Conversation

If he means literally (and tautologically) means cohesion as in “like particles sticking together”, then the way you do that with diversity is to create *new* shared likeness the way armies/schools/evangelical religions do...
...He’s actually deliberately conflating cohesiveness with strength, exploiting heuristics. If you address strength directly, there are better direct pathways using adhesive bonding (among unlike particles) that actually create better strengths.
1
2
...and finally note that he’s picking out attributes of similarity he wants to *construct* homogeneity out of (race and religion) and sweeping diversity variables within his audience (class and income in particular) unhelpful to his intent under the rug. Answers his own Q.
1
2
Replying to and
"Diversity of opinion and values" is not what Tucker is dogwhistling about. Those are mutable through conditioning so a different topic compared to ethnicity, race, religion/class of birth, and all the other things you can't change that serves as homogeneity-construction fodder,
1
1
and finally, many if not most attempts in the historical record at "muting" different cultures (opinions and values) through "conditioning" have produced only resentment and violence (muting an unfortunate word, could call it tempering, assimilating, whatever)
Replying to
Sigh. That’s because the successful ones like say Christianity and Islam and ‘’American white’ succeed so well we forget the forging period in the historical record. Such erasure of forging history is often deliberate.
1
Replying to
I'd say the really successful ones are very close to startups. they have these overly zealous founders promising heaven and earth to their investors. (I also object to "American white" as an ideology). in my they create a shared vision of the cosmos, the future