>>18366
or even legal immigration, if its the wrong people
heres the contents of my immigration.txt
———-
immigration is very much not a monovalent thing. so basically its not inherently good and not always good
it doesnt take a genius to see that there great people distributed all around the world, often in bad (i.e. worse than here) governments and that it would benefit all to come together (under the best government) and collaborate on technology. the fallacy then is to think that since some immigration is good, more will be better.
to achieve an understanding resembling he empirical, we have to consider the general social dynamics
[theorem of societal virtues]*
[theorem of general social dynamics among its elements]
inertia from desire to memetic ## this is relevant for the transformation of a society. also of a migrated segregaded/secular society
*** social inertia can be described as a force trending toward a cerain point (like a conservative field)
inertia (soft – for whole population) caps due to genetics, wich cause certain behavioural traits, wich influence social dynamics
inertia from habits ## this is important for immigration (first gen etc)
—-
immigration is not the thing giving us strength. it is a very specific kind of immigration
—-
instead of the marxist forced 100% blend
let it naturally evolve, see who wants to be with who, for whatever reasons, and take it from there
* theorem of societal virtues
obviously certain attributes (zero corruption, altruism, foresight, peacefulness, cooperation, work ethic, excellence ..) make a society more sucessfull than ones without those attributes or ones wich make a society less sucessful (corruption, lazyness, shortterm spending, hedonism, decadence, wastefulness, infighting, warmongering, antitechnology, embracing mediocrecity or inferiority ..)
and obviously we should spread those attributes ('culture')
this can be, and in fact is best done, peacefully
and its obviously a big mistake to dilute good culture with bad elements (attributes) from certain other cultures
the goal is to collaborate, and put together the good elements from each culture. blindly merging cultures is thus a bad idea
unfortunately it is not always so simple to break things down
important: this has nothing to do with ethnicity
let the people that want to be together find themselves/eachother and do as they please
this is mostly relevant on a small or rather localized scale i.e. companies
but of course this extends to larger scales, of large society, e.g. countries
culture some kind of median, so better culture is achieved by not diluting it with elements of lower 'score' or by excluding lower elements
add in interdepency and systematic dynamic and you get '1 drop of oil taints 1000 liters of water' kind of effect. e.g. 1 murdering psychopath on the loose is enough to make 1000 feel uncomfortable
so why would we include elements that contribute a (severly) negative dynamic to the system?
note this gives us some conclusion about immigration. from a sortof autistic economists point of view it goes like this: potential immigrants have
but of course this neglects the socio dynamic effects and thus the positive or negative effects on economy
btw: social science without math is pseudo science
examples: south korean work ethic, german work ethic, african maximum exploit ethics, altruism in north europe and china-japan-korea, violence and tribe/clan
the default culture fostered by islam/arabic countries is inherently deteroiative on society. of course thats not the only deteroiative effect. another prominent one for example is marxism.