Is Fascism Inevitable in the Future of the West?

[Purgatio]

The studies I cited which showed people who lived in more racially-diverse communities reported lower levels of trust, social capital and community engagement, supporting the argument that people are inherently tribalistic and prefer to be amongst people like themselves.

In the short term.

And as I mentioned earlier, the short-term part of Putnam's thesis is backed up by quantitative data in the main body of the study, whereas his claim that in the long-term these negative effects withered away is not supported by any survey data but his simple assertion that it is likely to be that way.

[Reverend Norv]

Then it appears we’re in the same boat. Though personally I find there’s more evidence historically that appeasing fascists and Nazis doesn’t work.

I'm not trying to appease the fascist ideological leaders themselves, like Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor. I'm trying to stop whites who would otherwise not become fascists from joining these groups as rank-and-file members in the first place.

I get that, and for the moment I'm prepared to take you at your word regarding your motives.

But what you have to recognize is that what you are describing is an act of political hostage-taking. "Give us our racist immigration policies," the white masses of your thesis say, "or I swear to God, we will go full fascist and plunge the Republic into chaos. Don't push me, man! I'll do it!"

There are two reasons why we can't possibly reward this sort of political terrorism.

The first reason is that liberal democracy derives its power from its ideals. At those times in history when people have been willing to risk much and sacrifice much for liberal-democratic ideals, it is because we did not fold at the first sign of trouble and give reactionaries and racists exactly what they asked for. If we do that now, then when the alt-right comes back with its next set of demands, we will have already abandoned the moral and political credibility required to deny them.

The second reason, proceeding from the first, is that history shows us very clearly that appeasement of racist, proto-fascist anxieties is a fool's errand. People who are actually willing to abandon the democratic process in order to soothe their racial fears can be stampeded and activated by any sufficiently effective demagogue. Moreover, the more they feel empowered to prioritize their racial anxieties over the Constitution, the more they will seek to do so. This is exactly why no reasonable country negotiates with hostage-takers: giving them what they want incentivizes them to take more hostages.

I'm not denying the studies that you've cited. It seems plausible to me that increased diversity does indeed provoke some backlash. But allowing that backlash to dictate our policies does nothing but weaken democratic values and reward proto-fascist mobs for their dangerous grandstanding. Far better to face the storm with the courage of our convictions, than vainly seek to appease a political impulse that all of recent history shows us is unappeasable.

[Kustonia]

You don't have to be white to be a fascist. There have been plenty of non-white fascists throughout history.

And they’ve all, including the white ones, failed spectacularly.

Continue on with how fascism will give us a better future, please.

Fascism will give everyone a better future because it seeks to end class conflict and racial disharmony. The wave of the future is Fascism. Youths are tired of the nonchalant attitude coming from previous generations about current issues. Youths are wanting a renewed identity and family with a decent inheritance, and power over their future. Liberal democracy and Cultural Marxism are not solutions, but problems. These ideologies are destroying our social fabric, and there are renewed calls to end these diseases.

People all over the world are suffering, and we need to help them. Poking fun isn't going to help anyone.

[Purgatio]

I'm not trying to appease the fascist ideological leaders themselves, like Richard Spencer or Jared Taylor. I'm trying to stop whites who would otherwise not become fascists from joining these groups as rank-and-file members in the first place.

I get that, and for the moment I'm prepared to take you at your word regarding your motives.

But what you have to recognize is that what you are describing is an act of political hostage-taking. "Give us our racist immigration policies," the white masses of your thesis say, "or I swear to God, we will go full fascist and plunge the Republic into chaos. Don't push me, man! I'll do it!"

There are two reasons why we can't possibly reward this sort of political terrorism.

The first reason is that liberal democracy derives its power from its ideals. At those times in history when people have been willing to risk much and sacrifice much for liberal-democratic ideals, it is because we did not fold at the first sign of trouble and give reactionaries and racists exactly what they asked for. If we do that now, then when the alt-right comes back with its next set of demands, we will have already abandoned the moral and political credibility required to deny them.

The second reason, proceeding from the first, is that history shows us very clearly that appeasement of racist, proto-fascist anxieties is a fool's errand. People who are actually willing to abandon the democratic process in order to soothe their racial fears can be stampeded and activated by any sufficiently effective demagogue. Moreover, the more they feel empowered to prioritize their racial anxieties over the Constitution, the more they will seek to do so. This is exactly why no reasonable country negotiates with hostage-takers: giving them what they want incentivizes them to take more hostages.

I'm not denying the studies that you've cited. It seems plausible to me that increased diversity does indeed provoke some backlash. But allowing that backlash to dictate our policies does nothing but weaken democratic values and reward proto-fascist mobs for their dangerous grandstanding. Far better to face the storm with the courage of our convictions, than vainly seek to appease a political impulse that all of recent history shows us is unappeasable.

The question is whether the bigotry in question is revocable or capable of being overcome. So for example, pro-LGBT policies like same-sex marriage could in theory provoke a backlash from social conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but Western societies have also undergone massive cultural shifts on the issue of LGBT acceptance, with polls showing massive declines literally within a matter of years in the percentage of people who either regard homosexuality as immoral or oppose marriage equality. Hence, this is an example of a bias or prejudice which is truly ephemereal and capable of being overcome, through a sudden shift in cultural values.

In contrast, I don't see evidence of the same being true of racial tribalism and in-group thinking. Unlike sexuality, for example, race is a very visible marker of difference, it is an external and stark distinguishing factor between groups of people in humanity, if you want to engage in tribalistic and in-group thinking race is the most obvious factor to latch onto and define your sense of self and identity and communal belonging, which is why I don't think its gonna go away, and the studies I cited demonstrate that.

[Kowani]

The first is not nearly enough, the second would require a massive shift in Japanese culture and would cause societal tensions anyway.

The first does not need to effect massive demographic changes in a society like Japan that only needs to preserve its existing homogeneity rather than go from a diverse society to a less diverse one.

All it does is kick the can down the road.

[Kustonia]

I already told you, immigration policies that give out citizenships, PR status and immigrant visas that actively take race into account and attempt to either reduce racial diversity or maintain ethnic homogeneity, and race-specific pro-natalist policies that do the same, like financial packages and support for child-bearing and child-rearing.

Nothing short of nuclear war or ethnic cleansing will meaningfully change current demographic projections. You said so yourself.

...and I said that you need to seek help from a mental health professional.

[Purgatio]

The first does not need to effect massive demographic changes in a society like Japan that only needs to preserve its existing homogeneity rather than go from a diverse society to a less diverse one.

All it does is kick the can down the road.

No, it just means your population declines, which is better if it means you remain homogenous as a society and hence don't destroy the social harmony and cohesion you've nurtured and open the door to racial conflict, tension, strife and violence.

[Ifreann]

Nothing short of nuclear war or ethnic cleansing will meaningfully change current demographic projections. You said so yourself.

No, I said barring an extreme change of circumstances, the projections I cited are likely to come to fruition. A liberal democracy adopting explicitly race-based immigration is an example of such an extreme change of circumstances, given I find it unlikely it will ever happen especially given the voter base is becoming increasingly racially-diverse.

And the examples you gave were nuclear war and the resulting millions and millions of refugees or all of the millions of Asian people spontaneously moving to Asia, i.e. ethnic cleansing. A change to immigration law to try to attract more white people is nowhere near as extreme as that. When I pointed out that projections based on the assumption that migration trends in Britain in 2013 would not change are obviously invalid in light of Brexit, you blew that off and told me that the projections based on migration trends are actually based on fertility rates and Brexit will only delay the inevitable.

[Genivaria]

I don't care about a correlation I care about a causation, can you demonstrate a causation that racial diversity leads to social unrest?

The studies I cited which showed people who lived in more racially-diverse communities reported lower levels of trust, social capital and community engagement, supporting the argument that people are inherently tribalistic and prefer to be amongst people like themselves.

Please post them.

[Kowani]

I get that, and for the moment I'm prepared to take you at your word regarding your motives.

But what you have to recognize is that what you are describing is an act of political hostage-taking. "Give us our racist immigration policies," the white masses of your thesis say, "or I swear to God, we will go full fascist and plunge the Republic into chaos. Don't push me, man! I'll do it!"

There are two reasons why we can't possibly reward this sort of political terrorism.

The first reason is that liberal democracy derives its power from its ideals. At those times in history when people have been willing to risk much and sacrifice much for liberal-democratic ideals, it is because we did not fold at the first sign of trouble and give reactionaries and racists exactly what they asked for. If we do that now, then when the alt-right comes back with its next set of demands, we will have already abandoned the moral and political credibility required to deny them.

The second reason, proceeding from the first, is that history shows us very clearly that appeasement of racist, proto-fascist anxieties is a fool's errand. People who are actually willing to abandon the democratic process in order to soothe their racial fears can be stampeded and activated by any sufficiently effective demagogue. Moreover, the more they feel empowered to prioritize their racial anxieties over the Constitution, the more they will seek to do so. This is exactly why no reasonable country negotiates with hostage-takers: giving them what they want incentivizes them to take more hostages.

I'm not denying the studies that you've cited. It seems plausible to me that increased diversity does indeed provoke some backlash. But allowing that backlash to dictate our policies does nothing but weaken democratic values and reward proto-fascist mobs for their dangerous grandstanding. Far better to face the storm with the courage of our convictions, than vainly seek to appease a political impulse that all of recent history shows us is unappeasable.

The question is whether the bigotry in question is revocable or capable of being overcome. So for example, pro-LGBT policies like same-sex marriage could in theory provoke a backlash from social conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but Western societies have also undergone massive cultural shifts on the issue of LGBT acceptance, with polls showing massive declines literally within a matter of years in the percentage of people who either regard homosexuality as immoral or oppose marriage equality. Hence, this is an example of a bias or prejudice which is truly ephemereal and capable of being overcome, through a sudden shift in cultural values.

In contrast, I don't see evidence of the same being true of racial tribalism and in-group thinking. Unlike sexuality, for example, race is a very visible marker of difference, it is an external and stark distinguishing factor between groups of people in humanity, if you want to engage in tribalistic and in-group thinking race is the most obvious factor to latch onto and define your sense of self and identity and communal belonging, which is why I don't think its gonna go away, and the studies I cited demonstrate that.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01 ... ations-00/

[Kustonia]

The studies I cited which showed people who lived in more racially-diverse communities reported lower levels of trust, social capital and community engagement, supporting the argument that people are inherently tribalistic and prefer to be amongst people like themselves.

Please post them.

He did, did you not see them?

[Purgatio]

No, I said barring an extreme change of circumstances, the projections I cited are likely to come to fruition. A liberal democracy adopting explicitly race-based immigration is an example of such an extreme change of circumstances, given I find it unlikely it will ever happen especially given the voter base is becoming increasingly racially-diverse.

And the examples you gave were nuclear war and the resulting millions and millions of refugees or all of the millions of Asian people spontaneously moving to Asia, i.e. ethnic cleansing. A change to immigration law to try to attract more white people is nowhere near as extreme as that. When I pointed out that projections based on the assumption that migration trends in Britain in 2013 would not change are obviously invalid in light of Brexit, you blew that off and told me that the projections based on migration trends are actually based on fertility rates and Brexit will only delay the inevitable.

I also gave an example of a white supremacist taking power and shutting down all non-white immigration and promoting white immigration.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=35538813#p35538813

[Kowani]

All it does is kick the can down the road.

No, it just means your population declines, which is better if it means you remain homogenous as a society and hence don't destroy the social harmony and cohesion you've nurtured and open the door to racial conflict, tension, strife and violence.

But the pot you can draw from overseas becomes eventually less “pure” to the point where you might not as well draw from them overall.

[Kustonia]

The question is whether the bigotry in question is revocable or capable of being overcome. So for example, pro-LGBT policies like same-sex marriage could in theory provoke a backlash from social conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but Western societies have also undergone massive cultural shifts on the issue of LGBT acceptance, with polls showing massive declines literally within a matter of years in the percentage of people who either regard homosexuality as immoral or oppose marriage equality. Hence, this is an example of a bias or prejudice which is truly ephemereal and capable of being overcome, through a sudden shift in cultural values.

In contrast, I don't see evidence of the same being true of racial tribalism and in-group thinking. Unlike sexuality, for example, race is a very visible marker of difference, it is an external and stark distinguishing factor between groups of people in humanity, if you want to engage in tribalistic and in-group thinking race is the most obvious factor to latch onto and define your sense of self and identity and communal belonging, which is why I don't think its gonna go away, and the studies I cited demonstrate that.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01 ... ations-00/

This has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

[Purgatio]

The question is whether the bigotry in question is revocable or capable of being overcome. So for example, pro-LGBT policies like same-sex marriage could in theory provoke a backlash from social conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but Western societies have also undergone massive cultural shifts on the issue of LGBT acceptance, with polls showing massive declines literally within a matter of years in the percentage of people who either regard homosexuality as immoral or oppose marriage equality. Hence, this is an example of a bias or prejudice which is truly ephemereal and capable of being overcome, through a sudden shift in cultural values.

In contrast, I don't see evidence of the same being true of racial tribalism and in-group thinking. Unlike sexuality, for example, race is a very visible marker of difference, it is an external and stark distinguishing factor between groups of people in humanity, if you want to engage in tribalistic and in-group thinking race is the most obvious factor to latch onto and define your sense of self and identity and communal belonging, which is why I don't think its gonna go away, and the studies I cited demonstrate that.

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01 ... ations-00/

You seriously think people are going to consciously answer 'yes' to the question "do you dislike racial diversity"? The proof is in how people act, not what they say, and the rise in hate crimes (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/21/us/hate-crimes-rising-jussie-smollett/index.html) and membership in the KKK (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/20/hate-groups-white-power-supremacists-southern-poverty-law-center/2918416002/) recently tell me what I need to know.

[The Vladivostok Confederacy]

I would think that fascism is a possibility for multiple nations, but the general population would generally not accept a fascist state to rule over them after seeing what has happened both prior and during WWII. It would probably take something really bad to happen to democracy in order to turn to fascism, and even then there are other alternatives that I think other will take.

[Ifreann]

Nothing short of nuclear war or ethnic cleansing will meaningfully change current demographic projections. You said so yourself.

...and I said that you need to seek help from a mental health professional.

Yeah, you did say that. Why are you saying this to me?

[Reverend Norv]

I get that, and for the moment I'm prepared to take you at your word regarding your motives.

But what you have to recognize is that what you are describing is an act of political hostage-taking. "Give us our racist immigration policies," the white masses of your thesis say, "or I swear to God, we will go full fascist and plunge the Republic into chaos. Don't push me, man! I'll do it!"

There are two reasons why we can't possibly reward this sort of political terrorism.

The first reason is that liberal democracy derives its power from its ideals. At those times in history when people have been willing to risk much and sacrifice much for liberal-democratic ideals, it is because we did not fold at the first sign of trouble and give reactionaries and racists exactly what they asked for. If we do that now, then when the alt-right comes back with its next set of demands, we will have already abandoned the moral and political credibility required to deny them.

The second reason, proceeding from the first, is that history shows us very clearly that appeasement of racist, proto-fascist anxieties is a fool's errand. People who are actually willing to abandon the democratic process in order to soothe their racial fears can be stampeded and activated by any sufficiently effective demagogue. Moreover, the more they feel empowered to prioritize their racial anxieties over the Constitution, the more they will seek to do so. This is exactly why no reasonable country negotiates with hostage-takers: giving them what they want incentivizes them to take more hostages.

I'm not denying the studies that you've cited. It seems plausible to me that increased diversity does indeed provoke some backlash. But allowing that backlash to dictate our policies does nothing but weaken democratic values and reward proto-fascist mobs for their dangerous grandstanding. Far better to face the storm with the courage of our convictions, than vainly seek to appease a political impulse that all of recent history shows us is unappeasable.

The question is whether the bigotry in question is revocable or capable of being overcome. So for example, pro-LGBT policies like same-sex marriage could in theory provoke a backlash from social conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but Western societies have also undergone massive cultural shifts on the issue of LGBT acceptance, with polls showing massive declines literally within a matter of years in the percentage of people who either regard homosexuality as immoral or oppose marriage equality. Hence, this is an example of a bias or prejudice which is truly ephemereal and capable of being overcome, through a sudden shift in cultural values.

In contrast, I don't see evidence of the same being true of racial tribalism and in-group thinking. Unlike sexuality, for example, race is a very visible marker of difference, it is an external and stark distinguishing factor between groups of people in humanity, if you want to engage in tribalistic and in-group thinking race is the most obvious factor to latch onto and define your sense of self and identity and communal belonging, which is why I don't think its gonna go away, and the studies I cited demonstrate that.

I think you may well be right about that. I'd certainly like to believe that attitudes can change on race the way that they have changed and are changing on LGBT issues, but I don't feel able to assert with any certainty that this is true. It's entirely possible that we will have racism, tribalism, and bigotry with us for as long as the human condition endures. In fact, as a Christian, I have some confidence that we will. Sin, after all, is inherent to the human condition as well.

But that doesn't mean that appeasing these impulses is good policy. Even if they are irrevocable, even if they recur with every new generation, they are still evil and they are still voracious. Against such a threat, we cannot afford to give up a single inch of the moral high ground, because only strong, hopeful, compassionate liberal-democratic ideals are sufficiently compelling to provide an alternative to the seductions of bigotry. And in the face of impulses that are so powerful, deeply rooted, and persistent, we have to recognize that appeasement is absolutely a fool's errand. These fears, as you said, don't go away. Feeding them by allowing them to shape policy will only make them stronger. They have to be faced down, and fought to a standstill, even if they can never be fully vanquished.

In short: we are sinful creatures. We will always have evil within us. That's not a reason to make a devil's bargain with hatred. It's a reason to hold tight to our principles, and refuse to be held hostage by our worst impulses.

[Holy Tedalonia]

All it does is kick the can down the road.

No, it just means your population declines, which is better if it means you remain homogenous as a society and hence don't destroy the social harmony and cohesion you've nurtured and open the door to racial conflict, tension, strife and violence.

Wait... your creating small scaled population declining... The very thing your trying to prevent on a larger scale. What do you want? To prevent global homogenization? Isn’t that counter intuitive to stability?

[Purgatio]

The studies I cited which showed people who lived in more racially-diverse communities reported lower levels of trust, social capital and community engagement, supporting the argument that people are inherently tribalistic and prefer to be amongst people like themselves.

Please post them.

I did, earlier. Many times actually, for some reason so many people keep asking me to re-cite studies I've had to cite numerous times rather than people just searching for themselves within the forum, but here they are again.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-diversity-create-distrust/
https://www.nber.org/papers/w8295
https://www.jstor.org/stable/20743151?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/115/3/847/1828162?redirectedFrom=fulltext

[Purgatio]

The question is whether the bigotry in question is revocable or capable of being overcome. So for example, pro-LGBT policies like same-sex marriage could in theory provoke a backlash from social conservatives and religious fundamentalists, but Western societies have also undergone massive cultural shifts on the issue of LGBT acceptance, with polls showing massive declines literally within a matter of years in the percentage of people who either regard homosexuality as immoral or oppose marriage equality. Hence, this is an example of a bias or prejudice which is truly ephemereal and capable of being overcome, through a sudden shift in cultural values.

In contrast, I don't see evidence of the same being true of racial tribalism and in-group thinking. Unlike sexuality, for example, race is a very visible marker of difference, it is an external and stark distinguishing factor between groups of people in humanity, if you want to engage in tribalistic and in-group thinking race is the most obvious factor to latch onto and define your sense of self and identity and communal belonging, which is why I don't think its gonna go away, and the studies I cited demonstrate that.

I think you may well be right about that. I'd certainly like to believe that attitudes can change on race the way that they have changed and are changing on LGBT issues, but I don't feel able to assert with any certainty that this is true. It's entirely possible that we will have racism, tribalism, and bigotry with us for as long as the human condition endures. In fact, as a Christian, I have some confidence that we will. Sin, after all, is inherent to the human condition as well.

But that doesn't mean that appeasing these impulses is good policy. Even if they are irrevocable, even if they recur with every new generation, they are still evil and they are still voracious. Against such a threat, we cannot afford to give up a single inch of the moral high ground, because only strong, hopeful, compassionate liberal-democratic ideals are sufficiently compelling to provide an alternative to the seductions of bigotry. And in the face of impulses that are so powerful, deeply rooted, and persistent, we have to recognize that appeasement is absolutely a fool's errand. These fears, as you said, don't go away. Feeding them by allowing them to shape policy will only make them stronger. They have to be faced down, and fought to a standstill, even if they can never be fully vanquished.

In short: we are sinful creatures. We will always have evil within us. That's not a reason to make a devil's bargain with hatred. It's a reason to hold tight to our principles, and refuse to be held hostage by our worst impulses.

As a law student, my impulse is always to solve problems as they exist, based on conditions as they are, not how we want them to be. Going to church and praying for human beings to overcome sin and be less racist might work on a spiritual level, but does nothing on a policy and pragmatic level, and I'd rather devise a viable solution to stem the rise of racial tensions and support for far-right politics and the demonisation of racial minorities and the spikes in hate crimes they've provoked, in a way that tangibly helps racial minorities rather than engaging in hopeful thinking that racism and tribalism will just disappear, somehow.

[Holy Tedalonia]

And they’ve all, including the white ones, failed spectacularly.

Continue on with how fascism will give us a better future, please.

Fascism will give everyone a better future because it seeks to end class conflict and racial disharmony.

Yeah no.

The wave of the future is Fascism. Youths are tired of the nonchalant attitude coming from previous generations about current issues.

I’m rather quite nonchalant.

Youths are wanting a renewed identity and family with a decent inheritance, and power over their future.

As does everyone, no?

Liberal democracy and Cultural Marxism are not solutions, but problems. These ideologies are destroying our social fabric, and there are renewed calls to end these diseases.

I consider freedom quite desease free, thank you.

People all over the world are suffering, and we need to help them. Poking fun isn't going to help anyone.

And WW3 won’t help that, laddie.

[Purgatio]

No, it just means your population declines, which is better if it means you remain homogenous as a society and hence don't destroy the social harmony and cohesion you've nurtured and open the door to racial conflict, tension, strife and violence.

Wait... your creating small scaled population declining... The very thing your trying to prevent on a larger scale. What do you want? To prevent global homogenization? Isn’t that counter intuitive to stability?

How am I trying to prevent population decline on the larger scale? I've never argued against population decline, I've argued against ethnically heterogeneous societies and communities, because of the strife and lack of social cohesion they bring.

[Ifreann]

And the examples you gave were nuclear war and the resulting millions and millions of refugees or all of the millions of Asian people spontaneously moving to Asia, i.e. ethnic cleansing. A change to immigration law to try to attract more white people is nowhere near as extreme as that. When I pointed out that projections based on the assumption that migration trends in Britain in 2013 would not change are obviously invalid in light of Brexit, you blew that off and told me that the projections based on migration trends are actually based on fertility rates and Brexit will only delay the inevitable.

I also gave an example of a white supremacist taking power and shutting down all non-white immigration and promoting white immigration.

https://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?p=35538813#p35538813

Right, and that can't possibly cause demographic change on the same scale as nuclear war creating millions of refugees or sudden and inexplicable ethnic cleansing.

[Kowani]

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2019/01 ... ations-00/

You seriously think people are going to consciously answer 'yes' to the question "do you dislike racial diversity"? The proof is in how people act, not what they say, and the rise in hate crimes (https://edition.cnn.com/2019/02/21/us/hate-crimes-rising-jussie-smollett/index.html) and membership in the KKK (https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/02/20/hate-groups-white-power-supremacists-southern-poverty-law-center/2918416002/) recently tell me what I need to know.

Besides Rhetoric, the rise in the number of hate crimes can explained with greater reporting than before, and the FBI actually taking victims seriously. As for the KKK, that’s more rhetoric getting poor whites to blame the other. It’s easy to scapegoat people rather than be vulnerable to the impersonal forces of the market. But, with the rise of education, this should slowly skip away, or at least diminish.