Christchurch massacre

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

To not address the root cause allows this to fester and allows Montys pessimism to start becoming realism.

That would be a basic breakdown in Democracy - and also a failure to recognise that what we now classify as "extremism" used to be government policy somewhere​.

[Strike For The South]

That would be a basic breakdown in Democracy - and also a failure to recognise that what we now classify as "extremism" used to be government policy somewhere​.

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not advocating for any sort of draconian laws. What policy?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not sure I follow. I'm not advocating for any sort of draconian laws. What policy?

"Segregate all the Blacks"

"Disenfranchise all the Christians"

"Drive out the Jews".

These are extremist views now, they have been at one time or another (more than once) official government policy somewhere, some time.

So, to see the views of racists and other bigots as somehow inherently abhorrent to human behaviour is clearly wrong, because these traits are innate to human behaviour.

[Strike For The South]

"Segregate all the Blacks"

"Disenfranchise all the Christians"

"Drive out the Jews".

These are extremist views now, they have been at one time or another (more than once) official government policy somewhere, some time.

So, to see the views of racists and other bigots as somehow inherently abhorrent to human behaviour is clearly wrong, because these traits are innate to human behaviour.

I mean this kind of thing has the real possibility of undercutting the social fabric. It's not really the point if it's innate or not. Things are like that and sometimes people is not particularly good policy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I mean this kind of thing has the real possibility of undercutting the social fabric. It's not really the point if it's innate or not. Things are like that and sometimes people is not particularly good policy.

The point is that the social fabric is already rather thin. About the only thing most people can agree on these days is not killing each other and in America even that's not a given.

No shared culture, no shared religion... Some countries like the UK have a monarch to rally behind but that's an inconsistent glue at best.

Basically, our lack of extremism makes us vulnerable to extremism. Kinda "virtue is a double-sided sword" situation.

[Strike For The South]

The point is that the social fabric is already rather thin. About the only thing most people can agree on these days is not killing each other and in America even that's not a given.

No shared culture, no shared religion... Some countries like the UK have a monarch to rally behind but that's an inconsistent glue at best.

Basically, our lack of extremism makes us vulnerable to extremism. Kinda "virtue is a double-sided sword" situation.

So, que sera sera? Let the chips fall where they may? Time to take a bow? Unable or unwilling to change?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So, que sera sera? Let the chips fall where they may? Time to take a bow? Unable or unwilling to change?

No, you confront it.

However, you need to do so in a measured way - with carefully considered responses.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The point is that the social fabric is already rather thin. About the only thing most people can agree on these days is not killing each other and in America even that's not a given.

No shared culture, no shared religion... Some countries like the UK have a monarch to rally behind but that's an inconsistent glue at best.

Basically, our lack of extremism makes us vulnerable to extremism. Kinda "virtue is a double-sided sword" situation.

Your description in the first chunk seems to be a general description of human society in all its forms.

What exactly makes pluralistic societies any weaker than homogeneous ones? Are we to believe that violence and tension in society only became a thing about when 20th century multiculturalism arrived?

[Viking]

Your description in the first chunk seems to be a general description of human society in all its forms.

What exactly makes pluralistic societies any weaker than homogeneous ones? Are we to believe that violence and tension in society only became a thing about when 20th century multiculturalism arrived?

You are to believe that heterogeneous societies on average are more violent and less functional than homogeneous societies.


When you look at the 2018 Human Development Index, you'll notice that the top is dominated by relatively ethnically homogeneous societies (Switzerland's position is interesting, but that's ironically also a country that banned the construction of new minarets in a popular referendum).

One could also note that the list is dominated by countries from the West and Europe. At the same time, a large and resourceful country like Russia scores well below all the other European big powers. Incidentally, by many measures, Russia is also the most ethnically diverse European country, with several of its republics dominated demographically by ethnicities other than the Russian one.



If I did my counting right, among the European countries that used to be part of the Eastern Bloc, 9 score better than Russia (Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Poland, Latvia, Croatia, Hungary, Lithuania and Estonia) and 10 score worse (Bulgaria, Romania, Montenegro, Ukraine, Belarus, Albania, Serbia, Northern Macedonia, Bosnia, Moldova).

Of the 10 countries scoring worse, 4 (Montenegro, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Northern Macedonia) were part of the multi-ethnic disaster that was Yugoslavia, and the country that retains the most ethnic diversity of these, Bosnia and Herzegovina, scores the fourth lowest among all European countries.

The lowest-scoring European country is Moldova, which incidentally contains the frozen conflict zone of Transnistria, which has a significantly different ethnic composition compared to the rest of the country (Russians and Ukrainians form more than half of the population in Transnistria). The country scoring second lowest is Ukraine, which also has significant ethnicity-related tension between the eastern and western parts, and between Crimea and the rest. The third lowest is Northern Macedonia, which is also very ethnically heterogeneous, with ethnic Macedonians forming only 60-70% of the population.


On the other side of the divide, you mostly find relatively ethnically homogeneous countries: Poland, Hungary, Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Lithuania and Croatia. You also find Latvia and Estonia, which both have sizeable Russian minorities, but I get the impression that both of these countries have successfully been building nation states based on the Latvian and Estonian ethnicities, respectively, rather than opting for a more inclusive model.

Similarly, you can say that the US traditionally have been building a nation state centred on predominant European ancestry (perhaps we can also add the adjective Protestant), a project that only recently truly has been reshaped into to something less European-centric and generally more pluralistic, together with a massive change in demographics. Not long afterwards, the US got Trump as president. I don't think that is a coincidence.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Your description in the first chunk seems to be a general description of human society in all its forms.

What exactly makes pluralistic societies any weaker than homogeneous ones? Are we to believe that violence and tension in society only became a thing about when 20th century multiculturalism arrived?

We define what we are by what we are not. We suppress our differences by emphasising the differences we share with another "out" group.

For the Greeks and Romans this was the Barbarians; for the Christians, the Pagans (and later the Muslims); for the Europeans it was the non-whites.

Now we suppress the instinct to other people - we are all equal, all beliefs, all cultural practises are equally valid. This emphasises all our differences, which undermines social cohesion.

That's not a problem when everyone has enough money and enough to eat - it becomes a problem if/when times are hard.

We got Trump, and Macron, and Brexit, in part because times are hard and in part because our societies are fragmented and therefore our social currents have become unpredictable.

This guy picked his out-group - Muslims - and he then went ahead and started killing them because they threaten his in-group (non Muslims). How do Muslims threaten non Muslims you ask? Simple, Islam is a missionary faith that seeks to subsume all of humanity and the Christians are no longer actively trying to stop them (via counter-conversions).

You want my advice? We should all be less accepting and more tollerant.

Now, can we talk about saving your eternal soul from fiery damnation? Or would you prefer to discuss reintegrating america into the Empire?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I mean SPQR, obviously.

[Montmorency]

That would be a basic breakdown in Democracy - and also a failure to recognise that what we now classify as "extremism" used to be government policy somewhere​.

This is a very important point about "extremism". For example, in Nazi Germany harboring Jewish refugees and promoting jazz music would have been extremism. In the Soviet Union, having reservations about the Party was extremism, to the point it was sometimes treated as pathology.