I love Unherd for giving platform to fringe ideas. It is the first time that I heard somebody frame present mass immigration as colonisation. Freddy evades the key issue by mixing up immigrants who integrate (like Rishie Sunak) with those who do not even intend to do so (like Pakistani grooming gangs).
I asked Grok for a definition of colonisation. An external group establishes dominance over a territory and its native population, fundamentally altering its demographic, cultural, economic, and/or political fabric, often without the consent of the indigenous inhabitants. This dominance is achieved through a combination of settlement, resource extraction, cultural imposition, and institutional control, typically prioritizing the colonizers’ identity and power over the continuity of the pre-existing society.
These characteristics of colonisation define perfectly well immigrants who have no intent of integrating and wish instead that their culture should dominate over the indigenous culture. The key issue here is “dominance over a territory”. If the territory is Angered, Biskopsgården, then the dominance is there. If it is Sweden, then fortunately not (yet).
