Moral Cowards!

Last edited:
This thread is not about crime statistics, the fact that immigrants in Germany cause a disproportionate amount of crime was merely the start of the conversation, and I think I already did put it in proper context.

There is additional crime, you accepted too many single males from a male dominated often backwards culture, many lack education
Without proper resources and help to integrate many will not assmulate into society

I Think Germany accepted too many, even the US after ww2 only accepted 1 Mil refugees over a period of 10 years and was successful into intergration
Perhaps that is why Germany is seeking to deport at least 100k per year.
 
But, that's becoming increasingly distant from anything we can describe as a "tribal" identity". Nobody disagrees that shared identity is an important aspect of political stability, the question is what form these identities take, and what relationship they have to the formation of political communities.
The second sentence just contradict the first. If your population feels like it share an identity among themselves, then that's tribalism. I'm pretty sure someone else already pointed that out. It might even have been me.

Also, I'd like to remind (and reformulate) what I actually said, because (as usual) it seems that half of the meaning is lost along the way :

A state survive because it can keep itself together. That's done by two main forces : people feeling they are part of said state, and military coercion.

That's the gist of it. Military coercion works for a time, but sooner or later, it will fade, and at this time, if the empire hasn't managed to build up among its population that they are part of the same "tribe", then it will break. On the opposite, a population that feels like it's part of the same tribe will tend to try to regroup and reform the state. Tribalism works and is the very basis of any group of humans. That would be tautological if not for the force of denial by people who try really hard to wish away the facts they don't like.
 
If your population feels like it share an identity among themselves, then that's tribalism.
That's not how anybody has ever used that word.

This whole "no clean water, must drink alcohol" thing is pretty much true of all premodern societies, no?
Pretty much. People had a shaky enough grasp of hygiene that they usually knew to avoid water that wasn't running, fresh and free of evident contamination, but as that was not always readily available, beer and other relatively low-alcohol beverages served as a safe alternative, with the added benefit of being pretty nutritious and introducing a bit of variety into what could be a pretty monotonous diet- subjectively, at least, if not in terms of actual nutrients.
 
Last edited:
What makes New Zealand any more "politically stable" than the US?
The lower level of corruption might be the most obvious factor.

It seems to me you don't quite know what the term stands for and are instead trying to make sense of a literal interpretation in the sense that America is a country where "nothing can change easily". In that case, you should probably do some research on the term, because we're not talking about the same thing.
 
What makes New Zealand any more "politically stable" than the US?

A very tiny military force, good social programs, no payroll tax, still relatively unpopulated for its size, geological isolated position
 
The lower level of corruption might be the most obvious factor.

It seems to me you don't quite know what the term stands for and are instead trying to make sense of a literal interpretation in the sense that America is a country where "nothing can change easily". In that case, you should probably do some research on the term, because we're not talking about the same thing.

So then the claim is that ethnic homogeneity breeds... Lower levels of corruption? What's that got to do with anything?
 
So then the claim is that ethnic homogeneity breeds... Lower levels of corruption? What's that got to do with anything?
No, the discussion derailed from the topic when you claimed that the USA is "more politically stable than almost any other country in the world" and I corrected you.

The initial claim I made before the discussion derailed was that large differences in cultural values are one of the factors lead to lower political security, and that it seems to be one of the big ones in the USA. That can be caused by immigration of people who come in from places with very different cultural values who are not able/forced to integrate into the existing culture, or, as is the case with America, just by the fact that the country itself is not built on a shared cultural identity and instead is inherently internally divided.
 
Then crucial to this discussion is a definition of political stability, or political security, or whatever else you want to call it, because I maintain that as far as nations with populations over 50 million or so go, the US is very politically stable
 
So then the claim is that ethnic homogeneity breeds... Lower levels of corruption? What's that got to do with anything?
For the record, only about two-thirds of New Zealanders are white. The rest are mostly Maori, other Pacific Islander, Asian, or mixed race. By European standards, at least, it's pretty far from ethnically homogenous.
 
According to the 2013 census, about 75% of New Zealand's population are of European descent. (In the last census, in 2006, about 67% identified as European, while 11% identified as 'New Zealander', which could explain the difference.)
 
But, guys, the list Valessa posted clearly shows that New Zealand is the world's most stable state.
 
Back
Top Bottom