Wonderful commentary. I might add that an American author of African descent has written upon such mixing of peoples long ago. Look up some of Thomas Sowell’s works. His findings and conclusions hold up even to this day. Most salient point, quite often the disparity among peoples in culture and ability leads to violence. Examples given abound.
Brilliant exposition of what many on the right - certainly I - think and feel.
I would add one point: imagine what happens when the dead man’s brake is disengaged and the common folk confirm their suspicion - that they’ve been gaslit, guilted, shamed, and persecuted for decades in service of a dysfunctional lie that harms them and their communities. Imagine if they’re given an outlet for the feelings that follow. Imagine a talented leader who takes advantage of that sentiment...
The sooner the so-called Far Right prevails, the sooner we return to reality, the less extreme the pendulum will swing back to the right.
We don't like to admit it. To do so we are made to appear backward and provincial. In fact, humans are tribal. We may or may not evolve beyond that. Individually, most of us can get along with people of other tribes, if those other people are of the same inclination. However, in large groups, no. Our tribes prefer the ways and values of our tribe's culture. That is why you see the division in states like Minnesota and any others where large groups of immigrants have accumulated.
Nice to read you here on Aporia, Spaceman Spiff. Thanks for hosting him, Aporia.
The problem with you liberals is that you never interrogate your own beliefs (sacred priors). Your ideology, underwritten by capitalism, is responsible for our dystopian modern world. Period.
You exaggerate, and in doing so you're helping to make the whole situation worse.
People tend to notice and remember conflict and violence. That's the self-protection mechanism you allude to, not fear of 'others'.
Throughout human history various groups in proximity have gotten along just fine. In fact the more similar the greater the chance of conflict; think of the Irish and the English or the Chinese and the Koreans. Generally, though, humans are great at "going along to get along".
As an example, take my own family history in re: the Irish. Italians and Irish (in America) are rumored/assumed to not get along, and we all know of a few examples to support this. But far more common is the opposite. If I ask any of the old people in my family they scoff at the idea of inherent conflict. They lived and worked next to Irish people most of their lives. Some of those relationships were very gratifying or profitable. In fact some of the women seemed to have a particular attraction.
“ Irish. Italians and Irish (in America) are rumored/assumed to not get along”
I would argue that your example is the grouping of closely related peoples and not of the distinctions we now typically see. For example, your family tree above, and then the mention of Chinese and Koreans—who really did fight between themselves historically if one reads history, as did the Koreans and Japanese even though separated by an ocean.
What one should think of when absorbing the author’s point in his missive is the wide divergence of peoples we see imported today. One example, Africans from a backward, third world, continent with little ability and education into the first world, highly technological societies of Europe. Then of course there are the extreme religious differences these peoples bring as well. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the European centuries of war brought about by the Reformation. There was conflict, even in America when the Italians and Irish migrated as we were a Protestant country in the main at that time.
It’s the “Western world” vs the “Third world”, not Irish vs Italians. There is a “cline” to be considered wrt to such mixing of people and their cultures. You’ve simply focused on a small segment of a larger gradient and in such minimized differences while applying such understanding to the entire breath of race/cultural intermixing situations.
I won't argue against your point. But I think a greater problem is the huge increases in the rate of immigration; the comparative numbers are frightening. It takes time for newcomers to assimilate. If they live in large, isolated communities it takes much longer.
I'm not writing about the Europeans. They have it much worse; thanks to the EU and Merkle.
No disagreement there. The influx of too many immigrants of a particular (foreign) culture leads to “ghettoization” and reduced assimilation. We see such today. I would not assume out of hand however, that all peoples can mix. There are cultures it might seem that simply cannot “blend in.”
On a separate matter local to here in Italy (unfunded pensions!) recently I was thinking about something adjacent to your essay. I knew off the dead man's brake, but thank you for bringing it back to the fore.
I think it boils down to a perfect storm after years of kicking the can further down the road. We ran out of road a while ago and our own habits and normalcy bias prevents us from enacting reasonable policy to de-escalate from the edge of the cliff.
My own conclusion was we've been living in wonderland for far too long (a combination of easy money (debt, fiat, etc), ease of maintaining false narratives pre-internet/90s (lack of truthful public discourse), dishonest and co-opted political class (left-right, same crap different hat), etc).
Debating and convincing a "xenophiliac", pointing out examples like what happened in Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s after a failed experiment of forced integration decades in the making, is unlikely, given our current propensity to talk (shout) past each other. And normalcy bias prevents unreasonable people to see beyond their ideological vision.
In a way we should be thankful to progressives for having gone out so far into absurdity with the immigration stuff. Ironically they might succeed in bringing down the house, as painful as this is in reality.
Today I listened to a great interview on the Prester Andrews substack with an Italian-American historian (Bonicelli) about political violence in Italy from the mid 60s to the mid 80s, often referred to the years of lead. Even though the subject was not immigration, two relevant key points for this essay are a) until the violence reaches a crescendo where the public rejects it, said violence gets more extreme in a tit-for-tat way. And b) the type of violence isn't between easily identifiable groups, as we'd like to imagine civil wars, but a wild assortment of intra and inter-group rivalry, sub-groups, neighborhoods, etc. It's very messy low level. And state repression goes through the roof as they can't get it under control and/or are part of the problem as it's members are human and have their loyalties and ideologies, except they use a badge.
Being part of a community is going to priceless way of surviving the coming upheavals.
These thoughts are becoming refined and crystallized to a point where they are simply unanswerably true. I am grateful for the work you've done here. These thoughts with this degree of clarity and simplicity, will prove useful in the future. Much like the pamphleteers of the 1700s and 1800s.
Wonderful commentary. I might add that an American author of African descent has written upon such mixing of peoples long ago. Look up some of Thomas Sowell’s works. His findings and conclusions hold up even to this day. Most salient point, quite often the disparity among peoples in culture and ability leads to violence. Examples given abound.
Excellent article.
As I have said before, xenophilia is just one of many efforts to disrupt societal cohesion. The purpose of course is to divide and conquer.
Here is a video that you should watch.
https://www.amren.com/videos/2025/09/why-we-lose-and-how-we-will-win/
We will look back on this piece in 10 years time and it will sound if anything a bit utopian.
Brilliant exposition of what many on the right - certainly I - think and feel.
I would add one point: imagine what happens when the dead man’s brake is disengaged and the common folk confirm their suspicion - that they’ve been gaslit, guilted, shamed, and persecuted for decades in service of a dysfunctional lie that harms them and their communities. Imagine if they’re given an outlet for the feelings that follow. Imagine a talented leader who takes advantage of that sentiment...
The sooner the so-called Far Right prevails, the sooner we return to reality, the less extreme the pendulum will swing back to the right.
We don't like to admit it. To do so we are made to appear backward and provincial. In fact, humans are tribal. We may or may not evolve beyond that. Individually, most of us can get along with people of other tribes, if those other people are of the same inclination. However, in large groups, no. Our tribes prefer the ways and values of our tribe's culture. That is why you see the division in states like Minnesota and any others where large groups of immigrants have accumulated.
Nice to read you here on Aporia, Spaceman Spiff. Thanks for hosting him, Aporia.
The problem with you liberals is that you never interrogate your own beliefs (sacred priors). Your ideology, underwritten by capitalism, is responsible for our dystopian modern world. Period.
You exaggerate, and in doing so you're helping to make the whole situation worse.
People tend to notice and remember conflict and violence. That's the self-protection mechanism you allude to, not fear of 'others'.
Throughout human history various groups in proximity have gotten along just fine. In fact the more similar the greater the chance of conflict; think of the Irish and the English or the Chinese and the Koreans. Generally, though, humans are great at "going along to get along".
As an example, take my own family history in re: the Irish. Italians and Irish (in America) are rumored/assumed to not get along, and we all know of a few examples to support this. But far more common is the opposite. If I ask any of the old people in my family they scoff at the idea of inherent conflict. They lived and worked next to Irish people most of their lives. Some of those relationships were very gratifying or profitable. In fact some of the women seemed to have a particular attraction.
As did some of the men; for obvious reasons.
“ Irish. Italians and Irish (in America) are rumored/assumed to not get along”
I would argue that your example is the grouping of closely related peoples and not of the distinctions we now typically see. For example, your family tree above, and then the mention of Chinese and Koreans—who really did fight between themselves historically if one reads history, as did the Koreans and Japanese even though separated by an ocean.
What one should think of when absorbing the author’s point in his missive is the wide divergence of peoples we see imported today. One example, Africans from a backward, third world, continent with little ability and education into the first world, highly technological societies of Europe. Then of course there are the extreme religious differences these peoples bring as well. Perhaps you’ve forgotten the European centuries of war brought about by the Reformation. There was conflict, even in America when the Italians and Irish migrated as we were a Protestant country in the main at that time.
It’s the “Western world” vs the “Third world”, not Irish vs Italians. There is a “cline” to be considered wrt to such mixing of people and their cultures. You’ve simply focused on a small segment of a larger gradient and in such minimized differences while applying such understanding to the entire breath of race/cultural intermixing situations.
I won't argue against your point. But I think a greater problem is the huge increases in the rate of immigration; the comparative numbers are frightening. It takes time for newcomers to assimilate. If they live in large, isolated communities it takes much longer.
I'm not writing about the Europeans. They have it much worse; thanks to the EU and Merkle.
No disagreement there. The influx of too many immigrants of a particular (foreign) culture leads to “ghettoization” and reduced assimilation. We see such today. I would not assume out of hand however, that all peoples can mix. There are cultures it might seem that simply cannot “blend in.”
The Irish and the English.
Like during the Troubles in the 1970s?
Great essay!
On a separate matter local to here in Italy (unfunded pensions!) recently I was thinking about something adjacent to your essay. I knew off the dead man's brake, but thank you for bringing it back to the fore.
I think it boils down to a perfect storm after years of kicking the can further down the road. We ran out of road a while ago and our own habits and normalcy bias prevents us from enacting reasonable policy to de-escalate from the edge of the cliff.
My own conclusion was we've been living in wonderland for far too long (a combination of easy money (debt, fiat, etc), ease of maintaining false narratives pre-internet/90s (lack of truthful public discourse), dishonest and co-opted political class (left-right, same crap different hat), etc).
Debating and convincing a "xenophiliac", pointing out examples like what happened in Yugoslavia in the mid-1990s after a failed experiment of forced integration decades in the making, is unlikely, given our current propensity to talk (shout) past each other. And normalcy bias prevents unreasonable people to see beyond their ideological vision.
In a way we should be thankful to progressives for having gone out so far into absurdity with the immigration stuff. Ironically they might succeed in bringing down the house, as painful as this is in reality.
Today I listened to a great interview on the Prester Andrews substack with an Italian-American historian (Bonicelli) about political violence in Italy from the mid 60s to the mid 80s, often referred to the years of lead. Even though the subject was not immigration, two relevant key points for this essay are a) until the violence reaches a crescendo where the public rejects it, said violence gets more extreme in a tit-for-tat way. And b) the type of violence isn't between easily identifiable groups, as we'd like to imagine civil wars, but a wild assortment of intra and inter-group rivalry, sub-groups, neighborhoods, etc. It's very messy low level. And state repression goes through the roof as they can't get it under control and/or are part of the problem as it's members are human and have their loyalties and ideologies, except they use a badge.
Being part of a community is going to priceless way of surviving the coming upheavals.
Historically, unwelcome groups that couldn’t be expelled, or couldn’t take the hint, got buried in the soil.
These thoughts are becoming refined and crystallized to a point where they are simply unanswerably true. I am grateful for the work you've done here. These thoughts with this degree of clarity and simplicity, will prove useful in the future. Much like the pamphleteers of the 1700s and 1800s.