.

Documentary Takeaways:

It’s the traffickers. It’s the traffickers. It’s the traffickers.

  • the importation has a lot of crony corruption, by terrorists, ngos and councils, who earn money from the refugees, so are incentivised to market migration to the refugees even if it does not solve their problems