Immigration Insecurity

Note to self:
Conflict over immigration is, before all else, conflict. If not immigration, it would be something else. The issue is not the object but the structure—how difference is processed, amplified, or suppressed within the communicative field.

I study communication, language, and complex systems: how we understand what is happening to us through logic, physics, and our own (not artificial) intelligence. Whether this internal social dissonance is being manipulated—and it likely is—is less important than recognising that such oscillations arise naturally. Disagreement, insecurity, and the hollow self-interest of reactive personalities all express the same underlying dynamic: systems struggling to stabilise around their own endemic uncertainty.

The critical error at such historical inflection points is that people align with ideological positions without understanding why; as neurolinguistic reflex to self-define by turbulent contradiction, regardless the terms. Partisan tribalism becomes the default condition of identity. Yet this is not our natural state—it is a reactive insecurity, an atavistic neurosis that is continuously reanimated because it yields political and commercial capital. Technology, in turn, amplifies this pathology, working against us despite, yet and in some sense because of, the deepening intimacy of our entanglement with it.