Immigrants and Zizek

(Before I start, I will also be posting a similar thread to Sup Forums for their consideration - but i believe that there is a difficult philosophical/moral issue to be mulled over here, which is why I am posting to /his/)

I find it difficult to enjoy Zizek because of his strange position on immigration - He wants immigration from middle eastern war zones to Europe to continue;
but he also acknowledges that the local muslim states, which share the same cultural and religious ideas, are refusing to take the immigrants or help them to end the war in their homeland.

He says that we should not see them as being alien, but then acknowledges that they *are* alien because they have different values with respect to women and labour.

The west of europe has made it clear that it does not welcome people from an alien culture, who worship a religion which has been responsible for the majority of terrorism in the last 20 years, and often seems aggressive toward western values. I appreciate Zizek's concern for human life - but surely these people should be protected in countries local to their own, the problem dealt with by neighbouring armies, and then the people returned home to rebuild. Anything other than this is basic economic migrancy - something which western countries cannot afford to entertain as it causes cultural, legal and infrastructure problems.

youtube.com/watch?v=aCePcSouBOc

Zizek is a fan of chaos.

He only wants immigrants (the more alien the culture the butter) because they'll upheave the status quo. To him, change is the greatest instrument to solving the equations of life; regardless of if the changes have positive or negative consequences.

>there is a difficult philosophical/moral issue
I'll save you a lot of trouble here. Morality isn't real. Time to grow up and stop believing in comforting fairy tales.

*sniffs*
ethuse me
*sniffs coke*
so is you say-ink
*rubs hand on nose*
that ve wuz kinghs?

What if, and just, What if we decide hey maybe no muzzies, enact some CHANGE by kicking them out, and then deal with the CHANGE of lower birth rates and population size?

~~~~this is all directed at zizek~~~~~~~

Why does the change have to be the most radical and most alien? I don't get these super big brain communist philosophers when they can't even acknowledge the failures of diversity and race creationism.

i'll ask him next time i see him

>and then if she is communist I tweak ze nipples like zis

I'm actually quite interested in seeing the unmitigated effects of low birth rates on a society. All eyes are on Japan to see what future generations will do.

Perhaps after the baby boomers die off, we'll see a growth in fertility rates? Maybe there is a collective consciousness in regards to population densities; people will naturally not want to have children in societies that are "too full". So when the population decreases to a critical value, people will naturally want to have more kids again.

Its all about beneficiality - if people don't feel like having a child would benefit them, they don't have one.
Having a child can be disruptive, if not fatal, to a modern career. Plus people often don't feel like they are in the right economic position to bear a child. Plus there is that factor of the child's wellbeing - if you live in a shitty inner city slum, as people increasingly are doing, they you are less likely to want to bring a child into such an unhealthy environment.

>modern career
>economic position
>shitty inner city slum
>unhealthy environment

These all sound like symptoms not causes due to a "No Vacancy" society. If you didn't have to worry about sacrificing everything for a modern career, had an abundant standard of living, and lived in a spacious, healthy, and safe environment, then the disruption of having children would see much more viable.

My theory is that the currently low fertility rates are an aberration; a blip caused by the massive death tolls of WW2 and the subsequent baby boom that followed. Now that these boomers are old and unproductive, sitting on accumulated wealth, we've hit a stagnation in all developed societies; they are currently taking out more than they are putting in i.e. a burden. Once that generation passes on, we'll see a net positive in fertility as they're will be more room to grow organically so to speak (the burden would be lifted).

The best analogy I can think of is the cause of the baby boom itself. If a massive loss of population can lead to one baby boom. Then the loss of the baby boomers themselves will lead to another baby boom.

I believe that humanity goes through cycles in as Spenglerian sense. We are not having children right now and are in a decline, we will come back from this decline or low and things will grow/blossom again.

All of these external factors are 100% right, like I said in the reply to other user, it is just natures way of culling the herd.

I for one take a stance that if the white race cannot bounce back from the blacking of their countries, they were doomed from the start. We are being tested, and shitlibs are the fat that will first be trimmed off.

IDK a bit too black pilling.

Really hate these super duper intellectual communist, because they never tell you what they actually think.

>Spengler
>The Decline of the West
>Black pilling

I have hope. The current friction we see in the West and globally is due to the awareness of the situation; which is at least a good sign.

What gives me hope is the historic lack of innovation both technologically and culturally from the Orient (non-West). These societies have only been able to copy and not innovate, meaning they will hit a wall sooner than later. It's why I'm not worried about China or India. Nothing "ground breaking" has come out of there, even with their great modernization efforts. It's all derivative on a massive scale; a stagnant super organism, that's large, but has no intrinsic qualitative value outside of it's own girth.

>I for one take a stance that if the white race cannot bounce back from the blacking of their countries, they were doomed from the start

Being white is a result of evolution - peoples who reached europe from africa had a different diet and different weather conditions to adjust to over centuries. They got paler (less melanin in the skin because there's less sunlight), taller and more muscular (better diet).

What is now happening in europe (shipping in different ethnicities) runs counter to evolution. You are introducing asiatic genetics into an unsuitable environment.

Just to add, we've been conditioned to believe that all peoples are exactly the same: a man from china is just as likely to invent the next big thing as a man from the US. And since, China or India has more men than the US, then they'll inevitably outpace the US in all fields of dominance.

I find this notion bullshit. Historically this has always been the case, so what is different now. The Non-West has always had a numbers advantage, but has virtually remained irrelevant on the global stage. They can try to brute force their dominance through numbers, but I don't see this stability sustaining itself as they will inevitably implode from their own mass.

I whole heartedly agree

Uncle Majic? More like Uncle awesome!! He didn't correct me when I called him dad. He gave me a firm pat on the back, but then he called me Timmy. His only ballon animals are snakes. But they're good snakes, they were like pink and slightly deflated. Overall, good 30th birthday party!

what is it like being stupid?

>The west of europe has made it clear that it does not welcome people from an alien culture

This is new to me. When did this happen exactly?

Dish ishvery iMportantsh op. I needsh to make shure yhu are listhening. *wipes nose* Dildoesh. Dragon dildoash are the shuresht sthing to a happy lifesh. Buy onesh and shouvesh it upsh youra ashe.

>I'm actually quite interested in seeing the unmitigated effects of low birth rates on a society. All eyes are on Japan to see what future generations will do.
I can actually give an answer to that - think of Portugal. Not modern Portugal but rather 1500 Portugal. It was a time of struggle for Europe since the Ottoman Empire had just completely "embargoed" the continent with its monopoly over anything that came from the East (and even South) of Europe. It was a bad time to be a nation in Europe that was even slightly dependent on trade, and it was an even worse time to be one if you were on the edge of Europe, completely cut away from everything. Portugal was forced into this struggle and had to come up with a way to dig themselves out of it else their very existence was threatened.

So what did they do? They started building up a large fleet and tried coming up with ways to go around the Ottoman Empire and trade with the East without having to be dependent on them. Long story short, Portugal held 2/3rds of an entire continent along with a relevant portion of Africa just about a century later, and had a larger influence on European trade than the Ottomans ever had.

Low birth rates are similar. They force you to seek alternative means to getting what you need and they force you to do it NOW else you face the potential downfall of your country. In my opinion, nations that experience critical birth rate levels along with a cemented trend of that never being fixed due to many social issues (like Japan) will eventually find themselves in small Portugal's position and accidentally end up doing something that will make them considerably more powerful than most around them. That something is mass robotization, or maybe even straight up AI, both of which completely solve the issue of low reproduction rate and also happen to multiply your country's GDP, much like colonialism did once

Just another thing I'd like to add that manages to make a good comparison as well - injecting immigrants into your country to "solve" the issue of labor force shortage is equal to having Portugal convert to Muslim so they can get preferential trades with North Africa and the Ottoman Empire - it solves the problem but that comes at a great price while also not allowing you to reach your maximum potential - you will be "just fine". This is what both the USA and Germany will experience - they will be just fine with their healthy unemployment and labor oversupply due to cheap immigrants, while nations like Japan and South Korea will be forced to overperform and find ways to dig themselves out of this crisis. It will hurt for them for a short period but they will eventually have a superior solution to this problem without having the injected hordes distabilizing their nation, while quite ironically the "just fine" USA and Germany will be unable to embrace this wave of mass robotization because that on the other hand would lead to mass unemployment of their minorities that they used as cheap labor, which can lead to massive unrest and even a communist revolution - they will even try to repress and ban robotization from the fear of that.