The Migration Spectacle (with Guadalupe Correa Cabrera) 

Isn’t it nice to see a conversation between two academics with different research focuses sharing information and asking questions? So much better than the emotionally charged debates over these controversial issues that are so common in the West.

This is very unrelated to the video, but I’m relatively fresh out of undergraduate studies working for a state government agency in the US and we just had a new employee introduced at work today, a PhD graduate who studied geography and, in his words, “arcane social theory, so let’s not talk about that”. I confronted him about that statement, the conversation went as follows: “You study arcane social theory?” “Yes” “What does that consist of?” “Social systems and what not…” “Like systems theory?” He nods his head “Like Niklas Luhmann?” And the shock on his face when I mentioned that name was so palpable, he was genuinely shaken. Turns out his professor studied under Luhmann, and he couldn’t help but laugh when he said I found out about him by chance, through you! I introduced him to your channel, and I think we’re getting lunch together later today. So thanks for helping me connect with a new employee!

The promise of a new video from Dr. Moeller sweetens the entire day.

Guadalupe is an expert when talking about drug related violence in Mexico. She has given several talks in Spaces at Twitter to share all her knowledge, we will always be thankful.

these interviews are wonderful, keep up the great work

Amazing collaboration of two academics, journalism and philosophy combined to understand our complex world!

I’m not American, so my scope on this issue was already limited. I have to admit this shattered my previous notions. I would be very interested to learn how this applies in the European context.

Super interesting discussion! Looking forward to reading more of Professor Cabrera's work on migration. Likewise, congrats to Dr. Moeller on his work on the neoliberalisation of academia. Keep up the good work!

Great interview. Dr. Cabrera's seminal work is required reading for any serious scholar interested in cartel and political violence in Mexico.

Great interview with Dr. Correa, unique insights, perspective, and context that in today's media landscape is impossible to watch and hear.

Hey professor, I am leaving this comment before watching the video just to suggest you to react to a video called "Why German History is Different" from the channel "Then and now". I watched this video and I thought that it would be nice to hear your considerations on this video, since it talks a lot about the history of german thinkers and philosophers.

A wonderful talk among two great scholars! It is great to see a constructive and civil discourse on migration, a global issue that demands all of our attention.

I notice that the rivalry between catholicism and protestantism in the United States still exists.

"professional activists" and the co-option of movements into something digestible in mainstream politics. something that is only surface level and fits whatever profile. this relates to a lot of anarchist thought. you can have people in the community taking community action, and professionals trying to do interdisciplinary traditional government - uprising syncretism. i was reading a book, Rythms of the Patchakuti, and it said something about the government being an intermediary force between capitalists and the wants of the people in such a way that they do a whole propaganda manufacturing consent into making people support capitalism/those in power. And "professional activists" are essentially ambassadors of that cause.,

Awesome interview!

Excelente contenido, gracias...

Isn't the phenomenon of a spectacle just a more visible instance of the operational closure of functional systems? I guess "visible" is a little imprecise term, however my point is that whenever one would simply like to describe certain events as spectacle rather then reality (or a logical cause and effect set of processes) it seems to me that subconciously one realizes the rigidity of operational closure of functional systems (of course not necessarily in the terms of referencing Luhmann's systems theory). Especially when the events being described as a spectacle have somewhat "bigger scale" - not sure however if "bigger scale" as in extensive media coverage is a good measure here.

Ooo I’m early

So interesting and enlightening, thank you. This explains so much. Maybe you could look at this in relation to Extinction Rebellion and the most recent "climate activism", another great spectacle.

Can you please share your thoughts on "The greatest lie ever sold" by DailyWire and Candace Owens?

Very interesting discussion. Thank you.

Interesting

Fascinating. I’m reminded f the broken cross of CND

i hope you do another talk it was very interesting

It would be nice to have some more structure or some information in the video description, perhaps with timestamps, giving an overview of what the discussion is about. I find this video hard to follow and difficult to understand what points it's trying to make.

Algae rhythm

A great video, but I'm scared that it weakens your algorithmic recommendability. It's too lengthy and nuanced :(

Tangentially, calling someone a class reductionist is like calling someone a capitalist reductionist. Or a physics-reductionist. Like, duh-obviously.

“I’m not judgmental.. but it’s fake and doesn’t help” haha we have a militant of the status quo here let’s not kid ourselves :p Interesting interview nonetheless.

Her book about Zetas is just shocking, based on true facts.

Professor Cabrera brings up some interesting criticisms of the role of activism at the border. I can confirm that similar patterns exist anywhere US based activists mobilize on behalf of marginalized populations (especially as they become increasingly foreign). For example, the same sort of political and financial shenanigans are abundant in the arena of African aid work. However, based on this interview alone I see 2 potential pitfalls of her work: 1) She runs a great risk of accidentally portraying (or occasionally purposely being manipulated into appearing as if she is portraying) both sides of the issue as equivalents. One must be particularly careful when criticizing progressive movements to emphasize at every turn, quite clearly the moral bankruptcy and utter untenability of the regressive opposition or else risk being misrepresented as somehow endorsing them. I suspect she has probably already been through this a few times and being more careful in this regard would probably reduce the amount of criticism she gets. This interview is a good example of her failure to do that. 2) Her analysis sounds a little thin in implying that the caravan incident was primarily a manufactured spectacle coordinated by a national network of activists and other special interests exploiting vulnerable people for the purpose of furthering an *unrelated agenda.* The professor acknowledges this to a certain degree by noting that progressives from standing rock may have a legitimate reason for involvement in border immigration issues given their professed ideological commitment to principles which would appear to demand similar action on both issues. Thus even if we were to establish national coordination was taking place and that immigrants were purposely being exploited, it might not be for an entirely unrelated agenda. However the professor then doubles back and bases her entire skepticism of the movement on the fact that the Standing Rock protest failed at everything except launching a few political careers. My question is: What is the alternative? This is literally the only game in town. If you know the Standing Rock protest is doomed to fail do you not show up? Or do you go through the motions anyway in the hopes that you at least build enough political capital for the next fight? Clearly in _any_ scenario you would expect to see national coordination on issues with similar ideological charge. And yes, in the game of imperialism and xenophobia immigrants are not the other team, they are the ball. Liberal progressive Americans are one team & Conservatives are the other. However, the last thing you want to do is draw the focus on the lesser offense of Liberal hypocrisy without placing it quite strongly in the context of severe rejection of conservative evil.

It has never been enough to allow sedentary state philosophy to guide our understanding of movement -- we must move toward a move nomadic, migrant philosophy of the state and of society. Deleuze and Guattari lay this out in their Treatise on Nomadology, and it seems pertinent that we follow suit.

Algorithm

Am I the only one who doesn't find it particularly surprising that citizens with certain beliefs would support different causes, which are aligned with their beliefs and they feel are in need? In the digital age, proximity is not really much of a factor in order to be engaged. Therefore pointing out how activists or their organisations come feom different areas is not really meaningful. Leaders or members of such organisations are obviously individuals who identify with the causes they support or at least hold them in high regard, it's logical that a highly socially active person within such organisations would not limit their engagement to just the one thing especially over the course of time. Lastly, the point that the activists were not natives or of a migrant background themselves is just laughable. Why would they need to be? For context, if a group of men organised a local protest in Iran over the current women's rights issues, would that be considered in any way abnormal? In short, I think that while the observations themselves are interesting and a neutral presentation on them would be informative, insinuating some sort of subconscious motive to this type of thing other than to engage with a cause you find important isn't worth much.

I'd love to hear the professor's thoughts on ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE--XcEQNqR6mc.html. It's worth noting that Keith might be described by some as being more than a little right of center. Watching some of his other videos and reading the comments underneath should clarify what I'm alluding to. A critique of this video, taken in the context of his other videos, in the same vein as your Peterson and Harrison videos would be most welcome.

First they are for the indigenous population, then they are for the migrants. lol So they don't care the least about EITHER group; they're just using them as means to other ends. The reason "Eagle and Condor" failed would be that it is one thing for the Condor to come and help the Eagle protect itself; it is another thing entirely to expect the Eagle to help the Condor invade. One half of the fictional Exodus is indeed escape from "slavery"; the other half is invasion and occupation. This isn't about "capitalism", but about standing out while clambering within elite overproduction. Imagine you're in a job interview for a management position. "I helped organize the lol "leaderless" Antifa protests." "Ooooh, please tell us more." These activists are building their CVs, not only in projects, but in willingness and ability to amorality, even immorality. "Since I am willing, and able, to screw BOTH Eagles and Condors, imagine what I am willing, and able, to do to YOUR customers." And such a CV works just as well within a "socialist" system, eg in state bureaucracy or at a state-funded hospital or university, eg in (NON-SOCIALIST) Norway. "Capitalism!" is a red herring. The ONLY alternatives to "capitalism" are some form or other of Luddism. And it is noteworthy how certain attitudes trace their way back through the history of religion and "spirituality". Marxism has heavy strands, inherited from Hegel and others, of "spirituality". You'll never read this, though, will you? WONDERFUL guest.

While I appreciate the diversity of topics this channel touches on with these interviews, I have to say it feels kind of strained whenever the professor inevitably seems to try to bring in his own idea of civil religion and attempt to connect it to issues as disparate as AI research or, in this case, migration. While I appreciate this channels' highlighting of the woke civil religion that is arising nowadays, this is getting excessive. It just comes across as forced and an attempt to skew every topic covered under the umbrella of this channels' BIG idea, so to speak. If civil religion is at play, I'd rather the interviewees, who are after all the relevant subject matter experts in each case, raise it themselves organically rather than have the professor try to interject it into the discussion whenever an opening presents itself. There are other ways to understand the topic of migration and/or AI discourse, and I'd rather leave it to the researchers of each themselves to choose their preferred framing.

Everything is theater.

I like how we all collectively trying to understand what the fuck americans doing and what they have in their enlightened heads, lol.

It's hard to listen to her when she replace v with a hard b.

24:00 they're talking about jews without realizing it

Talks a lot, does she really say much? Crime, kidnapping," I'm a journalist." Anything here that's new or insightful? "Focussing on people". Brilliant? She misses the point of the question: are cabols driving emigration by crime on one hand, then profiting on the trafficking on the other. Pull factors, better jobs in less corrupt country. Obv. I'm impatient, but the rate of new ideas here is quite relaxed.

wilson center fellow/academic. as in woodrow wilson