I Told You So: Article on Intercultural Coexistence.
The Zeitgeist likes me BUNCHES today.
My previous post, on September 10: On Coexistence.
Article, World Science, September 13: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors.
I would post the article itself, but the format doesn't copy very prettily. It contains, at any rate, pretty much the same theory I came up with a while ago: namely, that different cultural groups can coexist well in areas that provide either strong boundaries between their individual subregions, or a shared set of ground rules. The Lex Romana of the Roman empire is a classic example of the latter. The US "melting-pot", during the times and occasions when it was actually successful, also used this principle: the "base attractor" of "mainstream" American culture was able to assimilate new immigrants (albeit, in many cases, with a certain period of "hazing the newbies" which strikes me as rather similar to a fraternity initiation ritual.)
The current "multiculturalism", on the other hand, is a muddled mess because it rejects both segregation and assimilation, trying to achieve some in-between compromise which, in the end, pleases no one. It reminds me of that old story about the two guys with the donkey who tried to please everyone, and ended up only making fools of themselves.
This, by the way, is one reason why I do not identify as "White Nationalist". Although I do believe in Freedom of Association, and sympathize with those who want to preserve their culture, I also cannot ignore the empirical evidence that successful mixed social units do exist, at all levels of scale. There are mixed marriages that are stable and happy. There are mixed families whose children grow up healthy, strong, and intellectually competent. There are communities where people of different ethnic groups live together in harmony. There are cosmopolitan agorae where people from all over the world come together to peacefully exchange goods and ideas. And, insofar as these associations are actually successful, they have as much right to exist as anything else.
One the other hand, many people are also positively assortative; they prefer the company of their own kind. And that, of course, is perfectly fine too. Chacun a son gout.
Both sides, multiculturalists and separatists, have become morally polarized, each claiming that their vision of an ideal society is absolutely right; when, ironically, both sides are actually advocating for diversity: diversity of different kinds and on different levels. A preference for mixture is still a preference; a mixture is a particular kind of thing. Human beings cannot live without any preferences at all; such a state of being may be possible in Nirvana, but not on Earth.
My previous post, on September 10: On Coexistence.
Article, World Science, September 13: Good Fences Make Good Neighbors.
I would post the article itself, but the format doesn't copy very prettily. It contains, at any rate, pretty much the same theory I came up with a while ago: namely, that different cultural groups can coexist well in areas that provide either strong boundaries between their individual subregions, or a shared set of ground rules. The Lex Romana of the Roman empire is a classic example of the latter. The US "melting-pot", during the times and occasions when it was actually successful, also used this principle: the "base attractor" of "mainstream" American culture was able to assimilate new immigrants (albeit, in many cases, with a certain period of "hazing the newbies" which strikes me as rather similar to a fraternity initiation ritual.)
The current "multiculturalism", on the other hand, is a muddled mess because it rejects both segregation and assimilation, trying to achieve some in-between compromise which, in the end, pleases no one. It reminds me of that old story about the two guys with the donkey who tried to please everyone, and ended up only making fools of themselves.
This, by the way, is one reason why I do not identify as "White Nationalist". Although I do believe in Freedom of Association, and sympathize with those who want to preserve their culture, I also cannot ignore the empirical evidence that successful mixed social units do exist, at all levels of scale. There are mixed marriages that are stable and happy. There are mixed families whose children grow up healthy, strong, and intellectually competent. There are communities where people of different ethnic groups live together in harmony. There are cosmopolitan agorae where people from all over the world come together to peacefully exchange goods and ideas. And, insofar as these associations are actually successful, they have as much right to exist as anything else.
One the other hand, many people are also positively assortative; they prefer the company of their own kind. And that, of course, is perfectly fine too. Chacun a son gout.
Both sides, multiculturalists and separatists, have become morally polarized, each claiming that their vision of an ideal society is absolutely right; when, ironically, both sides are actually advocating for diversity: diversity of different kinds and on different levels. A preference for mixture is still a preference; a mixture is a particular kind of thing. Human beings cannot live without any preferences at all; such a state of being may be possible in Nirvana, but not on Earth.