On Mass Immigration and a claim

 

"Past mistakes do not justify present mistakes"

The Example of Mass Immigration

Brazil, Canada, the United States, Argentina, and, to a lesser extent, other countries in the Americas, received millions of immigrants, mostly Europeans, between the second half of the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. And while there are those who believe that mass immigration was necessary for the development of these countries during that period, I, who also held the same opinion, am now concluding that, in fact, it is almost never justifiable from a rational perspective of thought and action, precisely because itis an extremist or radical measure, even if its objective is the occupation of sparsely populated lands. Because, as much as it makes logical sense at first glance, it may not upon closer analysis, considering, for example, whether a territory can be strategically occupied without being flooded by new inhabitants and also whether, instead of importing foreign labor to resolve social and historical issues, a country can or should prioritize its native population, providing them with sensible policies in the sense of making them more functional, socially and economically, and even personally and existentially. Therefore, what was done in these countries during that period is no more correct than what is happening to some of these same countries and to other countries today. From what has already been said, it is an extreme measure and causes more problems, both social and ecological. If what was done wrong or foolishly in the past does not justify doing the same in the present.

More random slurs

 "Zero tolerance for criminals"

Typical conservative talk

I agree!!

But... What about criminals in suits and ties with lots of money?

The premature death of a "celebrity" may be regrettable, but it's also regrettable that there are people so socially and economically privileged, especially if they have the audacity to speak publicly about the supposed privileges of those far less privileged than themselves and how much they supposedly suffered while alive...

Even though prejudice based on identity or nature can be very painful, not having enough to eat or living in financial insecurity is an even more visceral suffering that hinders the fullness of life. Furthermore, a wealthy person who suffers negative discrimination can still compensate with their privileges...

The problem with mourning the death of a famous person is that, for most, it consists of mourning the loss of a person they never knew, who often left no objectively good social contributions, and who is also associated with offering condolences as a matter of privilege, making it clear that certain lives are supposedly more worthy of collective commotion than others...

The politically correct "left" confuses compassion with pity.

The "leftists" loves to justify his great intolerance of differing opinions with the rule of "not being tolerant of the intolerant..." but intolerance is much more justifiable when it comes to a fool, which is precisely what they tend to be...

An unmistakable trait of stupidity is the chronic inability to avoid generalizing groups. Precisely what "left-wing" (and also "right-wing") identitarians do most...

Regulated and restricted immigration is like drinking in moderation, and mass immigration is like alcoholism...

Many of those who most believe in and desire the application of eugenics, usually conservatives, if they truly understood what it would entail, especially if eugenics' main goal were to elevate human rationality, would fight to keep humanity as stupid as possible...

Besides the "pathological altruists" and those ignorant on the topic, among those who position themselves as completely opposed to any practice of eugenics, there are also those who have a personal interest in it, such as those with antisocial personality disorders... if they tend to prefer dysfunctional societies in which they disguise themselves better and consider them a perfect environment for adaptation, also in the sense of being successful...

Being in a problematic situation does not necessarily make an individual problematic. If there are problematic individuals who are in stable and peaceful life situations...

There are those who many consider "dead weight," primarily because they are supported or "carried" by others, or who present a more apparent relationship of unilateral dependence. But there's also the "living weight," the one who, even if they contribute financially or are not more dependent in a relationship, also contributes negatively, in other ways and/or not enough...

"It's important to respect the president because he's an authority"

Or

"It's important to respect an authority because he's an authority"

Redundant arguments like this are never sufficient for a truly philosophical analysis...

It's possible to hate groups without necessarily generalizing all the individuals who associate with them.

There are only three ways to develop sympathy for more objectively problematic groups (with a disproportionate number of problematic individuals):

Self-identification

Distance

Or a fanciful idealism

Sometimes, the best way to understand people's beliefs is

by seeking to know who they are.

Why do geniuses tend to be lonely?

For two main reasons:

1. Because, by becoming obsessed with their most interesting topics, they tend to become less interesting as social figures.

2. Because this intellectual obsession tends to shape their ways of seeing and relating to the world, constructing a unique existential perspective that is difficult for others to access or understand. While the ideal for socialization is for an individual's existential perspective to be as generic as possible, very easy to relate to and align with.

Every living being has its own beliefs, not just humans. Belief, in its most primitive sense, is an echo of confirmation based on what one feels, perceives, and experiences.

If creativity is intelligence and rationality is also intelligence, what is intelligence?

As if everything is God, what is God?

If "everything" is more of an abstraction than an absolute fact.

The problem isn't necessarily reading little, but thinking and understanding little. And, in this sense, there are many who are avid readers, but also have a deficient capacity for philosophical-scientific understanding... Just like those individuals excessively biased to one side of the political-ideological spectrum who are more ignorant than knowledgeable on a range of topics, even or especially those who appear to have specialized.

The problem, a priori, is not that the humanities are 99% ideologically biased to the left or right, but that the truths corresponding to them are not...

The same applies to the arts. It doesn't matter if they're biased to the left, center, or right, but what does that mean (bad taste, excessive politicization...)

The biggest differences between individuals with high (120 or higher) and low IQs (90 or lower): the ability to memorize and rationalize personal beliefs, even the most irrational ones

The biggest difference between the most rational and the least rational individuals: the ability to understand reality, which is the most critical to intelligence

"I am totally against discrimination and segregation."

Say those ''self righteous'' people who are always discriminating and segregating themselves in ideologically homogeneous spaces of more intimate coexistence...

Ideological fanaticism can be as serious as untreated schizophrenia, because the individual subjected to this condition begins to experience and interpret reality in a completely distorted way, always biased towards their delusional beliefs...

Genuine self-knowledge is scientific self-knowledge, which is also philosophical, which means knowing one's own potential and, therefore, one's own limits.

A classic example of ideological self-knowledge, in the worst sense of the term, means being unaware of one's own limits, believing one has infinite potential.

The safest way to self-knowledge is to begin with one's own limits, and then understand one's own potential, if these are determined by the former.

"We change all the time."

Self-knowledge requires the discipline of a trained self-observation so as not to make the kind of vague or imprecise deductions, like the one above.

No, we don't change all the time, literally. Most people don't change significantly in the long term. And the minority who exhibit more notable behavioral changes very likely already had underlying factors, inherent in their own nature. For if there is a first rule of behavior, it could well be this: no tendency emerges or expresses itself without a predisposition, just as there is no middle without a beginning. And the origin of our behaviors lies within ourselves, in our most innate mental traits, and not in the external "environment," so to speak, a collection of multiple factors given this abstract name, very similar to the idea of a whole, nothing more than a sum of factors confined to an arbitrarily determined space.

*Disregarding exceptional cases of brain injury or other mainly external factors that cause personality/mental changes

Attempts to universally extrapolate one's own experiences or life trajectories, as if they were possible examples in any other personal context, seem to tend to be based on seemingly less complex examples, especially in more challenging contexts. An example of a very common fallacy of thought...

The right to free association or self-segregation is also, especially, the right not to be forced to live with those who don't know how to live with them...

Claiming "anti-racist" these days (the 2020s) has progressively become an identification that expresses a lack of scientific and even moral (philosophical) understanding of related topics: race, behavior, society... rather than just a political-ideological inclination, much less a morally superior inclination, if the most fair judgment is never possible based on lies.

Just as, especially for a woman, who identifies as a feminist, has ceased to signify just a political position, much less a morally superior position, even by behaving like an inverted machismo, a widespread dehumanization of the male gender by many activist groups...

Still including within the fallacious term of "anti-racism" "anti-Semitism," anyone who is too biased to consider it in the way those most interested want it, as a thought crime, is as fanatical as those who passionately and uncritically declare themselves "anti-racists."

A person apparently endowed with high cognitive capacities who adopts "anti-racist" narratives, as well as other "identity" strands, is either suspected of doing so, perhaps benefiting from this position, or what is suspect is their rational level, that is, their epistemic level of rationality. But because it is tacitly irrational behavior, defending or relying on distortions of facts, what is already confirmed as a low level of instrumental rationality is not suspect...

Just as shame, if not more so.It's those fanatical individuals who clearly defend and/or rely on distortions of reality are the ones who act as apparent opponents of the fanaticism and influence of the first group. In both cases, the same question arises: are they more like madmen or cynics?

In absolute terms, no racial or ethnic group is superior to another, because no group is endowed with absolute uniformity of individuals, especially in terms of intellectual and moral behavior.

But in relative and historical terms, it is perfectly sensible to conclude that, yes, this hierarchy exists...

The paradox of labeling and moral behavior

The more you distance yourself from or condemn a label, the freer you feel to act in accordance with that same label, but through non-traditional or non-explicit means.

The same insufferable authoritarians who claim to be against any type of segregation are precisely those who most want to impose their unpleasant presence everywhere...

Every abstraction is arbitrary. A city, a concept, or a word. It's the same as giving form or limits to what doesn't exist, because it doesn't exist. It's the same as giving form and structure to the imagination.

A teacher's humanistic training doesn't mean they have to take on roles that aren't their primary competency, but rather that they at least master a minimum of legitimate knowledge about the sciences they deal with in their daily professional life. Therefore, ideally, teachers shouldn't be assigned other roles, such as that of psychologist/psychiatrist, but rather that they know how to psychologically and cognitively assess their students, so they can direct their teaching strategies. Or at least have a multidisciplinary team to support them.

O que a cidade de Rotherham e a Palestina têm em comum?/What do the city of Rotherham and Palestine have in common?

 O que a cidade de Rotherham e a Palestina têm em comum? 

A priori, nada. São apenas duas localidades distantes uma da outra, uma no norte da Inglaterra e outra na região do Levante, no Oriente Médio. No entanto, coisas perturbadoras têm acontecido nessas regiões. Só que a "mídia tradicional", pelas mesmas razões, tem evitado a todo custo falar abertamente sobre cada caso, se convertendo mais uma vez naquilo que sempre foi, em um dos tentáculos do poder, acobertando crimes graves por causa de sua submissão à diretrizes "politicamente corretas". 

No primeiro caso, de 1997 a 2013, foram cometidos milhares de estupros seletivos, especialmente de adolescentes brancas de classe trabalhadora, por gangues de paquistaneses muçulmanos. E não é apenas a mídia que tem dado uma cobertura insignificante ao caso, mas também grupos que supostamente deveriam estar denunciando esses crimes, como as "feministas", que ficaram calados ou dando pouquíssima importância. Novamente, a desprezível indignação moral de muitos autodeclarados "de esquerda", em que parece que um crime só é digno de indignação se for cometido por seus inimigos políticos ou por indivíduos dos grupos que transformaram em bodes expiatórios, como os brancos. Então, para não serem vistos como "politicamente incorretos", se calaram por todo esse tempo e continuam... E ainda tem os que tentam abrandar a gravidade da situação... 

Pois, na Palestina, também tem acontecido atrocidades, cometidas contra civis pelo exército do estado de "Israel", pela desculpa de perseguir membros do grupo terrorista Hamas depois dos atentados de outubro. Algumas estimativas falam em mais de duzentos mil mortos com direito a todos os tipos de crimes de guerra possíveis. Mas... Porque a "mídia" ocidental está literalmente nas mesmas mãos sujas que estão exterminando inocentes naquela região...

Esses dois casos apenas reforçam as evidências de que a mídia nunca trabalhou para o bem comum, mas para o poder. 

What do the city of Rotherham and Palestine have in common?

At first glance, nothing. They are just two distant locations, one in the north of England and the other in the Levant region of the Middle East. However, disturbing things have been happening in these regions. But the "mainstream media", for the same reasons, has avoided talking openly about each case at all costs, once again becoming what it has always been, one of the tentacles of power, covering up serious crimes because of its submission to "politically correct" guidelines.

In the first case, from 1997 to 2013, thousands of targeted rapes were committed, especially of White working-class teenagers, by gangs of Pakistani Muslims. And it is not only the media that has given the case insignificant coverage, but also groups that are supposed to be denouncing these crimes, such as "feminists", who have remained silent or given very little importance. Once again, the despicable moral indignation of many self-proclaimed "leftists", who believe that a crime is only worthy of indignation if it is committed by their political enemies or by individuals from the groups they have turned into scapegoats, such as White people. So, in order not to be seen as "politically incorrect", they have remained silent for all this time and continue to do so... And there are still those who try to downplay the gravity of the situation...

Well, in Palestine, atrocities have also been committed against civilians by the army of the state of "Israel", under the pretext of persecuting members of the terrorist group Hamas after the October attacks. Some estimates speak of more than two hundred thousand deaths, including all types of possible war crimes. But... Because the Western "media" is literally in the same dirty hands that are exterminating innocent people in that region...

These two cases only reinforce the evidence that the media has never worked for the common good, but for power.

Como a cultura humana frequentemente se desvia do que deveria ser sua função principal/How human culture often deviates from what should be its primary function

 A cultura humana, originalmente, consiste em um manual de orientação, de conhecimento, compreensão... Mas desde há muito tempo que tem se desviado do que deveria ser sua função principal ou pelo menos a ideal. Evidências que concordam com essa afirmação são abundantes. Tal como a falta de conhecimento, que parece ser comum a muitos seres humanos, sobre sinais no ambiente que podem indicar a ocorrência de algum evento natural perigoso, como uma tsunami ou ondas gigantes. Foi por causa disso que muitas pessoas perderam suas vidas na tsunami de 2004 que varreu as costas de vários países banhados pelo oceano índico. E não estou falando apenas de moradores locais sem uma instrução adequada, mas também de turistas vindos de países de primeiro mundo que ignoraram os sinais anteriores a uma tsunami, especialmente quando acontece um terremoto de grande magnitude, posterior regressão da água do mar e, também, por estarem no litoral da mesma região. Pois a simples ruptura de um padrão conhecido já deveria soar como um alarme preocupante, suficiente para a adoção do comportamento mais básico numa situação como essa que seria de se afastar de onde se pressupõe que a ameaça virá. Mas não são poucos aqueles que, enfurnados nas cidades, se esquecem ou nunca chegam a aprender sobre como proceder em situações de risco, um aspecto que deveria ser compulsório a uma cultura ou sociedade humana.  

Outro exemplo de como a cultura humana tem evoluído de maneira bastante distorcida do seu objetivo primordial ou ideal é a existência de grupos grandes de pessoas que acreditam que um fluxo constante e volumoso de imigrantes estrangeiros ao país em que vivem, ainda mais se forem oriundos de culturas diferentes, não terá consequências sérias à sua ordem social e identidade nacional a médio e longo prazo. 

Um último exemplo que nega o bom senso, o pensamento racional aplicado, é a negação do impacto extremo da ação humana na natureza, exatamente de se pensar que ações extremas não costumam gerar repercussões extremas...

Então, é possível concluir que certas culturas ou ideologias podem deteriorar ao invés de melhorar a compreensão que se tem sobre o mundo (eu também poderia citar a crença religiosa como um exemplo de cultura que costuma causar mais desorientação do que esclarecimento). 

No mais, é certo que praticamente toda crença político-ideológica, ou religiosa, que é adotada, tende a gerar mais bem-estar do que mal-estar ao indivíduo, pelo menos inicialmente; de lhe passar uma sensação de conforto, confiança, certeza... mesmo que possa prejudicá-lo mais tarde. Porém, esse efeito positivo não pode servir como justificativa para a adoção de crenças muito desviantes aos fatos ou a uma ponderação analítica, pois como demonstrado acima, elas podem causar problemas graves, mesmo se não estão causando no tempo presente ou apresentando consequências negativas e imediatas a nível pessoal. 

O custo-benefício da socialização 

Mais socializado o indivíduo está, mais profundamente familiarizado com uma cultura e suas normais sociais ele está. E isso vem com custos e benefícios. O maior benefício é uma facilidade teórica para navegar nesse meio ao conhecer bem suas normas. O maior custo é que esse conhecimento pode se sobrepor ou substituir outros conhecimentos mais importantes, relevantes inclusive à própria sobrevivência. Isto é, isso pode ser supernaturalizado e gerar dependência naquele que acredita. Tal como o exemplo do politicamente correto vigente no mundo ocidental, em que se doutrina a acreditar no dogma da igualdade absoluta dos seres humanos no lugar de uma compreensão mais imparcial e verdadeira sobre as nossas diferenças. Então, essa troca pode orientar o doutrinado a tomar esse dogma como uma verdade incontestável e passar a agir de acordo com a sua crença, como de se anestesiar no caso de um cenário de alto fluxo migratório, justificando ou racionalizando com base no que apreendeu como moral ou socialmente aceitável de se pensar, priorizando sua aceitação (ou camuflagem) em seus círculos sociais sobre a sua capacidade racional de análise e julgamento adequados. E mesmo se sabe que se trata de uma inverdade, e só a defenda em discurso e não na prática, ainda assim, essa passividade diante de uma situação com grande potencial para se agravar pode custar caro mais tarde. Então, se a cultura é um resultado evidente da evolução cognitiva de nossa espécie e deveria nos ajudar a nos orientar, desde há um bom tempo que tem servido para outros propósitos, até mesmo o propósito de nos desorientar, especialmente quando é moldada para inculcar no povo o que certas "elites" querem. 

Human culture originally consists of a manual of guidance, knowledge, understanding... But for a long time now it has deviated from what should be its main function, or at least its ideal. Evidence that supports this statement is abundant. Such as the lack of knowledge, which seems to be common to many human beings, about signs in the environment that may indicate the occurrence of some dangerous natural event, such as a tsunami or giant waves. It was because of this that many people lost their lives in the 2004 tsunami that swept the coasts of several countries bathed by the Indian Ocean. And I am not just talking about local residents without adequate education, but also about tourists from first world countries who ignored the signs prior to a tsunami, especially when a large earthquake occurs, followed by a retreat of the sea water, and also because they were on the coast of the same region. After all, the simple rupture of a known pattern should already sound a worrying alarm, enough for the adoption of the most basic behavior in a situation like this, which would be to move away from where the threat is supposed to come from. But there are many who, stuck in cities, forget or never learn how to proceed in risky situations, an aspect that should be compulsory for a human culture or society.

Another example of how human culture has evolved in a way that is quite distorted from its primary or ideal objective is the existence of large groups of people who believe that a constant and large flow of foreign immigrants to the country in which they live, especially if they come from different cultures, will not have serious consequences for their social order and national identity in the medium and long term.

A final example that denies common sense, applied rational thought, is the denial of the extreme impact of human action on nature, precisely because it is thought that extreme actions do not usually generate extreme repercussions...

Therefore, it is possible to conclude that certain cultures or ideologies can deteriorate rather than improve one's understanding of the world (I could also cite religious belief as an example of a culture that tends to cause more disorientation than enlightenment).

Furthermore, it is true that practically every political-ideological or religious belief that is adopted tends to generate more well-being than discomfort for the individual, at least initially; it gives them a feeling of comfort, confidence, certainty... even if it can harm them later. However, this positive effect cannot serve as a justification for adopting beliefs that deviate greatly from the facts or from analytical consideration, because as demonstrated above, they can cause serious problems, even if they are not causing them in the present time or presenting immediate negative consequences on a personal level.

The cost-benefit of socialization

The more socialized an individual is, the more deeply familiar he or she is with a culture and its social norms. And this comes with costs and benefits. The greatest benefit is a theoretical ease in navigating this environment by knowing its norms well. The greatest cost is that this knowledge can overlap or replace other more important knowledge, relevant even to survival itself. In other words, it can be supernaturalized and generate dependence in the believer. Just like the example of political correctness in force in the Western world, which indoctrinates people to believe in the dogma of absolute equality of human beings instead of a more impartial and true understanding of our differences. This exchange can then guide the indoctrinated person to take this dogma as an indisputable truth and start acting according to the belief, such as anesthetizing herself in the case of a scenario of high migratory flow, justifying or rationalizing based on what she have learned as morally or socially acceptable to think, prioritizing her acceptance (or camouflage) in her social circles over her rational capacity for adequate analysis and judgment. And even if she knows that this is an untruth, and only defend it in speech and not in practice, this passivity in the face of a situation with great potential to worsen can still cost her dearly later. So, if culture is an evident result of the cognitive evolution of our species and should help us to orient ourselves, for a long time now it has served other purposes, even the purpose of disorienting us, especially when it is shaped to inculcate in the people what certain "elites" want.

Falácias morais e mentiras usadas em defesa do multiculturalismo/imigração em massa/Moral fallacies and lies used in defense of multiculturalism/mass immigration

 1. Todo país rico tem a obrigação moral de receber "os pobres do mundo"

A priori, nenhum país tem a obrigação de abrir suas fronteiras para receber pessoas de fora, nem de maneira seletiva e muito menos sem critério. Cada país*, com base no princípio da autonomia nacional, deveria estar livre para decidir sobre suas próprias políticas, ainda mais se forem razoáveis ou racionais. Idealmente falando, toda política pública deveria ser mediada pelo diálogo constante do governo com a população, inclusive com direito a plebiscitos para saber a opinião ou a vontade da mesma e de, se possível, respeitá-la, especialmente se for bem embasada.

* Mas também serve para cidade, estado, região...

1.1 Todo país tem a obrigação moral de receber refugiados e/ou imigrantes 

Novamente, nenhum país deveria ser obrigado a receber refugiados ou imigrantes. A obrigação moral só seria potencialmente indiscutível em casos mais específicos. Mas mesmo em situações extremas, tal como em um conflito armado, esse tipo de decisão deveria ser da alçada de todos os envolvidos e não apenas de alguns grupos (ativistas, políticos...)

2. Devemos ser a favor da livre circulação de pessoas no mundo, por ser um direito humano, nosso, acaso quisermos ou precisarmos

Primeiramente, devemos ser a favor do respeito à autonomia das nações e não de achar que o mundo é o nosso quintal. Segundo, devemos ser a favor da moderação que só é possível pela ponderação. Pois esse pensamento é radical e insensível às pessoas que sofrerão ou já estão sofrendo com os efeitos negativos do multiculturalismo, bem como com os problemas ecológicos causados por turistas, imigrantes, empresas estrangeiras...

2.1 Devemos ter empatia ou sermos mais solidários com os mais necessitados, nos tornando mais receptivos, especialmente em relação aos refugiados 

Mas ser empático não significa tolerar abusos e crimes cometidos por imigrantes ou refugiados, ainda mais se forem hediondos. E já é notória a correlação positiva entre criminalidade e certos grupos de imigrantes. Idealmente, em um contexto de imigração inevitável, deve haver pelo menos um controle de qualidade, para detectar sujeitos cronicamente anti sociais antes que entrem no país e cometam crimes. E, com base no que a ciência, de fato, tem compilado sobre o comportamento humano, é possível fazer essa detecção a partir dos padrões relacionados com comportamentos anti sociais e suas frequências.

Mas mesmo se for possível ou decidido receber refugiados, deve haver um controle com base na real capacidade de recepção e integração (temporária??) deles ao país que os acolher, afinal, nenhum país é capaz de receber todos os "necessitados" do mundo. 

3. A imigração é importante para combater problemas demográficos, como o envelhecimento 

O maior problema não é o aumento da expectativa de vida, mas as taxas de fecundidade muito baixas, que só pode ser resolvido combatendo-as de frente, ao invés de relegar a uma outra solução, diga-se, falsa. 

3.1 A imigração é importante para a economia 

Depende muito do imigrante. Imigrantes vindos de países subdesenvolvidos, geralmente, causam mais problemas sociais (como o aumento da violência e do vandalismo) e, consequentemente, prejuízos econômicos.

4. A imigração ou multiculturalismo é importante para combater o racismo 

Então, destruir a homogeneidade cultural e étnica de uma cidade, estado/região ou país é o mesmo que combater o racismo??? 

5. Se você for descendente de imigrantes ou de um país com histórico de emigração, então, não pode criticar imigrantes ou refugiados 

Nenhum país tem a obrigação de ser um país "de imigrantes" para sempre ou durante toda sua história. E não, nem mesmo se você for um imigrante, nada impede que possa criticar imigrantes ou imigração, ainda mais se forem, respectivamente, sobre imigrantes que causam problemas e imigração em massa/sem controle... 

6. A culpa pela pobreza e/ou conflitos dos países subdesenvolvidos é principalmente dos habitantes dos países ricos ou dos "descendentes" dos colonizadores. Por isso que os países desses antigos colonizadores devem ser receptivos à imigração, como compensação por seus crimes 

Os diretamente envolvidos com o colonialismo não são as pessoas comuns que vivem em países outrora metrópoles coloniais, mas seus governos, ou suas "elites" política e econômica, principalmente. Acreditar que o cidadão médio de um país, como o Reino Unido, por exemplo, deve ser responsabilizado ou mesmo penalizado pelos crimes do colonialismo é injusto e falacioso (falácia da atribuição indevida). 

Além disso, os problemas sociais dos países pobres tendem a ser resultados da corrupção generalizada de suas "elites" e também de parcelas nada desprezíveis de suas próprias populações. Pois se as ruas da minha cidade pequena estão sempre sujas, a culpa é minha por ser branco e também dos europeus que não vivem aqui?? A culpa é sempre e primariamente do culpado e não de bodes expiatórios...

7. A livre circulação de pessoas é um processo inevitável da globalização 

Ou do globalismo?? 

Se a tendência é de nos tornarmos mais globalizados, isso pode ser feito com moderação, respeitando a autonomia das nações e os direitos dos nativos. 

8. A recepção de imigrantes econômicos e de refugiados é uma medida humanitária 

É sim, mas de curto prazo e paliativa, pois não ataca os problemas principais que estão resultando nesses fluxos migratórios. É como jogar baldes de água para apagar um fogaréu, além de causar problemas também aos países de imigração. Pois uma das razões para os problemas sociais dos países subdesenvolvidos está em seus próprios governos e com envolvimento de parcelas nada desprezíveis de suas próprias populações e, por isso que, os países mais ricos e socialmente desenvolvidos deveriam ajudar na administração e organização deles, inclusive com a possibilidade de intervenção, caso seja necessário, uma espécie de pseudo colonialismo benevolente (que seria o ideal... mas não para os ignorantes e/ou perversos que defendem o multiculturalismo).

1. Every rich country has a moral obligation to welcome "the world's poor"

A priori, no country has the obligation to open its borders to welcome people from outside, not even selectively and much less without criteria. Each country*, based on the principle of national autonomy, should be free to decide on its own policies, especially if they are reasonable or rational. Ideally speaking, all public policy should be mediated by constant dialogue between the government and the population, including the right to plebiscites to find out their opinion or will and, if possible, respect it, especially if it is well-founded.

* But it also applies to cities, states, regions...

1.1 Every country has a moral obligation to welcome refugees and/or immigrants

Again, no country should be obliged to welcome refugees or immigrants. The moral obligation would only be potentially indisputable in more specific cases. But even in extreme situations, such as an armed conflict, this type of decision should be made by all those involved and not just by a few groups (activists, politicians, etc.)

2. We should be in favor of the free movement of people around the world, because it is a human right, ours, whether we want or need it

First, we should be in favor of respecting the autonomy of nations and not of thinking that the world is our backyard. Second, we should be in favor of moderation, which is only possible through consideration. This thinking is radical and insensitive to the people who will suffer or are already suffering from the negative effects of multiculturalism, as well as from the ecological problems caused by tourists, immigrants, foreign companies, etc.

2.1 We should have empathy or be more supportive of those most in need, becoming more receptive, especially towards refugees

But being empathetic does not mean tolerating abuses and crimes committed by immigrants or refugees, especially if they are heinous. And the positive correlation between crime and certain groups of immigrants is already well-known. Ideally, in a context of inevitable immigration, there should be at least some quality control to detect chronically antisocial individuals before they enter the country and commit crimes. And, based on what actualscience has actually compiled about human behavior, it is possible to make this detection based on the patterns related to antisocial behavior and its frequencies.

But even if it is possible or decided to receive refugees, there should be a control based on the real capacity of reception and integration (temporary??) of them in the host country, after all, no country is capable of receiving all the "needy" people in the world.

3. Immigration is important to combat demographic problems, such as aging

The biggest problem is not the increase in life expectancy, but the very low fertility rates, which can only be solved by combating them head on, instead of relegating them to another, let's say, false solution.

3.1 Immigration is important for the economy

It depends a lot on the immigrant. Immigrants from underdeveloped countries generally cause more social problems (such as increased violence and vandalism) and, consequently, economic losses.

4. Immigration or multiculturalism is important to combat racism

So, destroying the cultural and ethnic homogeneity of a city, state/region or country is the same as combating racism???

5. If you are a descendant of immigrants or from a country with a history of emigration, then you cannot criticize immigrants or refugees

No country has the obligation to be a country of "immigrants" forever or throughout its history. And no, even if you are an immigrant, nothing prevents you from criticizing immigrants or immigration, especially if they are, respectively, about immigrants who cause problems and mass/uncontrolled immigration...

6. The blame for poverty and/or conflicts in underdeveloped countries lies mainly with the inhabitants of rich countries or the "descendants" of colonizers. That is why the countries of these former colonizers should be receptive to immigration, as compensation for their crimes.

Those directly involved in colonialism are not the ordinary people who live in countries that were once colonial metropolises, but their governments, or their political and economic "elites", mainly. To believe that the average citizen of a country, such as the United Kingdom, for example, should be held responsible or even punished for the crimes of colonialism is unfair and fallacious (fallacy of wrongful attribution).

In addition, the social problems of poor countries tend to be the result of the widespread corruption of their "elites" and also of not insignificant portions of their own populations. Because if the streets of my small town are always dirty, is it my fault for being white and also that of the Europeans who do not live here? The blame is always and primarilyof the guilty and not of scapegoats...

7. Is the free movement of people an inevitable process of globalization

Or of globalism??

If the trend is to become more globalized, this can be done in moderation, respecting the autonomy of nations and the rights of natives.

8. The reception of economic immigrants and refugees is a humanitarian measure

Yes, it is, but it is short-term and palliative, as it does not address the main problems that are resulting in these migratory flows. It is like throwing buckets of water to put out a fire, in addition to causing problems for the countries of immigration. Because one of the reasons for the social problems of underdeveloped countries lies in their own governments and the involvement of not insignificant portions of their own populations, and that is why the richest and most socially developed countries should help in their administration and organization, including the possibility of intervention, if necessary, a kind of benevolent pseudo-colonialism (which would be ideal... but not for the ignorant and/or perverse people who defend multiculturalism).

"Por um mundo melhor", eles estão destruindo os melhores países para se viver/"For a better world", they are destroying the best countries to live in

 Canadá, Austrália, Nova Zelândia...

Suécia, outros países escandinavos e europeus...

EUA...

Com políticas públicas de abrandamento penal, de imigração em massa ou sem controle e muita doutrinação ideológica (mentiras, distorções, manipulações, chantagens) na mídia, na educação e no governo...

Até em países "velhos de guerra", como o Brasil. 

O mundo, sua natureza e alguns humanos não mereciam mais uma "revolução cultural" de fanáticos totalitários, de perversos organizados e seus exércitos de idiotas úteis...

Canada, Australia, New Zealand...

Sweden, other Scandinavian and European countries...

USA...

With public policies of penal easing, mass or uncontrolled immigration and a lot of ideological indoctrination (lies, distortions, manipulations, blackmail) in the media, education and government...

Even in ''developing'' countries, like Brazil.

The world, its nature and some humans don't deserved another "cultural revolution" of totalitarian fanatics, organized perverts and their armies of useful idiots...