I just wanted to clarify what I was getting at with ‘the US should be multicultural; Europe should not’. This is an oversimplification of my thought. Under our current ideology, it is considered a bad thing if there are any homogenous pockets of white people on Earth. This is a deeply problematic sentiment, especially when this sentiment is not shared in those homogenous white pockets but, rather, is imposed upon them by the ‘globalist elite’ as though by a foreign power. This is a common trope on the alt-right, and is one which I agree with (although I think it can understood through a more nuanced lens which might include an analysis of neoliberal trade policies). In fact, I see a common thread linking it with the Indian independence movement.
I think there is a lot to be said about preserving demographic status quos. Otherwise, there becomes a demographic arms race and a depletion of community trust. What is especially unsettling in the US is that the further white people slip into a minority status, the more the self-reinforcing ‘war on white racism’ ramps up. Give an inch, they take a foot. White people won’t even maintain a plurality, so to speak, when you consider the unified ‘people of color’ front which exists against white people in the US.
(Having been to a Socialist Alternative (IE: Progressive Berners) conferences and a few Black Lives Matter (BLM) events, I seriously wonder if, based on current trends, the US will go the way of Haiti in 30 years. There is some seriously violent, vitriolic rhetoric being spewed bout demands for whites to give blacks the metaphorical keys to the house, and for reparations, etc. Reminds me of the Kinks’ song Black Messiah.)
Nevertheless, I am open to the ‘e pluribus unum’ principle underlying the American state, especially since it was founded on such radical, experimental ideals in the not-so-distant past. It was considered a radically multiethnic society even in the minds of Europeans just 80 to 200 years ago, only the purview of what counts as ‘multiethnic’ has since slid due to the onset of globalization. That and, sure, the white settlers utterly displaced an entire prior civilization (Native Americans), if not through bloodshed then through superior technologies and methods of governance. Thus, if white Americans are, due to consumerism and the dogma that all people(s) are intercheangable blank slats, ideologically unable to withstand the onslaughts of alien peoples who have come to exploit their open-borders socialism, and out-reproduce and replace them like cuckoo birds, then so be it. After all, evolution is a blind process; what shall happen will happen.
This must not, however, amount to a “white people are now getting what they deserve” attitude, which is deeply disturbing on many levels, although this sentiment seems to have normalized.
I feel the situation is much different in Europe, whose settled people drastically pre-date the political innovations of the Enlightenment, and even more so pre-date the advent of globalism as we currently know it. The European states were not founded on principles of multiculturalism, even if some were perhaps re-formulated as such (like France and Britain). Germany, for obvious reasons, has embraced multiculturalism more due to a lack of other alternatives available to them.
I believe there is a widespread aversion to multiculturalism in the less-cosmopolitan regions of Europe, particularly in the east. I suppose this is due to the fact that once a region becomes multiethnic, people must learn to coexist as a practical necessity, if not due to the hegemonic ideology. Thus, it seems that people are typically opposed to ending multiculturalism once they’ve gotten used to it. However, this permissive attitude toward multiculturalism could change drastically if there were ultimately an economic downturn, such as might happen due to multiculturalism and neoliberal trade policies. What’s more, one might be tempted to say “Well, if they will come to accept multiculturalism after they’ve become immersed in it, why not just force multiculturalism and mass immigration, and then let them adapt?” The problem with this is that learning to be ‘tolerant’ has a double edged meaning – it can mean learning to tolerate harmless, superficial differences you observe in others, but it can also mean being forced to tolerate sometimes very unpleasant things, such as terrorist attacks, the evaporation of social trust among those who might otherwise have a predisposition toward higher-level community-building, state-mandated discrimination against you, etc.
Europe – at least outside of the major international zones – ought have the decision to remain something along the lines ‘homelands’ for its indigenous peoples be devolved to them.
Basically, one of my main causes of hesitation – at least in terms of my own preferences – to support full-fledged, global open borders is that it is incompatible with universal welfare, especially when what counts as a necessity is really on a sliding scale to the extent that absolute parity between peoples within the society starts counting as a necessity.
Open borders might be feasible, however, if people are given the right to laissez faire apartheid – IE, they have the enshrined right to self-segregation within the society (think chassidic Judaism or the Amish), and are permitted to establish their own membership criteria (e.g.: members must be Sikh, or members must be anti-racist, or members must have high IQs, etc) and build their own exclusive social institutions, such as welfare pools or laws misdemeanor laws requiring women to wear hijabs, banning abortion, etc) which govern within, or perhaps parallel to, the multicultural society. This might be basically indistinguishable from the systems of nations that currently span the globe, only they wouldn’t be geographically localized. This might be possible by implementing highly integrated systems of e-governance, and even augmented reality platforms. Moreover, these meta-nations, existing within a librarian society which affords a baseline of human rights to all people and all other meta-nations, could themselves establish special, additional rights for its members.
You see, the play between individual rights and group rights can be optimized.
Back to the specific problem of multiculturalism and open borders:
Other options, perhaps more within-reach, might be the establishment of certain major cities across the globe as international zones, perhaps a little bit like what China does with Hong Kong and Shanghai. After all, these seem to conform to the fault lines which separate pro-immigration people and closed-border nativist.
Ultimately, of course, much of this debate hinges on whether we hold the premise that all people – er, peoples – are interchangeable blank slates whose cognitive abilities, temperament, and social habits are moulded solely, or even primarily, through acculturation and education. Under this prevailing blank dogma, it would seem counter-productive and perhaps evil not to have open borders and universal welfare. After all, the logic goes, we simply have to invite everybody taste the fruits of western liberalism, and educate them, and then all humanity will exist in stable paradise. For me, this seems to be a dangerously simplistic, deeply flawed line of thinking.
Realistically, America’s enshrinement of ‘freedom of religion’ should be interpreted more broadly – perhaps more in the original spirit of the American Revolutionaries – as ‘freedom of paradigm’ or ‘freedom of worldview’, thereby protecting race-realism, pseudo-Nazism, whatever as an expression of conscience. This would solve many problems.
That said, I am against population expulsions and the deportation of childhood arrivals, etc.
Of moderate relevance: