sofiechan home

States are tools and territory for peoples, not magical repositories of real interest

anon_peva said in #5164 25h ago: received

In the "high skill" immigration debate, I see people conflating the interests of "us" with those of the American state. There are arguments to be made that certain kinds of immigration are of benefit to the state. The state gets more labor and perhaps high quality labor for example. Growth is good. "We" need growth to "beat" China. You have all heard this. I don't actually even agree that the state's accounting is positive on alien immigration, but let's put that aside and focus on a different problem: the state's interests are not your interests.

We American capitalists are perhaps better trained in thinking about our interest relative to a for-profit corporation. Let's say you own some founder shares in America-corp. Some new foreign investors come along (imagine the smell) and you get shafted in the resulting deal: the company is worth more, but now your shares are worth less, leaving you as a glorified employee. Your interests are no longer aligned with the corporation, and you're now just resume-stacking, running a normal career, and networking for your eventual bitter departure. We all know this intuitively.

But somehow in the case of states people don't see it so rationally. The state, too is a corporation. You own "shares" in it through your citizenship. The major difference is that if the state screws you over to its own benefit with immigration, you have less legal recourse. So the first enlightenment is actually following the calculation all the way through: when we take new "high skill" immigrants, when all political impacts and changes resultant from that are accounted for, does it benefit, not "us" (a fictionalized collective created for the benefit of the state), but *you*? I find it much harder to meet this bar.

This may not be apparent without a further enlightenment: the actual ground-truth of collective interest is based in coalitions of you and people with similar interests, not states. The factions can be based in religion or socioeconomic class, but especially in modern multicultural conditions, they are based primarily in ethnicity and even race. The actual repository of your collective interest is *your people* with whom you symmetrically share inalienable bonds of interest, conviviality, history, identity, and basic character. Whether you like it or not, whether it fits your ideology or not, when you get thrown into an open-air prison society, you too will be joining the Aryan Brotherhood (or whatever is appropriate to your ancestry). The reason for this is that these groupings are more resistant to dilution and politics than the social institutions that can prove in tough times to be made of mere paper.

The question is not what is best for the state, but what is best for your people. The state is just a piece of territory that you built up for your collective benefit separate from the state. It can be taken from you. The question becomes whether some action of the state means your people having a better position in the world. "Beating China" does mean something in this view, but it means *beating the Chinese people*. Do we care to do that? Maybe; we certainly don't want them to beat us. I would prefer that we all get along at a safe distance. But if "beating China" in inter-state conflict requires inviting in and giving way to Chinese"-Americans" in intra-state racial struggle, what exactly is the point? They will not be as generous to us as we have been to them.

Likewise, we can reevaluate international affairs through this lens: is it worth firebombing Europe for the supremacy of "our" state in the competition for control of the third world? The material result for our actual people was a crushing defeat, both domestically and internationally, though it was a victory of "our state".

In the age of multiculturalism, things are rapidly heating up to come to a head, and you are going to find out the hard way that what had been "our states" are but mere territory to be captured by enemies. States are not peoples, and are not yours. Ignore their interests and focus on the people.

referenced by: >>5170 >>5173

In the "high skill" received

anon_feda said in #5166 22h ago: received

we are talking past each other, and we keep making the same argument over and over again. so let me oblige: aren't there immigrants capable of positive sum contributions? this is not an argument to expand the stem opt or the o1 visa as is. this is not an argument for mass 'high-skilled' immigration. its a simple statement of fact that outlier talent has positive sum contributions that benefits us.

referenced by: >>5167 >>5172

we are talking past received

anon_peva said in #5167 17h ago: received

>>5166
I'm not whatever other anon you were arguing with, but yes there are obviously individuals who make positive sum contributions to a people by coming among them. I'd be happy to take a quite cosmopolitan view of it, in fact, if it were not for the crucial matter of political chain migration. There are even whole peoples whose merger is mutually beneficial (see for example the scottish and english, or angles and saxons). But my point is that these dynamics are rather hard to achieve, rare, and balanced by very real costs and runaway feedback processes that everyone is currently in the process of dishonestly denying.

People argue about immigration in all-or-nothing terms. You can easily see this as a problem because the extremes are in fact rather extreme. However it also reflects the actual structure of the situation. If you don't have many immigrants, you also find you don't need any and the costs of having to tolerate even a few are very apparent. Japan and China would not be particularly improved by immigration, and neither I think would a 99% British Britain. Once you have substantially allowed in migration though, you have become an "immigration society" and disenfranchised the natives of their ability to represent their collective interests politically, and there's no obvious stopping point to that process.

In particular, the marginal still-foreigners among you become seemingly excessively and solely involved in agitation for further immigration, identify with "immigrants" as a class over their nominal countrymen, and start dismantling the internal structures of their host society to favor further immigration. And to elaborate on the disenfranchisement point, you have to fundamentally break a people's will and control of their own destiny to get them to accept foreigners as equals in their own society, so it's no small thing to bring in even that first 5%.

Insofar as the majority native population in a country gets their balls back and starts filtering immigration for their own benefit at all, the actual desirable amount is almost always "less than we have now". Who wants a bunch of strangers living in their own house as equals? And once that process gets going, the only natural endpoint is a total moratorium "until we can figure out what the hell is going on". When the pendulum is swinging that way, arguing that we actually need a few high skill immigrants to come in is rightly and accurately seen as a trojan horse for unlimited migration, because again there do not appear to be stable solutions in the middle. So we get our all-or-nothing discourse.

In an apolitical vacuum in which immigrants were politically inert, you can get away with a lot of immigration. The gulf monarchies are exploring how far this can go. But in actual reality the way modern societies work, they are either made to be politically inert through the use of occasionally brutal repression and concentration camps (see Xinjiang), or they try to take over and declare open borders for their global brownoid neo-identity cohort and make the original natives second class citizens (see the YooKay).

I'm not whatever oth received

anon_swku said in #5168 16h ago: received

Great posts in this thread OP but like I said in the other thread: we're long past the stage of "arguments" when it comes to immigration.

Everyone - in every demographic - knows the score now. Everyone knows that non-white immigration has been a disaster for White countries. Everyone knows that they can't and don't assimilate. Everyone knows that "we" don't "need" any more "talent" and that "high skill" immigration is strictly about getting cheaper and more compliant labor and reinforcing hostile foreign ethnic blocs. Everyone understands the current situation, even dumb proles who don't know what a transistor is. There are no New Arguments that will Convince anyone to "change their mind" anymore.

"B-b-b-but ackshually there's this 217 IQ guy in Bangalore and we need him to come here and Do The AI so that we can Beat Chin-"

No, we don't. Shut the fuck up. We know your real agenda. Everyone does. And you know that we know, and you still spew this bullshit. God that other thread is awful.

referenced by: >>5172

Great posts in this received

anon_joro said in #5169 16h ago: received

Isn't the best way to solve these problems to ensure the political treatises and manufactures (statehood, currency, communication, roads) best align with the underlying people?

Empires unfortunately like to include many different peoples, making them not a nation-state but just a State.

The only answer in this day and age seems to be separation by distance. Defensive warfare and organization is not easily tenable.

Isn't the best way t received

jewishman said in #5170 10h ago: received

>>5164
I would begin a critique of this by questioning whether or not there is a grand project of the state—beating geopolitical rivals, driving down the cost of labor, whatever...—and suggesting that what remains of the state is clearly subordinate to, or captured by, transnational capital. Firms, business federations, and financial institutions have no loyalty to anyone. Their goals are pursued anarchically (cut the fetters, smash the unions, delete the laws).

If that sounds too Marxist, I'll put it this way: Fight Jewish capital! Come to think of it, I suppose Kamiya Sohei had to use that line, since he would have sounded like a communist otherwise...

I understand that we've reached a point where it seems inconceivable that the power of the state could be wielded to ensure the health and vitality of the people. I know that most reading this will have no recollection of a time before Barak Obama, let alone memories of life before Ronald Reagan. But I think that there is something more hopeful to aspire to in the American project than prison gang logic under neoliberal austerity.

I would begin a crit received

anon_feda said in #5171 5h ago: received

What makes a people, a people aren't merely shared interests, but rather shared understanding of who they are. Ideally the self-conception of a people would be one that furthers their interests. I call this ideology-country fit. And the American people in the 21st century in a way lacks a coherent consensus on this question of identity. We probably have major disagreements over it. It seems like you have a more racialist and nordicist answer on who you think should be the American people, or is *your people*.

Perhaps I'm a hopeless cosmopolitan liberal, and am only drawn to NRx because I feel betrayed. But I think the American identity is one that is a fusion between anglo ethno-cultural heritage and a post-racial civic universalism. In practice there are exceptions made for black nationalism and more recently third worldism (another case of liberals betraying liberalism, shocker). And both anglo ethno-cultural heritage and a post-racial civic universalism exist in a tension with each other, with the latter gradually undermining the former as you argued. Nonetheless, I find racialism as something to be transcended. We ought to develop a scientific understanding of races, but not derive our self from them.

However that we are turning into a mosaic of 'communities' its not inherent to post-racial civic universalism, but due to the betrayal by the left liberals, who created weak assimilationist norms and pursued cynical political exploitation of immigrant communities as an electoral bloc. A return to racialist identities in America likewise is poor ideology-country fit. The electorate generally speaking don't support it, and besides the logical conclusion of racialism in ethnically heterogeneous polities is civil war and genocide. This is the track record of Israel/Palestine, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Germany and more.

Where does this leave us? The immigration debate is downstream of a confidence crisis. A self-confident civilization rooted in the Anglo ethno-cultural inheritance but not owned by it, doesn't need racial definition because it has something better: a project worth assimilating into. The map above understood this. The virtues it labeled across the northern states were civilizational achievements that people could join by adopting them. That's the only version of an American identity that can actually work in an ethnically heterogeneous polity, and it's more demanding than blood and soil nationalism. Building something worth believing in is harder.

referenced by: >>5173

What makes a people, received

anon_xizi said in #5172 2h ago: received

>>5166
For some reason you continually handwave the criticism that any negative traits these outlier foreigners carry will ALSO have outsized effect. I would be exceptionally careful dealing with the "elite" of countries which have been stagnant hellholes for actual millennia, lest they replicate the practices which wrought that in our nations as well.

We don't need poisonous rentier cronyism, which is the default state of the third world elite.

>>5168
What this guy said. Nobody trusts you to keep our interests in mind after immigration enthusiasts have catastrophically mishandled it for the last 60 years. It's fairly incontrovertible to say we would be overall better off not having let a single person in after 1965, rather than what actually happened.

For some reason you received

anon_xizi said in #5173 32m ago: received

>>5164
> The question is not what is best for the state, but what is best for your people.
The problem is that these people seem to have no feeling of connection to heartland America. They are, to varying degrees, obsessed with a laughably idealistic postracial-technocratic utopian vision. You are appealing to instincts and goals that do not exist - instead, you need to emphasize that it will never work, even if they get their way in entirety.
They ignore the racial fundament inherent to the word "nation", the bioessentialist understanding of the implications of miscegenation for that, and the endangerment of the power of our institutions through that, in which people preceded procedure and never the other way around.

Even more bitterly laughable is that they don't really understand even the aracial cultural arguments which you discuss here. They do not properly analyze the truly inferior cultures they want to draw power from, or their own which they have recieved all their inheritance from. It's like progressively replacing the foundation of your house with sealant, as though it can feasibly step in for concrete. If they were actually serious about this, they would aggressively pursue policies of forcible assimilation and interbreeding - ah, hmm...
Regardless, they have now kneecapped their own decisionmaking process by introducing so many subversives improperly assimilated and/or mistakenly admitted who are solely interested in extractionary sectarian gain, not the advancement of any state goals. It will now require extreme extra/postlegal measures to forcibly extricate the millions of parasites wrapped around the state mechanisms. Thanks, immigrationists!
>>5171
> Nonetheless, I find racialism as something to be transcended. We ought to develop a scientific understanding of races, but not derive our self from them.
First, let's ask what racialism is to help us see how silly this is.
"Racialism is the belief that humanity is divided into distinct, fixed, and inherited racial categories that determine inherent human traits, abilities, and behavioral characteristics."
This is like saying "transcend your biological sex" or analogously, "transcend Linnaean taxonomy". What is "you" is a set of inborn traits and instincts which are identified through the classification system of "race". This then leads to the obvious conclusion that too large a distance in this from one group to another unified in one state creates an schizophrenic, unstable system by default. What is wholesome to one group may be inimical to another. You are saying we should identify this and then do nothing about it.
> the logical conclusion of racialism in ethnically heterogeneous polities is civil war and genocide. This is the track record of Israel/Palestine, Turkey, Yugoslavia, Germany and more.
All of these involve closely related groups at odds for other reasons.

The problem is that received

You must login to post.