The uproar around immigration is less about migration itself than about the structural turbulence of complex systems diffusing toward equilibrium. Blaming newcomers is the lowest common denominator because it provides a ready-made, simplified narrative—one that maps frustration onto visible targets rather than onto the more abstract dynamics of monopolistic economics, institutional inertia, or technological disruption. But this is not only about the information system amplifying signals. Our very thinking—our desires, our reflexes, our sense of grievance—is inflated by, compelled toward, and bound within the same entropic processes. What we think is not fully our own: thought arrives through language, now extended and accelerated by technology, and is seized upon by political and commercial opportunists who turn this structural drift to their advantage.
This is why simple answers like “blame the foreigners” endure: not because they solve anything, but as the narratives themselves are selecting for their own survival, through us. Over time, distrust of difference doesn’t merely fix on what is already there—it manufactures difference. Systems that evolve through entropic diffusion select for narratives that reinforce their own persistence, and in this case, that means continually fabricating new boundaries, new figures of suspicion, new objects of blame. The paradox is stark: what appears to defend identity only hollows it out, tethering people ever more tightly to insecurities that are engineered to sustain themselves.
Where there is no guilt, guilt will be asserted; dependency on othering ensures that if no convenient outsider exists, the system will generate one, a pattern deeply inscribed in history and now unfolding again.
Daedelus Kite 
One reply on “Immigration Insecurity”
Yes, one could draw superficial correlations with Nazi Germany before World War II—resentment, scapegoating, the manufacturing of difference—but to stop there is to miss the point. What is occurring now is more sophisticated, less theatrical, and far more pervasive. The technological engulfment of humanity has gone stealth; it does not announce itself with banners or uniforms but through the seamless embedding of communication systems into the fabric of life. It is not that no one sees it—it is that seeing it changes nothing, because the experience of the system is the system itself.
This is why the common political tropes fail so utterly. Media and politics offer caricatures of explanation, clumsy analogies, and hollow outrage, but nothing that can reckon with the scale of what is underway. To assert recognition is not arrogance; it is to name the difficulty, that this condition is innately hard to grasp precisely because it saturates perception. Sophistication collapses in on itself under such conditions, leaving societies with shallow responses to transformations that are anything but shallow.
It is like the locust swarm, where individual insects follow only the simplest of rules—turn, move, follow—but when repeated across the collective, those rules cascade into a hyper-complex murmuration that takes on a life of its own. In human societies, the simple rule is othering: identify difference, cast blame. Repeated at scale, it produces vast self-reinforcing patterns that bias thought, validate themselves, and mask their own unreality. Institutions that should interrupt this cycle instead sustain it, reproducing the very fallacies that feed the swarm.
If a better world depends on breaking from this cycle, then the greatest obstacle is that the prevailing system profits by keeping it in motion. The outrage and political action is consequence masquerading as cause.
LikeLike