Last week I met up with some people from work and I "preached" the same thing. All of them were pro-immigration at one point in their life but they are beginning to shift given what they've seen and experienced in the world. One of the guys was heavily pro-immigration and still is but he's a little more open to why someone might be against it. Best I can do.
I contribute significantly to the community. I have been involved in numerous not-for-profit charity groups including being the treasurer of one that raised $100k in 1-yr. I've sat on the board of some of the more prominent associations in town. I also do work that contributes to the community and the last event I was at last week the mayor of the city was there along with councilors who I spoke with. I may in fact try running in the next election and was the finance manager for a man who ran as councilor (but did not win) in another city.
I sit on a committee the municipal government proposed in order to better streamline and manage regulations for residential development in the community.
I have been a part of political organizations that have attempted to promote their message to others in the community.
I have met a couple billionaires in person at private functions.
Just because I also spend some of my time posting here doesn't mean I don't do what I can in the community and posting here helps to focus my mind and improve my thoughts and arguments.
Okay, fair enough. Hopefully our little exchange here has helped you in some way - my point is simply this, that a just and moral society does not arise naturally from a "homogenise society", but rather requires all the majority to buy into that society and act accordingly based on their own free will. That's easier said than done, but it's be done before, and it will be done again. We already know how.
It is much easier though with a homogenous society because the moral values people wish to follow are easier to follow if those values are in alignment with their nature.
Imagine you wanted to create a moral value system that said sucking air was evil and blowing air was good but you were composed of a group of vacuum cleaners. Yes, you could potentially create said society because of the power you have to force such a moral value system on others but it would be much harder for your group of vacuum cleaners to accept said society and they would resist it more while trying to subvert it and change it because their nature compels them to suck air not blow it. If you had a group of snow blowers on the other hand, it would be far easier to enforce this moral value system on the people and the people would be less likely to subvert the moral values and try to change them because these moral values align with their nature.
That is the point I'm making. If you want a moral society then it is much easier to do so in a homogenous society so long as the morals are also in alignment with the nature of the people within your homogenous society.
In the end, a truly homogeneous society would be one where people have the same moral values. This does not arise naturally from race or genetics, but from individuals choosing of their own free will to follow those values, ultimately from teaching people a true morality that they can see and accept as Truth themselves.
Not only that, but a society will not be moral based on rules alone, instead the people must collectively use their minds to determine what is right and wrong based on God's teaching. Otherwise the rules become pointless human rules, much like what was happening in the time of Christ.
Similarly, a top down imposition of rigid rules does not work, because unless the majority in your society chooses of their own free will to be moral, they will find ways around the rules, exploit the rules for their own benefit, or make up their own human rules for material gain.
Last week I met up with some people from work and I "preached" the same thing. All of them were pro-immigration at one point in their life but they are beginning to shift given what they've seen and experienced in the world. One of the guys was heavily pro-immigration and still is but he's a little more open to why someone might be against it. Best I can do.
I contribute significantly to the community. I have been involved in numerous not-for-profit charity groups including being the treasurer of one that raised $100k in 1-yr. I've sat on the board of some of the more prominent associations in town. I also do work that contributes to the community and the last event I was at last week the mayor of the city was there along with councilors who I spoke with. I may in fact try running in the next election and was the finance manager for a man who ran as councilor (but did not win) in another city.
I sit on a committee the municipal government proposed in order to better streamline and manage regulations for residential development in the community.
I have been a part of political organizations that have attempted to promote their message to others in the community.
I have met a couple billionaires in person at private functions.
Just because I also spend some of my time posting here doesn't mean I don't do what I can in the community and posting here helps to focus my mind and improve my thoughts and arguments.
Okay, fair enough. Hopefully our little exchange here has helped you in some way - my point is simply this, that a just and moral society does not arise naturally from a "homogenise society", but rather requires all the majority to buy into that society and act accordingly based on their own free will. That's easier said than done, but it's be done before, and it will be done again. We already know how.
It is much easier though with a homogenous society because the moral values people wish to follow are easier to follow if those values are in alignment with their nature.
Imagine you wanted to create a moral value system that said sucking air was evil and blowing air was good but you were composed of a group of vacuum cleaners. Yes, you could potentially create said society because of the power you have to force such a moral value system on others but it would be much harder for your group of vacuum cleaners to accept said society and they would resist it more while trying to subvert it and change it because their nature compels them to suck air not blow it. If you had a group of snow blowers on the other hand, it would be far easier to enforce this moral value system on the people and the people would be less likely to subvert the moral values and try to change them because these moral values align with their nature.
That is the point I'm making. If you want a moral society then it is much easier to do so in a homogenous society so long as the morals are also in alignment with the nature of the people within your homogenous society.
In the end, a truly homogeneous society would be one where people have the same moral values. This does not arise naturally from race or genetics, but from individuals choosing of their own free will to follow those values, ultimately from teaching people a true morality that they can see and accept as Truth themselves.
Not only that, but a society will not be moral based on rules alone, instead the people must collectively use their minds to determine what is right and wrong based on God's teaching. Otherwise the rules become pointless human rules, much like what was happening in the time of Christ.
Similarly, a top down imposition of rigid rules does not work, because unless the majority in your society chooses of their own free will to be moral, they will find ways around the rules, exploit the rules for their own benefit, or make up their own human rules for material gain.
I think you underestimate genetics and you underestimate power.