Thoughts on Migration Discourse

Pic kind of related btw.

Fuck off you damn idiot.

lemme guess, read stirner?
Literally every socialist country ever had a bit of patriotism in the mix

It's not, it's just easier for a liberal to attack you if you bring sking colour in the mix because then he can call you literally hitler

Your 'argument' boils down to 'ur an idiot'.

I've read Stirner, what he talks about is not what I talk about (he discusses subjecting yourself to some perceived higher goal).

This thread is only good posts for now.
Let's hope that the 🍔burger🍔s don't find out

This is why I advocate a complete destruction of all culture, heritage, and language in favor of a homogeneous post-human society.

t. unironic Borgist a la Star Trek

Immigration discourse for the left really shouldn't be this hard. We shouldn't need to contort ourselves into retarded positions to avoid alienating the tumblr demographic. Here, a sample platform I shat out with a battery at 9%:
- Current immigration policy is tied to 19th century quota systems which exist to stuff as many low-skilled workers into factories or onto farms. Most western economies don't have a labour shortage for permanent workers of this type and cannot feasibly integrate them.
- Immigration should therefore be retooled to meet 21st century labour needs, which favour high-skilled workers.
- Instead of yearly quotas the issuance of visas should be based on labour market shortages. For example if there is a persistent (say 3 years) shortage of mechanical engineers then the government starts issuing reasonable numbers of visas for mechanical engineers. Issuance of visas continues until enough people have been admitted to resolve most of the shortage
- Seasonal workers should be discouraged and issuance of visas for these kinds of workers should be temporary and only when it can be proven that not remedying the shortage will cause serious economic disruption
- Refugees should be admitted in numbers that correspond to what the government can afford to spend on integration. Refugees should be made aware that they will be expected to return to their home country once it is safe to. Assistance for homebuilding and nation reconstruction should be high enough to resettle all refugees.
- Drastically increase foreign aid and remove strings.
- Any permanent or temporary migrants should demonstrate enough cultural and linguistic familiarity with the home nation's culture/language to be able to function
- Migrants should not hold blatantly antisocial views, but beyond that race or religion should not be determining factors in admittance

gee I wonder who could be behind this unsourced jpeg

This reeks of bad praxis, nothing solid but it puts me on edge.

What in the hell are you on about?
There is nothing to be gained from patriotism, the state is either in the people's interest or not.

These thoughts are kind of simple so I don't know how to respond to your post. Is there something I'm not understanding? Is there a point you're trying to make?

It's a semi-woke Holla Forumsyp. I thought it was relevant to the topic.

Ah an idiot then

conservatism is more than simple fear response to people with different 'skin colors', there's a hint of that but is far from the core issue. It's easy enough to say conservatives are 'racists' and use dogwhistles to hide their 'racism' which is a purely animal and irrational vestige of their evolutionary psychology. but imo things are somewhat more complicated. It's about the loss of one's own identity under the pressures of capitalist deterritorialisation. The alt right is characterised by an irrational fear of this subhuman lumpen underclass, which is not only an external, supposedly violent threat but also an internal threat that exists within them. Holla Forumsacks are usually downwardly mobile petty bourgeois terrified of degenerating into this cultureless subhuman underclass which they desperately try to define themselves against. Ever wondered why the alt right tends to attract people whose place in the culture wasn't secure to begin with? ie. gay nazis, anime nazis, non white white nationalists?

Immigrants can't 'adapt' or 'assimilate' because there is no longer a 'culture' to which they can assimilate to. To the right, the alien exists as a frightening reminder of their own alienation. Their We is a product ofthe Other.

modern cultural conservatives find themselves in a rapidly changing world in which old hierarchies have lost their meaning. The old sense of community is gone and there's nothing left to replace it but the void of the market, a void that was put in place by the old thatcher-reagan conservatives, who despite their aesthetics were actually hypermodern technocratic revolutionaries. The alt right represents an attempt to resurrect the lost community, but unfortunately, their idea of 'community' is based entirely off half baked memes and shitposts. They are conservatives with nothing left to conserve.

Which brings us to the crisis of liberalism. Like the alt right, liberals have come to the point were they stand for nothing and believe in nothing. They define themselves in a purely negative fashion, against 'fear' , 'hate' or some other abstract bugbear. Everyone is free to bask in the glow of the commodity, take out loans and sell their labor to capitalists, but not much else. Increasingly, liberal society finds itself relying more and more on management in order to integrate and absorb disparate elements. Modern life is cold and impersonal and yet lacks any sense of privacy. you find yourself drifting through indistinguishable and sterile fluorescent lighted spaces, apple stores and fast food places, you have no idea were you come from and no idea were you are headed. It's an endless childhood, without any of the wonder of childhood an all the dependency. The negative freedom of liberalism, which rests in the last instance upon imperial-military enforcement, absorbs everything and becomes totalising and hence totalitarian. It's getting hard to keep millions of atomised psychotic units who lack a past or a future in check.

1. —As best I can tell you're talking about the "melting pot" idea that's been around 🍔burger🍔 land for centuries.

Sorry, I was a bit vague there, maybe. I wrote this post a bit dumbstruck by how global cultural change, under capitalism, seems to resemble the global economy under capitalism.

Economy === changed from localized yet uniform qua commodities produced to standardized across the West and to a lesser amount, the globe: but this 'monoculture' has become hugely diverse. So actually the melting pot (one race, one culture) doesn't really seem to happen under capitalism, as the trend instead seems towards ever higher diversity in a single, secular, progressive, liberal democratic framework.

2. —They're split among different blocs, really.

Was thinking of anti-immigration cultural conservatives.

—You can't discriminate based on skin color? Cool let's do it with something heavily correlated with skin color (see the war on drugs).

Meh dude, that's simplistic analysis. Guys like Ben Shapiro seem really convinced they are correct, and that 'if only' people behaved like 'proper Americans' all would be well.

—i.e. they're dogwhistling.

No, I disagree. You can't just tar your opponent this way, it's lazy. To me (Western European), cultural conservatives seem to go along with the ethnicity/culture divide, e.g. all criticism of culture is justified but you can never, ever, say that you dislike people with another skin color increasing in numbers in your society- or feel that way. I think that by always talking about crime etc (which is often just bullshit) they repress the fact that they dislike to see difference increase on the streets.

—There's also infrastructure, legal barriers (currency, borders, etc.), and geographic differences, among others.

What 'a people' interacts with and uses =/= the people itself. I was talking about the characteristics of humans, not their living environments or their roads!

—You seem to take the view that culture is static and/or degenerative, but culture constantly exists in flux and (especially with current infotech) people generate new culture constantly.

Hm, I was trying to stick to discourse and human perception instead of reality, but I don't myself take the view that culture is static/degenerative, afaik. (I'm not a Spenglerian and I don't buy into alt-right memes of 'degeneracy' etc.) But I do think that cultures are 'in flux' towards something and that in this 'flux' we can perceive themes we can like or not like. You should watch out before you land the 'but culture has always changed!' librul argument. I'm aware culture has always changed, but it's changing unprecedently rapidly and liberals never consider that.

—I think that the way people use the internet is going to shape culture more than physical borders as more people spend more time online than in "meatspace."

Might very well be right!

3. —Not to an individual, but over time this changes as different groups intermingle.

Groups tend to self-segregate tho. Where I live, the Maghrebi people stick together, black people stick together (and I mean as a trend), and white people stick together as a trend; everybody just ignores the obvious. It's a naive assumption to think people just intermingle.

—I would attribute this anecdote more to Islamists channeling Othering to non-Muslims than to religion mitigating the tendency to Other. The thing about religion is that it's yet another way to differentiate people, which facilitates Othering. I don't favor religoius animosity over racial animosity, especially since it has a greater tendency toward splitting than does racism.

I actually meant this! Sorry I was unclear.

4. Completely agree with this part; will maybe google Bookchin once, everybody here refers to him all the time. Was turned off him by Bob Black's polemic against him though, which was hilariously brutal.

—No, communist approach is free movement of labor. Since the concept of jobs as we have them now is gone, people will be able to go where the work to do is, like building infrastructure in poor lands.

Dude I don't think you can say there 'is' a communist way to handle migration. It's what communists decide it should be.

This.

You meant to reply to this abomination of a theory-less shitposter.

ITT: everyone here now has to let me into their house, give me all of their stuff, leave their doors unlocked and treat me better than they treat their families - communism at it's finest.

Well if you would leave your toothbrush outside like a good white Boi that wouldn't happen.

Oppose labour migration not for a supposed, but non-existent, destruction of culture, but because it marginalizes people; expands the reserve army of labour; tears apart families; destroys infrastructure in already weak countries; enables reactionary thought; and so on.

Immigrants tend to fill the gap left by an increasingly more skilled labour population. Which is bad, as it leads to a marginalized sub-group of low skilled workers who lack both the means and will to ascend vertically and horizontally, sticking for only a generation or so. Most Central European countries are a prudent example.

You don't offer much of an argument except that you want to hold unto an undefined 'ownness'. What you seem to be alluding to is regional cultural identity as defined by its difference to other cultural identities surrounding it, but the kernel culture - like any culture - is not restricted to someone's biological make-up insofar as it can be adopted and spread by anyone.
There are also practical limitations to this thinking: cultural norms can be superior in the sense that they appear to be morally better or more productively effective. Should cultures not adopt those norms?

I also don't agree with your assertion that "territories (especially those in the West) strongly resemble one another". If anything Central Europe is more diverse than it was in its Pagan days despite coalescing of regional identities. Exactly that coalescing resulted in synthesis of the identities and a differentiation of the remaining once via the march of time.
In general, cultures flourish when they are not restrained - and wither when they are. If you are a communist cultural relativist, then I think you are on the right path but for the wrong reasons.

As for your bit on Othering based on skin colour: the point is that it is not productive and therefore not worth engaging in. Only as real as you make it - a spook, if you will.

—These thoughts are kind of simple so I don't know how to respond to your post. Is there something I'm not understanding? Is there a point you're trying to make?

Yeah, 4. I'll stick to discussing them with people who did think there was something interesting.

—Damn nigga I will say you have the mind for leftism. This shit is dialectical af.

Ty my nigga.

—The alt right is characterised by an irrational fear of this subhuman lumpen underclass, which is not only an external, supposedly violent threat but also an internal threat that exists within them. Holla Forumsacks are usually downwardly mobile petty bourgeois terrified of degenerating into this cultureless subhuman underclass which they desperately try to define themselves against. Ever wondered why the alt right tends to attract people whose place in the culture wasn't secure to begin with? ie. gay nazis, anime nazis, non white white nationalists?

I dunno man, the conservative right in my country is pretty straight white male. As I said in the OP, I'm a cultural conservative myself, but I really don't think I fear or hate other people, and I'm a pretty regular guy. And I was talking about people who uphold the 'talking about Culture 'good', Ethnicity 'bad'' divide that is normal in mainstream conservative circles.

—Immigrants can't 'adapt' or 'assimilate' because there is no longer a 'culture' to which they can assimilate to. To the right, the alien exists as a frightening reminder of their own alienation. Their We is a product ofthe Other.

Sorry dude, but I explicitly pointed out 3. categorizations of culture that still exist differently in the world: 1. The specific language of a territory/state.

2. Subtle difference in habits.

3. Skin colour and build.

—Modern life is cold and impersonal and yet lacks any sense of privacy. you find yourself drifting through indistinguishable and sterile fluorescent lighted spaces, apple stores and fast food places, you have no idea were you come from and no idea were you are headed. It's an endless childhood, without any of the wonder of childhood an all the dependency. The negative freedom of liberalism, which rests in the last instance upon imperial-military enforcement, absorbs everything and becomes totalising and hence totalitarian. It's getting hard to keep millions of atomised psychotic units who lack a past or a future in check.

But how is this not an argument for restoring a sense of community?

I like your post and I get your point tho.

Yeah I think I'll show myself out of this thread.

—You don't offer much of an argument except that you want to hold unto an undefined 'ownness'.

What I want was part of the disclosure, the post itself was unrelated, and simply about how the discourse regarding 'culture' is illogical and some other things. I wasn't making one point.

—but the kernel culture - like any culture - is not restricted to someone's biological make-up insofar as it can be adopted and spread by anyone.

Actually addressed this in the post, pointed out that 'culture' is actually not what conservatives are generally afraid about, which is ultimately 'ownness' in the face of globalization and which simply includes ethnic difference. What I thought was relevant was that, where the 'super-culture' in a state is almost non-existance, there is nothing left to defend but some habits, your language, and ethnic markers, but that conservatives try very hard not to talk about the last one.

—I also don't agree with your assertion that "territories (especially those in the West) strongly resemble one another". If anything Central Europe is more diverse than it was in its Pagan days despite coalescing of regional identities.

No, in point 1. I actually said that the 'monoculture' that is produced across the West is strandardized, but offers very diverse things within itself. Like shopping malls across the world.

—In general, cultures flourish when they are not restrained - and wither when they are. If you are a communist cultural relativist, then I think you are on the right path but for the wrong reasons.

Personally I don't want to restrain culture, I want to preserve some markers of group-specifity in the face of complete standardization. I don't give a shit about 'degeneracy' or whatever, just immigration.

—the point is that it is not productive and therefore not worth engaging in. Only as real as you make it - a spook, if you will.

Our subconscious doesn't do what is productive and cannot be told what to do. That's also the weak spot of Stirner, incidentally.

K, np, have a nice day I guess.

...

1/2

"Market segmentation" is what the capitalists call it. It's useful in some circumstances for people to be as similar as possible but because people resist that, capitalism accommodates them to a degree. It can generate more profit if it tailors its products to different audiences. So basically it's adaptable. Worth noting, though: market segmentation greatly favors larger businesses due to the economy of scale it demands, so it's a useful tool for wealth accumulation and structural consolidation. The trend has turned in this direction pretty recently (late 20th century IIRC) when businesses started realizing that they could increase profits if they sold different flavors of pasta sauce and whatnot. They realized the gains from catering to diverse markets outweighed the gains in efficiency from mono-products.

I'd argue Shapiro and his ilk (a lot of the alt-right) are a byproduct. The think tanks who supported dogwhistles at some point realized that in addition to the genuine racists who would see through the messaging, they could also get people who are not racist to repeat the same ideology. "Useful idiots" you could say. There are elements of the post-irony that led to the neo-Nazi resurgence here.
Pointing out behavior isn't tarring your opponent.
Are you talking about differences in race or in culture? Because I address this directly above.
Environment is a component of any living creature because it imposes restrictions or affords options that influence their behavior. This is basic materialism. Pretty much any leftist you talk to will be a materialist, holding that physical reality holds sway over history prior to ideology.

2/2

Well again, materialism. Also reality shapes perception (duh, the point of perception is to read reality).
The fact that culture changes isn't an excuse for anything. I was trying to understand where you're coming from here. We get Holla Forums users who think civilization peaked in the Roman empire or whatever.

Over time people mix more and more. Typically this happens on a scale of hundreds or thousands of years. Capitalism tends to speed this up both in its promotion of migration and its separation of work life from home life (people from different ethnic communities converge at work). So under capitalism the effect is faster than normal. What it would look like under communism is not obvious because it depends on many factors. My point here is that intermixing is part of the march of history. The increase in rate does cause tension like you said before. This is just one factor that would push the rate of mixing slower in communism where workers would be freer to choose their work (and more likely to self-segregate).

I referenced him because of the meme and because his ideas are directly relevant. Not so much his program specifically but his stuff on how humans tend to organize - we're most comfortable with local groups where we know people.
But free movement of labor (i.e. the people) is almost exactly synonymous with "what communists decide it should be" - self determination.

"Traditional values" can also be code for the accepted social norms within a community and thus the predictability and sense of order that an individual can expect from his or her environment. The same reason that religious immigrants band together is what drives the host communities to behave conservatively, which is to preserve the sense of security they derive from being in their homogeneous communities.

For conservatives, loss of "traditional values" means leaving order and entering chaos, it's not just muh religion. Many will lay down their lives attempting to preserve order, this is tribalism with the individual at it's center. Ultimately I think people want a safe platform to raise children and that is deep-seated stuff. Religion is little more than a framework or blueprint which acts as cohesion within the community.

Typically you have to have never had that sense of secure community to not feel any sense of loss for it being taken away, and the loss is not so much a sense of identity but as much or more a sense of security. We pretend we are nihilists because we can see through religious bullshit but the truth is that it just fits how we feel. In other words welcome to the world of the millennial and/or abuse victim.

I don't think you grasp a culture is something independent from (though intertwined with) a society or group.
The Ideas pertaining to the cosmology of poetry, cuisine and music not only still exist today, but in many cases exist in material form. Poetry, music instructions, cooking instructions and so on are still present
Grammatical understanding of dead languages have been brought from dead plenty of times as well - Classical Latin being the most famous example, but it is definitely not the most impressive one. These cultures persist, despite the original societies that created them having perished along the way. (Again, Greco-Roman culture making an excellent example.)
Labour movements aren't a culture in themselves, they produce culture.

Also, I'm not a Stirnerite. I was merely pointing out that acting on (conscious) prejudices is unproductive. You know, since so many posters struggle to comprehend that a Spook isn't exactly the same as Idea.

I was in a hurry and skimmed through your post. I apologize for wasting your time.

I generally agree with this (it's a more nuanced version of what I tried to summarize) except
Here you imply/assume that communities really are being taken away when the majority of people have been alienated from their neighbors due to work hours and the increasing number of diversions that keep us from leaving our houses. Most of the people who have a sense of community like that are the extremely poor whom capitalism disregards and/or sends to prison and the people wealthy enough to have shit like home owners' associations. People don't really live like that any more, and our "sense of security" has become a lot more abstract and prone to manipulation. A major reason why "culture war" shit is so prevalent is because entertainment media are the only places where a lot of people get an impression of a community any more. They don't know their neighbors, so they're not attentive to shit like black people moving into the neighborhood but they get upset over black people moving into the "neighborhood" (cast) of their entertainment.
No, I'm an actual nihilist/egoist. And I take it all the way to its conclusion. Pic related.

Good point. What I find interesting is the way liberal ideology seems to have gone along with that, and that nowadays everything is about 'expressing' yourself in whatever way you want and identifying any way you want. As if culture is a diverse marketplace.

Shapiro actually got the most death threats from white supremacists according to the anti-defamation league, and has written multiple articles decrying 'blood and soil' nationalism, e.g. what he thinks all European nationalism is implicitly.
Shapiro, afaik, is an honest American exceptionalist and individualist who thinks America is and should be a country of immigration.

Sorry, was a bit tired when writing this reply. My point was always that in our individualis, anti-racist culture there is a divide in acceptable discourse that I think conservatives (with some exceptions that are now beginning to show) have always tried to follow themselves. That divide is that if you dislike purely cultural change, e.g. fragmentation of habits and language across a society, you have an opinion that is still acceptable. Even Merkel could decry multiculturalism at some point. Disliking any sort of change in factors people cannot just change (skin colour and build) is, however, seen and felt as miserable racism.

What I fould relevant and somewhat surprising, is that conservative concerns about culture and ethnicity ultimately come from the same source but that they deny this to themselves. I think conservatives legitimately want to uphold the divide of acceptable discourse (at least until now) while from a conservative perspective this is actually illogical. There's an illustrative interview of Douglas Murray by Dave Rubin where he goes like 'white people are now a minority in London' but then says his point against migration is that migrants, apparently, just don't like Goethe. His unease about his country becoming ever more non-white is obvious, but he can't admit it to himself, and to the audience.

Yes, but we assume different intent behind it. You say conservatives want to trick people, I think they are legitimately in self-denial.

—Environment is a component of any living creature because it imposes restrictions or affords options that influence their behavior. This is basic materialism. Pretty much any leftist you talk to will be a materialist, holding that physical reality holds sway over history prior to ideology.

Eh, can't you split culture from economy while acknowledging the former is dominated by the latter, and largely produced by it? And I would argue that my point is materialist, since I think that capitalism standardizes our living environment as well, and does so thoroughly, and hereby renders geography more and more irrelevant.

1/2

—Well again, materialism. Also reality shapes perception (duh, the point of perception is to read reality).

I dunno, just reading mentalities and the logic they produce is fun on its own, but I get your point.

—I was trying to understand where you're coming from here. We get Holla Forums users who think civilization peaked in the Roman empire or whatever.

Holla Forums, never once. Well, personally, tbh, I like soceties that look the same and act the same, e.g. I like homogeneity. I think that people generally feel best in a society where they recognize themselves wherever they go and hence feels like a kind of 'home' to them. I would never join the alt-right because they are a. legit racists (believing in race inequality) and b. hate minorities and c. are anti-semites.

—Over time people mix more and more. Typically this happens on a scale of hundreds or thousands of years.

Jews and Romani have been marginalized (Romani far more so ofc) across Europe for at least a milennium. The immigration patterns we are seeing, as well as the level of outer difference (namely skin colour) in our societies are simply unprecedented. It's really hard to make a prediction of it. Migration in Europe was always white migration, so the migrants just had to change the way they spoke and behaved and, in a generation, they would be seen as natives. But skin colour robs you of that consistently. Americans were scared of catholic immigration (Irish, etc) but in the end American white identity became a pretty homogeneous bloc. Asians, black people, perhaps to a lesser extent Hispanics, have historically been closer to the edges of society. Which fucking sucks ofc.

—My point here is that intermixing is part of the march of history.

Projecting a teleological track onto reality is lazy thinking. Marx tried to do it, and we're living in the scraps of his glorious predictions. As I pointed out above, multi-'racial' societies characterized by strong outer differences have, until now, always been examples of segregation and friction. Agree with your analysis of capitalism and migration there.

—we're most comfortable with local groups where we know people.

And where people look like us and act like us. Why do you think people reproduce different clothing styles and hairstyles across sub-cultures? To identify themselves as part of a group.

—But free movement of labor (i.e. the people) is almost exactly synonymous with "what communists decide it should be" - self determination.

That's just untrue. Say, communism has a form of central planning. In central planning, one institute decides what has to be produced, where, so labour will just have to tag along with what the planners say as in the USSR, e.g. its movement is not free but directed. (Unless you define communism as stateless by definition, but I personally think a stateless society is impossible in our densely populated world.) Labour could also just be planned to move about inside its own continent, or not much at all. Why send workers to Africa for infrastructural projects except some highly-schooled workers? It has people, it lacks capital.

2/2

my dude, when you are quoting a post that you are responding to, you can prefix the quoted line with a ">" rather than dashes to make it greentext. this helps make your posts easier to follow.

polite sage for off topic

Ty, will remember!

Multiculturalism is is a faucet of 'cultural capitalism', the purpose being to create an alienated native proletariat and disrupt class unity with large waves of lumpenprole who are ready to vote for corrupt politicians.
A true worker's movement cannot survive within a multicultural society because ethnic tribalism & idpol spooks will always drive splinters and focus on everything besides class struggle.

Yeah would def. agree. Homogeneous societies are able to keep ethnic idpol away from politics (unless there is a situation of crisis), I'd say. Divided societies like African societies see their politics dominated by idpolling elites.

Plus it keeps away cultural capitalism.
Multicultural (cultural not ethnic) societies needs a cultural middle ground and that is often consumerist culture (see america)

Not really getting all the anti-immigration posts. Immigration is not a core issue, and ideally anyone should be allowed to go anywhere.

This talk about how it alienates workers or drives down wages only make sense from a national perspective which is inimical to communism. For example, you say they will not assimilate, but doesn't our own "culture" need to change? Not that I even believe in discrete cultures.

Seems like people trying to tear down the board by getting leftists to agree that immigration is bad, when it will never get further than that and you're just consolidating xenophobia. It's not that you shouldn't be afraid of others, that's whatever. You should be more afraid of yourselves and people like you.

Lastly for mainly white people (sorry for muh idpol) to rag on immigration when we literally forced our way around the world and destroyed other people's cultures is fucking hilarious. Internationalism is the only way we have left for ourselves, and all you "homogeneous society" people are horribly deluded, since that has literally never existed. Uneven and combined development?

Fuck off you worthless reactionary pieces of shit.

It needs to change in the sense that it needs to distance itself from capitalism and consumerism.
Ok you are a redditor
pic related

You fuck off

...

You are worth less than the anal crust sticking to the sweaty taint of the loneliest Holla Forums incel. You should bite your own tongue and drown in your own worthless blood you fucking piece of shit.

youtube.com/watch?v=J5qEmvL-D0w

Americans must go

Fucking digusting, and fucking moronic too. Make some sense next time

OP here.

Our political situation is that of nation-states, right now. If you accept mass-migration, right now, it will drive down wages and alienate workers. Of course, in the long term in a potential communism, we wouldn't have to discuss wages at least.

Lots of migrants assimilate, but they are usually white. When white people change habits and language in a predominantly white country, they blend in in a generation. Non-white people are usually exluded by the majority and form cliques to feel included somewhere. You can say this is a racist observation, but take a look at what migrants Europe cannot seems to accept, or ongoing ethnic friction in America ,and tell me I'm wrong. And I'm not blaming anyone or anything.

>>but doesn't our own "culture" need to change?

Why? Insofar as it's sexist or racist (although you prob. see me as racist, which I can understand) or capitalist, well, yes, of course.

Sigh. The ghost of Stirner strikes again, I guess. I dunno man, Italians, French, Germans, they seem noticeably different to me, in habits and language.

Not everything is a secret pol plot. I literally just wanted to discuss this on the only leftist space that I knew would not ban me for it.

This argument is excellent to me, since it's the liberal catchall for anyone who wants to keep some kind of homogeneous culture, a 'gem' of liberal argumentation, if you will. You have another 'gem' below. Would you go to Japan and yell at the people there that they are consolidating xenophobia? They have a high-functioning and integrated society; it has bad traits, definitely, but they don't have the identity crisis Europe seems mired in, and which is escalating where I live. They don't have the ethnicized politics of Africa; this multi-ethnicity is lamented in this article by a South-Sudanese scholar, which you should at least read and consider before writing a reply: brookings.edu/articles/ethnicity-an-african-predicament/. An interesting quote: "Sudan offers an extreme example. The dominant North, a hybrid of Arab and African racial, cultural, and religious elements, is trying to resolve its identity crisis by being more Arab and Islamic than its prototypes. Worse, this distorted self-perception, heightened by the agendas of political elites, is projected as the framework for unifying and integrating the country, generating a devastating zero-sum conflict between the Arab-Muslim North and the indigenously African South"

I'm not afraid of migrants who are different, I don't think they are bad people. But I would preferably live next to people who act like me and look like me, and that's just who I am. If that makes me a piece of shit, I can't change that.

Wot?

Literally white guilt. And 'I' didn't to shit, I didn't even live back then. Speaking of Spooks…

Your second 'gem'. The 'no society was ever homogeneous' argument, therefore it doesn't matter how heterogeneous it is. At this point in history, Europe is more homogeneous than it has ever been and it's pretty great. Capitalism has erased harsh civil distinctions, for the most part, and we feel a mild level of familiarity with people across our national state. Continents like Africa are rife with ethnicized politics, and progressives would have us follow along.

I am an internationalist, I think Europe should abandon economic growth for itself and focus on developing the Third World as much as it can and the African countries would want. But immigration has already thrown us into a identity crisis, is dividing my country, enabling rabid hate by the white majority, and could potentially turn us into a brand new South-Sudan, in the manner Francis Deng described.

OP again, here's some sourcing for my claim that cohesion is produced by homogeneity. It's from this site: socialdemocracy21stcentury.blogspot.de/

The evidence that diversity is catastrophic has been available for a long time, and some of the best research comes from the work of Robert Putnam. Notably, Putnam is a multiculturalist liberal, and he was so shocked by his research findings he delayed publishing them for years on end.

See also the following studies here:

(1) Wickes, Rebecca, Zahnow, Renee, White, Gentry and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2014. “Ethnic Diversity and its Impact on Community Social Cohesion and Neighborly Exchange,” Journal of Urban Affairs 36.1: 51–78.

(2) Sturgis, Patrick, Brunton-Smith, Ian, Kuha, Jouni and Jonathan Jackson. 2014. “Ethnic Diversity, Segregation and the Social Cohesion of Neighbourhoods in London,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37.8: 1286–1309.

Wickes et al. (2014) seems generally to confirm Putnam.

Sturgis et al. (2014) has curious findings that seem to indicate that positive attitudes to diversity decrease with a person’s age, and ethnic self-segregation actually makes separate communities more cohesive, which utterly refutes the Cult of Diversity belief that mixing up people of different racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds makes them happier or their communities more successful.

Text above is a literal quote btw.

Btw, the site in question can be hysterical so I'd recommend reading the research for yourself and forming your own opinion. I can do it for you if you want to.