I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
To build on my last point, let's consider another example that highlights the power of economic diversity: George Washington Carver. As a black innovator and scientist in America, Carver revolutionized agriculture with his work on crop rotation and alternative crops like peanuts, which dramatically improved the livelihoods of countless farmers.
His contributions weren’t just about innovation; they transformed the U.S. economy in significant ways, especially in the South, and improved the quality of life for people of all backgrounds.
Now, let's look at someone more recent:
Elon Musk. He wasn’t even born in America, yet look at what he’s done for the country. From revolutionizing space exploration with SpaceX to pushing the boundaries of electric vehicles with Tesla, Musk’s contributions have had a massive impact on the U.S. economy and global innovation.
If America had banned “others,” we might have missed out on someone like Musk—and the economic benefits he brought with him.
That’s my point about economic diversity being our real strength.
It’s not about where someone comes from or what their ethnicity is—it’s about the unique value they bring to the table. When we open our doors to innovators from all walks of life, we build a stronger, more dynamic economy.
No single group, by itself, can replicate the collective contributions of diverse entrepreneurs. That’s why economic diversity, not ethnic homogeneity, is what truly drives progress.
You bring up an interesting point about focusing on self-love and love of countrymen, and I agree that societies do thrive when they embrace a shared sense of purpose.
However, I think it's important to redefine what we mean by diversity, and I'd argue that "Economic Diversity" is a more powerful concept than "Cultural Diversity" when it comes to driving progress and improving quality of life.
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity—the presence of a wide range of entrepreneurs and innovators from all over the world, bringing different skills, ideas, and approaches to the same economic ecosystem. It’s not about everyone having the same ethnic background or cultural heritage; it's about people from different walks of life contributing unique economic value.
Entrepreneurs, whether they come from different ethnic backgrounds or not, are the ones responsible for improving the quality of life. They create jobs, innovate in technology, and find new ways to solve old problems. In America, we’ve seen that having a diverse pool of entrepreneurs—whether they’re in tech, medicine, finance, or small business—creates a synergy that no homogenous group can compete with. A country that fosters a wide range of economic activity, fueled by entrepreneurs from all over the world, has a significant advantage over one that relies on a single group with a singular worldview.
You asked for an example of where diversity increased human progress, and I’d point to the American economy itself. The U.S. is a global economic powerhouse precisely because it has welcomed entrepreneurs from different parts of the world—whether it’s immigrants founding iconic companies like Google, Tesla, or Pfizer. These aren’t successes born out of ethnic diversity for its own sake but out of economic diversity: people with different perspectives coming together to create something bigger than they could have done individually.
When you focus on fostering a community of entrepreneurs, you don’t just encourage collaboration across ethnic lines; you create an environment where different ideas and innovations compete and evolve. This is what drives human progress—economic cooperation and competition among people with different skills, experiences, and expertise. No single, homogenous group can replicate the dynamism that comes from a diverse set of economic actors working toward a common goal.
As for the post-WW2 era and universalism, I understand your concerns. But I’d argue that the challenges we’re facing today are not due to a failure of universalism but rather the lack of focus on economic opportunity and innovation. It’s not just about “identity politics” or ethnic division; it’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can contribute economically and improve their lives through entrepreneurship and innovation.
In the end, reducing conflict isn’t about promoting or rejecting ethnocentrism—it’s about fostering economic diversity and creating a society where people from different backgrounds can collaborate and compete in ways that lift everyone up. That’s the real key to less conflict and more prosperity.
Do you enjoy America as it is today? Is that why you’re on a site called the Great Awakening? America’s success largely comes from its marriage of English people and Germanic peoples. Otherwise known as Western European people, who primarily account for a majority of human advancement whether you like it or not. I’m not impressed with the high IQ foreign nationals here to loot the empire. Anyone can do that and it’s the sign of society in decline. America was like 80% white as recently as the 90s and I think you can agree that it’s been in decline since.
Do you think the diversity of our society has been good for it? Are you more well connected to your local community than you were in the 90s? Do you think our society is healthier today? Are you connected to a local church? Is it thriving? Do you think our society is more divided than it ever has been? When you look at the future of America, do you have more hope for it today? Or in the 90s?
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity ...
What you are ignoring is that America was built on White power.
All that "cultural or ethnic diversity" to which you refer that BUILT America were people from EUROPE.
The Mexicans played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Somalis played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Chinese played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
I can understand why non-Whites want to live in White countires. It's because they benefit greatly.
BUT ...
Whites have been nothing but harmed by the invasion of non-Whites.
The schools are MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The economic progress is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The prosperity is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
Google, Tesla, or Pfizer
All 3 of these companies were built on government largesse, not on free market enterprise.
As true capitalism, which America was built on, has been replaced with a corrupt cronyism, it is not surprising that these 3 companies, in particular, became "successful" entirely on the backs of government gibs.
Google - built on grants from CIA and NSA (gee, I wonder what that means ...)
Tesla - without tax credits and government gibs, Tesla never would have gotten off the ground
Pfizer - a monoply on certain drugs, with a government preventing you from suing them when they harm you or your loved ones.
THIS. IS. NOT. CAPITALISM.
This is a slice of big government taking over your life.
So, it does not support your thesis.
This type of government dominance in our lives is not better than early America.
Early America was based upon certain fundamental and commonly-held beliefs, which have largely been destroyed by people who lack those beliefs ... BECAUSE THEY ARE OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
This is the reason we have so much division today.
The diversity of cultures -- that are of different ethnicities -- is a problem, not a solution.
And if you find that statement repulsive, it only proves how much our modern society has been destroyed by harmful new ideas (which never existed before) via societal programming.
I want you to explain to me.
What the hell is WHITE power?
White Labors (Machine Workers, Steel Mill Workers, etc)
White Marketers (Advertising, Marketing, Sales)
White Inventors (Vision and Idea, this is not implementation of an idea)
White Finance (Typically don't have the idea, they invest in the idea)
I appreciate that you're referencing history and philosophers, but it's important to remember that much of what Aristotle and other philosophers said is still based on observation and opinion rather than objective fact. Philosophy itself often poses ideas for debate rather than delivering definitive truths, which means it's open to interpretation and evolution as societies change.
Regarding the biblical quote from Deuteronomy, it highlights a fear of foreign influence and loss of power—something that can be understood in the context of its time. However, applying ancient scripture to modern political and social issues can be problematic, especially when societies have evolved significantly since then. The Bible, like philosophical texts, reflects the circumstances and worldview of its time, and while it can offer wisdom, it's not always a direct guide for contemporary issues.
As for ethnocentrism, the point I’m making isn’t simply a talking point. Ethnocentrism inherently leads to division, conflict, and, ultimately, war because it encourages a mindset of "us vs. them." We’ve seen this pattern repeated throughout history, regardless of who practices it. When group identity becomes the primary lens through which we view others, it limits our ability to cooperate, communicate, and grow as a society.
You mention the actions of certain groups as being ethnocentric, and it's true that many people act in self-interest. But self-interest is not inherently the same as ethnocentrism, and just because others may choose to act that way doesn't make it the best or only approach. The real question is: do we want to perpetuate a cycle of tribalism and conflict, or do we want to push ourselves toward a more cooperative and interconnected society, recognizing that survival and progress in the modern world require more than just loyalty to one’s own group?
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives. The idea that ethnocentrism is a path to long-term prosperity is shortsighted, and it often leads to more harm than good in the grand scheme of things.
In the end, it's not about what any particular group says or does—it's about how we, as individuals and societies, choose to move forward in a world that is increasingly interconnected. Clinging to old divisions only limits our potential.
History shows that societies thrive when they collaborate and integrate different perspectives
This Is high trait openness, not ethnic diversity. Please cite one example in history where ethnic diversity did actually increase human progress.
I understand that ethnocentrism can lead to us versus then dynamics, I’m simply choosing to focus on the self love and love of countrymen that this society currently lacks. When I look at society today I see a society that’s absolutely terrible and most of the logical sleight of hand ultimately stems this idea that ethnocentrism is bad. Why are young people desperate for an identity that puts them on a the oppression stack? Do you think democrats would be so hell bent on importing all these potential voters if they voted Republican?
Look, we both want less conflict in the world, it’s just a question of how to get there. You seem to think that universalism is the way, but I’m trying to tell you that the post WW2 era is exactly that, so we tried that and its consequences are far worse than most of the typical modes of human operation in the pre-1900s.
To build on my last point, let's consider another example that highlights the power of economic diversity: George Washington Carver. As a black innovator and scientist in America, Carver revolutionized agriculture with his work on crop rotation and alternative crops like peanuts, which dramatically improved the livelihoods of countless farmers.
His contributions weren’t just about innovation; they transformed the U.S. economy in significant ways, especially in the South, and improved the quality of life for people of all backgrounds.
Now, let's look at someone more recent:
Elon Musk. He wasn’t even born in America, yet look at what he’s done for the country. From revolutionizing space exploration with SpaceX to pushing the boundaries of electric vehicles with Tesla, Musk’s contributions have had a massive impact on the U.S. economy and global innovation.
If America had banned “others,” we might have missed out on someone like Musk—and the economic benefits he brought with him.
That’s my point about economic diversity being our real strength.
It’s not about where someone comes from or what their ethnicity is—it’s about the unique value they bring to the table. When we open our doors to innovators from all walks of life, we build a stronger, more dynamic economy.
No single group, by itself, can replicate the collective contributions of diverse entrepreneurs. That’s why economic diversity, not ethnic homogeneity, is what truly drives progress.
You bring up an interesting point about focusing on self-love and love of countrymen, and I agree that societies do thrive when they embrace a shared sense of purpose.
However, I think it's important to redefine what we mean by diversity, and I'd argue that "Economic Diversity" is a more powerful concept than "Cultural Diversity" when it comes to driving progress and improving quality of life.
Take America, for example. What has made the country thrive historically is not just cultural or ethnic diversity but economic diversity—the presence of a wide range of entrepreneurs and innovators from all over the world, bringing different skills, ideas, and approaches to the same economic ecosystem. It’s not about everyone having the same ethnic background or cultural heritage; it's about people from different walks of life contributing unique economic value.
Entrepreneurs, whether they come from different ethnic backgrounds or not, are the ones responsible for improving the quality of life. They create jobs, innovate in technology, and find new ways to solve old problems. In America, we’ve seen that having a diverse pool of entrepreneurs—whether they’re in tech, medicine, finance, or small business—creates a synergy that no homogenous group can compete with. A country that fosters a wide range of economic activity, fueled by entrepreneurs from all over the world, has a significant advantage over one that relies on a single group with a singular worldview.
You asked for an example of where diversity increased human progress, and I’d point to the American economy itself. The U.S. is a global economic powerhouse precisely because it has welcomed entrepreneurs from different parts of the world—whether it’s immigrants founding iconic companies like Google, Tesla, or Pfizer. These aren’t successes born out of ethnic diversity for its own sake but out of economic diversity: people with different perspectives coming together to create something bigger than they could have done individually.
When you focus on fostering a community of entrepreneurs, you don’t just encourage collaboration across ethnic lines; you create an environment where different ideas and innovations compete and evolve. This is what drives human progress—economic cooperation and competition among people with different skills, experiences, and expertise. No single, homogenous group can replicate the dynamism that comes from a diverse set of economic actors working toward a common goal.
As for the post-WW2 era and universalism, I understand your concerns. But I’d argue that the challenges we’re facing today are not due to a failure of universalism but rather the lack of focus on economic opportunity and innovation. It’s not just about “identity politics” or ethnic division; it’s about ensuring that everyone, regardless of their background, can contribute economically and improve their lives through entrepreneurship and innovation.
In the end, reducing conflict isn’t about promoting or rejecting ethnocentrism—it’s about fostering economic diversity and creating a society where people from different backgrounds can collaborate and compete in ways that lift everyone up. That’s the real key to less conflict and more prosperity.
Do you enjoy America as it is today? Is that why you’re on a site called the Great Awakening? America’s success largely comes from its marriage of English people and Germanic peoples. Otherwise known as Western European people, who primarily account for a majority of human advancement whether you like it or not. I’m not impressed with the high IQ foreign nationals here to loot the empire. Anyone can do that and it’s the sign of society in decline. America was like 80% white as recently as the 90s and I think you can agree that it’s been in decline since.
Do you think the diversity of our society has been good for it? Are you more well connected to your local community than you were in the 90s? Do you think our society is healthier today? Are you connected to a local church? Is it thriving? Do you think our society is more divided than it ever has been? When you look at the future of America, do you have more hope for it today? Or in the 90s?
What non white innovators have you researched?
What you are ignoring is that America was built on White power.
All that "cultural or ethnic diversity" to which you refer that BUILT America were people from EUROPE.
The Mexicans played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Somalis played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
The Chinese played NO PART in 18th-19th century America.
I can understand why non-Whites want to live in White countires. It's because they benefit greatly.
BUT ...
Whites have been nothing but harmed by the invasion of non-Whites.
The schools are MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The economic progress is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
The prosperity is MUCH WORSE today than in 18th-19th century America.
All 3 of these companies were built on government largesse, not on free market enterprise.
As true capitalism, which America was built on, has been replaced with a corrupt cronyism, it is not surprising that these 3 companies, in particular, became "successful" entirely on the backs of government gibs.
Google - built on grants from CIA and NSA (gee, I wonder what that means ...)
Tesla - without tax credits and government gibs, Tesla never would have gotten off the ground
Pfizer - a monoply on certain drugs, with a government preventing you from suing them when they harm you or your loved ones.
THIS. IS. NOT. CAPITALISM.
This is a slice of big government taking over your life.
So, it does not support your thesis.
This type of government dominance in our lives is not better than early America.
Early America was based upon certain fundamental and commonly-held beliefs, which have largely been destroyed by people who lack those beliefs ... BECAUSE THEY ARE OF DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS.
This is the reason we have so much division today.
The diversity of cultures -- that are of different ethnicities -- is a problem, not a solution.
And if you find that statement repulsive, it only proves how much our modern society has been destroyed by harmful new ideas (which never existed before) via societal programming.
Seriously..
I want you to explain to me. What the hell is WHITE power?
White Labors (Machine Workers, Steel Mill Workers, etc) White Marketers (Advertising, Marketing, Sales) White Inventors (Vision and Idea, this is not implementation of an idea) White Finance (Typically don't have the idea, they invest in the idea)
Who gets credit for BUILDING America here?
What the FUCK is White power dude?
Are you fucking kidding me????
BULLSHIT!
Let's talk about STRUCTURE!
You have IDEAS and IMPLEMENTATION of those ideas.
99% of soceity serves as ADMINISTRATOR or LABOR roles. Look at an INCOME STATEMENT.
The 1% are finance and entrepreneur types.
When you say build on white power.
WHO are you referring to?
The IDEA creator like Henry Ford
or
The Worker (ADMINSTRATOR) or (LABOR)?
Who gets credit for building something? Please define that?
We have divison today because the MEDIA is using PROPAGANDA!
Ok.,..how many blacks and whites are fighting each other at the work place? The earliest place that real division would show up.
Is when people have to work with each other on teams.
How many organized team activities do you see diferent ethnic groups fighting with each other?