Extreme wealth creates a dangerous societal rift not just through inequality, but by allowing the ultra-rich to opt out of public systems. They have their own concierge healthcare, private transportation, and elite schools, making them immune to and ignorant of the struggles faced by the other 99.9%, which fuels populist anger.

The super-rich lose empathy not necessarily because they are bad people, but because their lifestyle systematically isolates them from common experiences. With private airports, healthcare, and schools, they no longer participate in or understand the struggles of mainstream society. This segregation creates a fundamental disconnect that impacts their worldview and political influence.

Resistance to mass immigration is often mislabeled as racism when it's a defense of cultural uniqueness. The core fear is that blending all cultures creates a bland 'beige' monolith, ultimately allowing the most aggressive and cohesive incoming culture to dominate.

Immigration's success or failure is determined by values alignment, not ethnicity. The US historically integrated diverse groups because they shared a foundational ethos. Current conflicts arise when immigrant populations hold fundamentally different core values from the host nation, creating societal friction regardless of race.

While promoting tolerance, mass immigration risks erasing unique cultural differences, creating a homogenous world. In this "beige" environment, the most cohesive and aggressive culture with high birth rates and a clear agenda will inevitably become dominant.

In a counter-intuitive argument, the UK's Home Secretary, herself the daughter of immigrants, posits that restricting immigration is necessary to protect social harmony. The theory is that a perceived lack of control fuels public panic and racism, so tightening controls will calm tensions and ultimately shore up multiculturalism.

Elites often hold beliefs about how society should be ordered that sound virtuous but would be disastrous for ordinary people. The proponents of these 'luxury beliefs' are insulated from the negative real-world consequences by their own wealth and status.

Framing immigration solely as a moral imperative leads to impractical policies by ignoring crucial factors like resource allocation, cultural integration, and public consent. A pragmatic approach balances humanitarianism with national interest, preventing unsustainable outcomes and social friction.

Immigration policy must account for economic incentives. Unlike in the past, modern welfare states make immigration an economically rational choice for survival, not just opportunity. This shifts the dynamic, attracting individuals based on benefits rather than a desire to contribute without a safety net.