Wonderful piece - and worth recognising that this outcome is something like the "best case" for immigration, one where those arriving are essentially hardworking, economically productive, genuinely culturally enriching and not prone to crime. The reality, aside from the obvious principle you are illustrating, is that in addition to the demands for change and special treatment, and the manifold negative impacts (both large and small) on existing communities, many immigrants are criminal and economically unproductive to boot
I honestly find it incredible that anyone in their right mind can continue to support mass immigration. The problem with leftist thinking is that it is still rooted in 19th century principles that have no relevance in the modern world. This makes their values irrelevant and their moral posturing empty. At what point in the last hundred years did they abandon the economic first principle of supply and demand? I too have lost many friends since I have drifted right but who wants to associate with a low infomation cult that's going to get us all killed anyway?
Also, the 19th century was mostly immigration from European countries to either other European countries, colonies, or the USA. Sure, there were still differences, but they remained vaguely compatible from the days of the Roman Empire. And at that point the countries probably needed to grow; at this point, I'd call them matured, and I don't want more people here in the USA at all. Even if they're white Europeans. And I definitely don't need 20 million illegal-alien or "temporary" (what is it, 15 years and counting, Haiti? Even the Covid scam ended faster!) protected-status criminal randos at my doorstep.
A radio program in my area summed it up nicely: they aren't making more beach. So, in my lifetime, 1 million people became 10 million people became 30 million people who all wanted the same beach/lake/wherever. Demand is up, price is up, satisfaction is down (because even if you do get in, it's crowded and heavily corporatized and not even as good, anyway), and what the hell do we need so much "unskilled" labor for if all the AI and robots are taking over anyway? The frequent complaint here is "we need more housing" but, really -- not to sound too much like Klaus Schwab -- I think we need fewer people. We're bumping into each other and all want our own space without the other guys. I have begun to theorize there is a population density threshold that causes a personality shift in most people and makes a society a much worse place to live. Even my extremely left-wing sister described a trip to India as insufferable due to "people everywhere." It might be more profitable to pack everyone in like it's Bangladesh or wherever, but I have zero interest in ever living like that.
Endless, inifinite growth is the capitalist model, so it's really weird that the self-proclaimed socialists want it. And if those evil bastards want something, that's as good a reason as any to be against it.
It is indeed a puzzle that while Asians idolize book learning, cram for exams, and seek mastery of difficult subjects, all of the finest insitutions of higher learning are in the West where kids are recently descended from farmers, prefer football, goof off in class, and look down on book learning as geeky. It's a paradox that argues for a hidden truth in the West, a blunt contradiction in our approach to the intellect. I find it disturbing that a massive influx of Asians, however much I personally like them, would muddle if not sweep away the Western character that made the West an object of such intense, striving desire to Asians in the first place.
"Nations, especially small ones, are made by their people. When the people change, the nation changes too. It’s just a cold fact that we hate accepting."
Quantity (of people) is a quality all its own.
In this context, a country like the U.S. which has ... let's say for the sake of argument ... something like 300 Million either "fully Americanized" or at least "kind of, pretty much, more or less Americanized" persons ... that rather large "quantity" can provide somewhat of a buffer against some 30 Million aliens flooding in over the course of, say, 5 to 10 years ... which is exactly where the U.S. is, today. And most Americans agree that even the so-called immigrant nation of the U.S. is drowning; it's one big reason Trump got elected multiple times.
And yes, the concept of "Americanized" and my cited numbers are fuzzy and inexact; but the point is, the U.S. is pretty big, both in terms of geographic spread (and places where people actually can live) and population.
Canada (a lot of it frozen); Australia (a lot of it desert/outback); Ireland; Sweden ... comparatively small. Immigrants flooding in will literally overwhelm these countries in a way that the U.S. at least has some buffering capacity for.
As you imply, the smaller countries are in danger of drowning and losing their "legacy culture", more so than the U.S. is. So if the U.S. is in trouble -- and it is -- the situation in Ireland, Australia, Canada ... must be dire if not already fatal.
"It’s an uneasy cold peace that makes everyone a little more miserable". - is my favourite line, because it paints a very bleak picture of the netresult of even the best case mass immigration scenario and as such is a slam dunk argument against mass migration.
Why would you care to counter it, if you are not indifferent to the wellbeing of people?
- Nations, especially small ones, are made by their people. When the people change, the nation changes too.
- Those small, everyday structures that hold a society together don’t survive mass demographic change intact. They erode gradually, then suddenly, until people are left with quiet resignation and a country that no longer feels like theirs.
Wonderful piece - and worth recognising that this outcome is something like the "best case" for immigration, one where those arriving are essentially hardworking, economically productive, genuinely culturally enriching and not prone to crime. The reality, aside from the obvious principle you are illustrating, is that in addition to the demands for change and special treatment, and the manifold negative impacts (both large and small) on existing communities, many immigrants are criminal and economically unproductive to boot
I honestly find it incredible that anyone in their right mind can continue to support mass immigration. The problem with leftist thinking is that it is still rooted in 19th century principles that have no relevance in the modern world. This makes their values irrelevant and their moral posturing empty. At what point in the last hundred years did they abandon the economic first principle of supply and demand? I too have lost many friends since I have drifted right but who wants to associate with a low infomation cult that's going to get us all killed anyway?
Also, the 19th century was mostly immigration from European countries to either other European countries, colonies, or the USA. Sure, there were still differences, but they remained vaguely compatible from the days of the Roman Empire. And at that point the countries probably needed to grow; at this point, I'd call them matured, and I don't want more people here in the USA at all. Even if they're white Europeans. And I definitely don't need 20 million illegal-alien or "temporary" (what is it, 15 years and counting, Haiti? Even the Covid scam ended faster!) protected-status criminal randos at my doorstep.
A radio program in my area summed it up nicely: they aren't making more beach. So, in my lifetime, 1 million people became 10 million people became 30 million people who all wanted the same beach/lake/wherever. Demand is up, price is up, satisfaction is down (because even if you do get in, it's crowded and heavily corporatized and not even as good, anyway), and what the hell do we need so much "unskilled" labor for if all the AI and robots are taking over anyway? The frequent complaint here is "we need more housing" but, really -- not to sound too much like Klaus Schwab -- I think we need fewer people. We're bumping into each other and all want our own space without the other guys. I have begun to theorize there is a population density threshold that causes a personality shift in most people and makes a society a much worse place to live. Even my extremely left-wing sister described a trip to India as insufferable due to "people everywhere." It might be more profitable to pack everyone in like it's Bangladesh or wherever, but I have zero interest in ever living like that.
Endless, inifinite growth is the capitalist model, so it's really weird that the self-proclaimed socialists want it. And if those evil bastards want something, that's as good a reason as any to be against it.
Brilliantly put.
It is indeed a puzzle that while Asians idolize book learning, cram for exams, and seek mastery of difficult subjects, all of the finest insitutions of higher learning are in the West where kids are recently descended from farmers, prefer football, goof off in class, and look down on book learning as geeky. It's a paradox that argues for a hidden truth in the West, a blunt contradiction in our approach to the intellect. I find it disturbing that a massive influx of Asians, however much I personally like them, would muddle if not sweep away the Western character that made the West an object of such intense, striving desire to Asians in the first place.
"Nations, especially small ones, are made by their people. When the people change, the nation changes too. It’s just a cold fact that we hate accepting."
Quantity (of people) is a quality all its own.
In this context, a country like the U.S. which has ... let's say for the sake of argument ... something like 300 Million either "fully Americanized" or at least "kind of, pretty much, more or less Americanized" persons ... that rather large "quantity" can provide somewhat of a buffer against some 30 Million aliens flooding in over the course of, say, 5 to 10 years ... which is exactly where the U.S. is, today. And most Americans agree that even the so-called immigrant nation of the U.S. is drowning; it's one big reason Trump got elected multiple times.
And yes, the concept of "Americanized" and my cited numbers are fuzzy and inexact; but the point is, the U.S. is pretty big, both in terms of geographic spread (and places where people actually can live) and population.
Canada (a lot of it frozen); Australia (a lot of it desert/outback); Ireland; Sweden ... comparatively small. Immigrants flooding in will literally overwhelm these countries in a way that the U.S. at least has some buffering capacity for.
As you imply, the smaller countries are in danger of drowning and losing their "legacy culture", more so than the U.S. is. So if the U.S. is in trouble -- and it is -- the situation in Ireland, Australia, Canada ... must be dire if not already fatal.
Put this pretend society under severe economic (or other) pressure and I doubt the ending will be as benign as quiet resignation.
"It’s an uneasy cold peace that makes everyone a little more miserable". - is my favourite line, because it paints a very bleak picture of the netresult of even the best case mass immigration scenario and as such is a slam dunk argument against mass migration.
Why would you care to counter it, if you are not indifferent to the wellbeing of people?
What are some of your other favorite lines?
- Nations, especially small ones, are made by their people. When the people change, the nation changes too.
- Those small, everyday structures that hold a society together don’t survive mass demographic change intact. They erode gradually, then suddenly, until people are left with quiet resignation and a country that no longer feels like theirs.