So, if someone else is going to develop something very harmful, is the best solution to develop something equally or more harmful? Or are there maybe other better solutions to this problem?
So, it might be worth entertaining whether you can convince everyone in your culture to be subservient?
Here again, historically that's never happened, so it's not worth believing. And that's just to check if there's a better solution. You might arrive at an even worse outcome.
Revolutions require even bigger weapons, despite sometimes having better long term outcomes. How many people have to die to test our theory?
Genghis Khan created centuries of peace horrifically with bigger guns. The Ottoman Turks similarly did. The US, now. And many more cases that we know of. All of these examples coincidentally allowed multiculturalism, and even more, they enforced it as a matter of law. Just as an interesting side point.
Life is terrible in all cases in history where it's not clear who has the biggest guns. That's always been the demarcation of the beginning of a new regime at the cost of millions of lives.
Revolutions are horrible. That's what we know for sure.
I want to clarify that because I could see someone taking that statement to mean that multiculturalism is inherently wrong, which is the opposite of what I'm saying.
Sadam Hussein? IRGC? United States?
When?
It's never happened. The US itself doesn't abide by Geneva convention. Let alone other UN members.
You're living in pretense, I'm sorry to point out.
The world is run by terrorists. The only question is which terror group you want to retain power.
Personally, I like the multiculturalism that the US champions, and the Turks used to, and the Khan dynasty used to, and Persia used to. And only because it's the most likely recipe for the longest track record for peace.
Like it or not, history doesn't agree with your optimism as much as you and I wish it did.