Christchurch massacre

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

This a lot of conjecture and half cocked assertions. Your argument looks weak when you make a generalization like that. We would need to take that list and deep dive into the data country by country, to see if there exists a real correlation with demographic composition.
Australia is #3 and according to it's 2011 census has 26% of its residents born overseas. native born citizens with one foreign born parent make up another 20% of the population.

For Germany at #5 20% of the population has foreign roots (i.e. not ethnically German). Singapore at #9 is a 75-14-9 breakdown for Chinese, Malay, and Indian. This is just a sample of what stood out to me in the top 10. Are these not multicultural countries?

The evidence presented is essentially that the remnants of Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and countries under the Iron Curtain, which under went civil war and economic collapse (respectively) twenty five years ago are lower on the index...because of multiculturalism?
Viking, I don't mean to sound dismissive, but the argument has to be better than this. Russia is struggling because of it has an oligarchical economy and a tyrannical government interested in preserving the oligarchy.

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.

Western liberal democracies by their nature hold certain philosophies above others. We define ourselves by those philosophical underpinnings and against those who do not share those same values.

In my opinion, the emphasis on managing race/demographics is the endgame for those that commit these shootings. We are feeding into their plan and further undermine social cohesion by framing the situation in this way.
We already have a perfectly suitable framework of competing ideas regarding individualistic expression and the relationship of a population and their government with which we can call ourselves "us" and other nations/groups "them".

Those that are German are the ones who believe in upholding the German constitution and the values it espouses. Same with the Americans, and the British...
When you start to worry about law abiding "paki's" who are there to live in peace, in accordance with the law, simply because their appearance and behavior in society is no longer statistically insignificant leads us to policies that can only result in the type of racial policing ripe for Nazi's/bigots to abuse.

That's my take on the situation at least.