What implication does spiral dynamics have for immigration policy?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, zazen said:

So now you have almost approaching 1/5 of the cities population seemingly not assimilated and who have a strong identity.

The problem is not having a strong identity, but an identity that proclaims that whoever is outside your "umma" is condemned to hell, is a disgusting, despicable, impure kaffir, and that women are possessions and must be raped by whomever their family orders. Don't seems funny living close of that ideology of hate and exclusion. 

The Jews were hated because they were richer that the native population, that is, out of envy. Muslims are rejected because of their strange philosophy that one must absolutely obey everything said by a 6th-century warlord since he was channeling god to avoid being tortured for eternity. It seems somewhat psychotic, not compatible with evolution 

1 hour ago, zazen said:

Look at Connor Mcreggor vs Khabib

Sure, and Naseem Hamed, the best Muslim boxer of all times, was an idiot much worse that McGregor 

About the identity of the westerns, it's freedom. Freedom is expensive, and can lead to nihilism, but real life is dangerous, who wants going hand in hand with daddy Muhammad because otherwise life scares me? Six-year-old children who look like adults? Cowards that believe tales because they can't face life without filter. 

Edited Friday at 01:10 PM by Breakingthewall

[Infinity16]

16 hours ago, zazen said:

@Breakingthewall Being in a democracy where everyone can vote only amplifies and politicizes those tensions because now that ''other'' identity can politically vote for their own vision of how society should be run, which isn't always compatible with how the host culture and people want their society to run. This is why a diverse city like Dubai has stability and way less polarization - because the population is de-politicized. No one feels politically threatened by their neighbor who is ''different'' because they don't have any political power to ''impose'' their politics onto you via the ballot box and state.

UK is roughly 80% white, 10% Asian, 5% African and 5% other (East Asian, Middle Eastern etc). UK's muslim population is roughly 6% - but in major cities its close to 15% (London, Manchester - in the 2nd largest city Birmingham its 30%). Those cities are also around 50% non-white / native. So if cities are where the political power, wealth and culture of the country is usually represented - and the host culture / people lose their position in them - naturally this creates a backlash - even if majority of the country is still ''native''.

Islamists are a problem - but just like with any extremism it  (which is a problem) it represents a super minority of the population - as nerdspeak said. But I do think that the average Muslims is still seen as ''different'' because they have a civilizationally intact identity they stick to - that is distinct from the host country. They don't ''assimilate'' as easily because their boundaries aren't as porous - alcohol I think is a big one which is a social lubricant in much of Western society. For example - Indians can join in on pub culture / after work drinks (common in UK), where as a Muslim wouldn't really partake in that or even if they were present - them not drinking is seen as not ''joining in''.  Another is modesty of dress - which makes them stick out too. So now you have almost approaching 1/5 of the cities population seemingly not assimilated and who have a strong identity.

Mutli-cultralism seems to only work if the fundamental values are similar - otherwise even without migrants and in a homogenous society you have different cultures at odds with each other - like today in the West, especially the US - we have conservative trad types at oods with liberal progressives. Their value systems are different + they have political rights so its a double whammy of politicization and polarization. One believes men can be women and the other only believes in two genders - the fundamentals of reality are at odds (imagine half a population of flat earthers sharing political space and deciding policies with the other half being round earthers).

Look at Connor Mcreggor vs Khabib who are from opposite worlds in terms of value and orientation. Connor is arrogant, loud mouthed and his humour is one of mockery - from a culture of ridiculing , questioning authority and asserting your individual dignity in being able to do so (free speech). This is completely different to Eastern cultures and especially Islamic culture who don't take such things or insults lightly especially to parents or religion. There's a reason your mom jokes are a thing in Western schools and not in other parts of the world lol

 

 

You say a lot of interesting things in this post. The west is dominated by stage orange. Orange, alongside green and blue are what I refer to as the inverted stages. This is because they are the opposite of the primal stages. For example, authoritarian blue is the opposite of instinctive beige and power-driven red is the opposite of egalitarian green. Orange is the polar opposite of purple. Purple is a collectivist stage that thinks locally whereas orange is an individualistic stage that thinks globally (cosmopolitanism is introduced at this stage) - those in orange believe that there is no in-group or out-group, only individuals. The thing about each of the inverted stages is that although they're mostly better than their primal counterparts, they each have a problematic trait that the next stage soundly gets rid of. Stage blue carries an unhealthy amount of repression that orange does not carry. Stage orange, being the opposite of purple, rejects collectivism, discrimination, and spirituality. The problem is that humans mainly evolved for stage purple, making orange alienating. What stage orange discards is a sense of belonging. Culture arises from stage purple. It is not logical because it entails that there are some things that cause economic models to break down. Culture is a dirty word to stage orange, also because it entails that one set of government policies may have a completely different effect in two different societies. Perhaps the reactionaries are right to complain of western culture dying off but they get the cause completely wrong. No foreigners killed western culture, westerners did.

It's also worth talking about the nation-state which I consider to be the stage blue mode of government. Stage blue, unlike orange, does carry a sense of belonging. Unlike purple which places it in an ethnic group, blue places it in religion and nation. This was a product of stage orange morals which made empires (red mode of government) unjustifiable. On top of that, mass media led to the rise of mass politics. This meant that the managers of government had to cater to the whims of the people. Defining who the people are becomes very important. Just as important is making sure that those people assimilate.

The interesting bit about the UAE is that it seems to minimize the traits of a nation-state. It's relatively easy to move there and get a job, nigh impossible to become a citizen. 3/4 UAE residents are immigrants but none of them can sway elections because the UAE is a monarchy. The UAE seems to be embodying traits of a potential stage orange mode of government.

[Emerald]

In the U.S., it's statistically proven that immigrants (legal and illegal) commit fewer crimes per capita than U.S. born citizens. 

And chances are, if someone is worldly enough to immigrate to another place, they probably have a good bit of Orange and above in regards to spiral dynamics. Immigrants are generally very ambitious people who are focused on achieving upward social mobility. It's a very Orange thing to do.

But if you want to know why it's necessary for immigration to be regulated, it's because of how countries with imperial power use that power to disenfranchise other countries... which creates a 'haves and have nots' situation where there's a huge disparity in standard of living between countries.

So, the wealthiest places on the planet are in the imperial core, where all the power is concentrated.

And if given the option to, most people would move to the imperial core... as they are places where conditions are better and human rights are more of a guarantee.

But we can't have all the people in the world piling into a handful of powerful imperial nations. And if all people did that, the empire wouldn't have enough people outside of the imperial core to legally exploit for cheap labor to make the imperial core livable. 

That level of exploitation is reserved for countries outside of the imperial core because of laxer human rights laws in less powerful countries.

To give an analogy, let's say there's a big open field. And a few spots in the field are really nice... but the rest of the field is covered in ant piles and the ants will bite you if you're in those spots.

So, of course, the people who are standing in the spots with the ants will try to move to a spot with no ants. But then, everyone will be crammed into the non-ant-ridden spaces.

That's what's happening globally... only with poverty and human rights abuses instead of ants.

So, we need immigration regulated to maintain the order of what we currently have... or it will all fall apart as there will be no have nots to exploit to make the haves lives better. You need have nots in the current system for there to be haves. 

Ultimately, this problem will only get solved when the countries where most immigrants expatriate from become more safe, stable, and comfortable places to live, with more upward mobility and more human rights.

Then, you'll probably see immigration numbers drop by half or more.

[Infinity16]

8 hours ago, Emerald said:

In the U.S., it's statistically proven that immigrants (legal and illegal) commit fewer crimes per capita than U.S. born citizens. 

And chances are, if someone is worldly enough to immigrate to another place, they probably have a good bit of Orange and above in regards to spiral dynamics. Immigrants are generally very ambitious people who are focused on achieving upward social mobility. It's a very Orange thing to do.

But if you want to know why it's necessary for immigration to be regulated, it's because of how countries with imperial power use that power to disenfranchise other countries... which creates a 'haves and have nots' situation where there's a huge disparity in standard of living between countries.

So, the wealthiest places on the planet are in the imperial core, where all the power is concentrated.

And if given the option to, most people would move to the imperial core... as they are places where conditions are better and human rights are more of a guarantee.

But we can't have all the people in the world piling into a handful of powerful imperial nations. And if all people did that, the empire wouldn't have enough people outside of the imperial core to legally exploit for cheap labor to make the imperial core livable. 

That level of exploitation is reserved for countries outside of the imperial core because of laxer human rights laws in less powerful countries.

To give an analogy, let's say there's a big open field. And a few spots in the field are really nice... but the rest of the field is covered in ant piles and the ants will bite you if you're in those spots.

So, of course, the people who are standing in the spots with the ants will try to move to a spot with no ants. But then, everyone will be crammed into the non-ant-ridden spaces.

That's what's happening globally... only with poverty and human rights abuses instead of ants.

So, we need immigration regulated to maintain the order of what we currently have... or it will all fall apart as there will be no have nots to exploit to make the haves lives better. You need have nots in the current system for there to be haves. 

Ultimately, this problem will only get solved when the countries where most immigrants expatriate from become more safe, stable, and comfortable places to live, with more upward mobility and more human rights.

Then, you'll probably see immigration numbers drop by half or more.

That is indeed a product of the nation-state. The reason why immigration restrictions are necessary is because otherwise, immigrants will take jobs from the locals and drive down wages. It is therefore in the interests of the working class in the rich nation-states to restrict immigration to keep wages up.

[Emerald]

5 hours ago, Infinity16 said:

That is indeed a product of the nation-state. The reason why immigration restrictions are necessary is because otherwise, immigrants will take jobs from the locals and drive down wages. It is therefore in the interests of the working class in the rich nation-states to restrict immigration to keep wages up.

Yes, but that situation exists because wealthier nations have their boots on the necks of poorer countries... through regime change and the installation of dictators, exploitation of a cheap labor force, and extraction of natural resources.

That's the nature of imperialism. The imperial powers maintain their power by dominating smaller countries.

It's very unfair, of course. But it's how those who live in the imperial core maintain a higher standard of living than those who live outside of it.

That's why everyone wants to move to the imperial core. It is the ultimate privilege.

Everyone prefers to be the boot... and not the neck that the boot is stepping on.

That's why immigration needs to be regulated, as there must be friction for people expatriating from neck locations and immigrating to boot locations. Otherwise, everyone would come to the boot locations... and the boot location would have no one to exploit.

My point is that the system as it is needs reform. And the immigration issue won't be solved until we figure out a structure for society that is fair for everyone. 

Until then, the best we can do is to create a challenging but surmountable level of friction in the form of a path to citizenship for those relocating from the neck to the boot.

Also, the current US system requires a cheap labor force in the form of immigrant labor to continue operating. If there were no illegal immigrants, the US economy would fall apart. 

So, the immigration "problem" with illegal immigration is not actually a bug... it's a feature that enables the economy to keep running. And if the immigration "problem" was solved, it would tank the economy.

This is another example of why the system must change. Not only is it EXTREMELY unfair... it requires immigration laws to be bent and broken for the economy to keep functioning. 

It's these things that people don't understand about the issue with immigration. But an intelligent conversation about immigration can't be had without considering these facts about how the system works in reality.

[Infinity16]

20 hours ago, Emerald said:

Yes, but that situation exists because wealthier nations have their boots on the necks of poorer countries... through regime change and the installation of dictators, exploitation of a cheap labor force, and extraction of natural resources.

That's the nature of imperialism. The imperial powers maintain their power by dominating smaller countries.

It's very unfair, of course. But it's how those who live in the imperial core maintain a higher standard of living than those who live outside of it.

That's why everyone wants to move to the imperial core. It is the ultimate privilege.

Everyone prefers to be the boot... and not the neck that the boot is stepping on.

That's why immigration needs to be regulated, as there must be friction for people expatriating from neck locations and immigrating to boot locations. Otherwise, everyone would come to the boot locations... and the boot location would have no one to exploit.

My point is that the system as it is needs reform. And the immigration issue won't be solved until we figure out a structure for society that is fair for everyone. 

Until then, the best we can do is to create a challenging but surmountable level of friction in the form of a path to citizenship for those relocating from the neck to the boot.

Also, the current US system requires a cheap labor force in the form of immigrant labor to continue operating. If there were no illegal immigrants, the US economy would fall apart. 

So, the immigration "problem" with illegal immigration is not actually a bug... it's a feature that enables the economy to keep running. And if the immigration "problem" was solved, it would tank the economy.

This is another example of why the system must change. Not only is it EXTREMELY unfair... it requires immigration laws to be bent and broken for the economy to keep functioning. 

It's these things that people don't understand about the issue with immigration. But an intelligent conversation about immigration can't be had without considering these facts about how the system works in reality.

That is indeed a product of the nation-state. The reason why immigration restrictions are necessary is because otherwise, immigrants will take jobs from the locals and drive down wages. It is therefore in the interests of the working class in the rich nation-states to restrict immigration to keep wages up.

As for what policy can undermine neocolonialism, I would point towards the free trade of labor. Right now, we have free trade of capital. It's what enables companies to offshore production to nations with weaker currencies. What we don't have is free trade of labor which would enable people from poorer nations to take jobs in richer ones.

The rise of online work can also break down the nation-state because eventually, people will stop identifying by nationality as they work from abroad.

[Emerald]

10 hours ago, Infinity16 said:

That is indeed a product of the nation-state. The reason why immigration restrictions are necessary is because otherwise, immigrants will take jobs from the locals and drive down wages. It is therefore in the interests of the working class in the rich nation-states to restrict immigration to keep wages up.

As for what policy can undermine neocolonialism, I would point towards the free trade of labor. Right now, we have free trade of capital. It's what enables companies to offshore production to nations with weaker currencies. What we don't have is free trade of labor which would enable people from poorer nations to take jobs in richer ones.

The rise of online work can also break down the nation-state because eventually, people will stop identifying by nationality as they work from abroad.

No doubt it is the product of the nation-state. Any world that sees itself as divided into in-groups and out-groups from other people, will always beget these kinds of unfair outcomes. It has to be the case for the world to operate in its current state.

And that arbitrary human-to-human division happens on the level of the nationstate... but also happens/happened before with smaller groups that have understood themselves as separate.

And it's arbitrary, of course. If we take the United States as an example, it's a LOT of people stretched over a huge chunk of land that all identify the same way under the abstract idea of the nation-state. But you could also have a situation where there is a village that defines itself as a totally different group from another village that lives a mile away.

But the delineations... and having an arbitrary in-group and out-group is what must happen now for the world to operate. And that creates so much suffering.

My point was that we must figure out a way to holistically transcend the nation-state, so that we can line up with the possibility of living in a more fair world. And this will require many shifts... technologically, ideologically, and psychologically.

[Schizophonia]

@Breakingthewall People don't want to be invaded by non-whites, but since this is still too illegal in the collective unconscious there is a transfer onto "Islam"; but deep down everyone knows that between seeing their country become Muslim but 100% white, or on the contrary Christian or atheist but completely non-white, most people will choose the first solution without hesitation.

Both through intuitive preference for one's own ethnicity and its preservation, independently of any affection for other ethnicities, and through confrontation with the collective unconscious of other ethnic groups, independently of the question of what is related to genetics or epigenetics (social conditions).