The new great divergence:
Increasing polarization, even fragmentation, of society is becoming apparent in US politics. There is a sense that society is separating into parts, each of which is listening only to other members of that group. The separation between groups can enable them to deviate even further in values and perspectives. …
That’s the process. Nothing else is necessary. The only task remaining is to accelerate it.
Garrett Jones lays out the (classical) liberal caution in regards to indiscriminate immigration. Here’s the question:
But what happens in the very long run? As immigrants shape the culture of their new homelands, will they import more than just new ethnic cuisines? Will they also import attitudes and policies that wound the golden goose of first-world prosperity? Ultimately, will migrants make the countries they move to a lot like the countries they came from?
Among much treasure, this is of special interest to XS:
Economists have long known that some of the strongest statistical predictors of long-run national prosperity have been “percent Confucian” and “percent Buddhist.” A famed paper coauthored by Xavier Sala-i-Martin demonstrated that conclusively. It’s time for scholars to investigate whether, for most countries, a pro-Confucian migration policy is a good option.
My belief about diversity and tolerance is that it is shaped like a Laffer Curve, so that as a homogenous society sees more newcomers it becomes progressively more tolerant until a point is reached at which this process goes into reverse, partly because there are just too many political and social incentives for division. Britain probably went past that optimum around the millennium, and France is therefore even further ahead.
You have to admire the Left for it’s clarity of vision. It has identified its enemies, and it does what it can to drive them from the field. The recent fireworks in Indiana are a perfect illustration. Team blue knows that Christians are hateful homophobes, and so it goes to bat for the right of homosexuals to sue them over wedding cakes. The Right, with its characteristic acumen, mistakes this bushwhack for a principled stand. “Ah!” they say, “But if you support the right of a gay man to force a Christian to make a cake then you must support the right of the KKK to force a black baker to make a cake!” The average liberal couldn’t imagine a more irrelevant rejoinder. They aren’t making any such proposition at all. In their calculus, Christians (of the Not-fans-of-Pope-Francis type at least) are the bad guys and thus their interests are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. The KKK are bad guys and thus their actions are hateful and invalid and must be opposed. You attack bad guys. You don’t attack good guys. Whence the confusion?
‘Must‘ is the most stupid word.
ADDED: From the other side of the culture war — “The Right hits low, so we hit lower, harder, and without mercy.” The 21st century is going to be a riot (at least).
Late to this, which is what the comparatively honest faction of the Cathedral is seeing.
Main XS-specific quibbles:
(1) No, I didn’t have anything to do with The Dark Enlightenment blog. Nor, I’m highly confident, did Curtis Yarvin. I’m especially confident that the Open Letter was not written as an introduction to the DE.
ADDED: See this TDE statement.
(2) I have no social connections at all with the Lesser God-tier of SV. (If I did, I’d brag about it all the time.)
(3) Anyone who thinks this usage of echoes is non-ironic needs a Kek-check.
(4) The RamZPaul link is complete black-thread and duct tape conspiracism. (C’mon, seriously, that’s obvious, isn’t it?) A little reciprocal linkage isn’t a social relationship. We both merely acknowledge that the other guy exists.
Induction would suggest there are some other howlers beyond my epistemological horizon. Frankly, though, I don’t see much deliberate malevolence here. Cramer seems to be doing his best to understand what’s going on, and to remain as calm as possible about it. If he’s primarily interested in the Alt-Right, I’d recommend much more attention to Richard Spencer, and much less to Neoreaction. My recommendation to NRx, naturally, is to vindicate that suggestion.
Chinese racism informs their view of the United States. From the Chinese perspective, the United States used to be a strong society that the Chinese respected when it was unicultural, defined by the centrality of Anglo-Protestant culture at the core of American national identity aligned with the political ideology of liberalism, the rule of law, and free market capitalism. The Chinese see multiculturalism as a sickness that has overtaken the United States, and a component of U.S. decline.
I don’t want revolution, I don’t want “resistance,” I don’t want violence. I don’t want to make others live under my heel (despite the fact they dearly wish to make me live under theirs). […] I just want Done. I want Gone. I want Goodbye.
— The wave of the century.
The blog obviously isn’t coming from where Scott Aaronson is, and the title of this post isn’t even centrally his question, so I’m asking it.
If you were trying to discredit a demographic policy that discriminated against Islamization, the thing rolled out by the US administration looks like a good way to do it. Shouldn’t selecting against Salafism be the policy core? Such a stance could be easily based upon solid American precedent. This looks like something else entirely. (It’s a dog’s breakfast, which is to say hastily hashed-up populism food.)
ADDED: The flip-side to Scott Aaronson’s concerns (from his own comment thread).
Yes, it’s a ‘Moron bites’ that I’ve lazily twitter-packaged. Here‘s the almost incomprehensibly dismal source.