Sunday, November 5, 2017

The Cult of Diversity Lie

Tucker Carlson is entirely correct:

“Diversity is our strength” is an Orwellian lie, and any rational, sane person, even a left-wing person, should be capable of seeing it at this point.

The evidence that diversity is catastrophic has been available for a long time, and some of the best research comes from the work of Robert Putnam. Notably, Putnam is a multiculturalist liberal, and he was so shocked by his research findings he delayed publishing them for years on end.

See also the following studies here:
(1) Wickes, Rebecca, Zahnow, Renee, White, Gentry and Lorraine Mazerolle. 2014. “Ethnic Diversity and its Impact on Community Social Cohesion and Neighborly Exchange,” Journal of Urban Affairs 36.1: 51–78.

(2) Sturgis, Patrick, Brunton-Smith, Ian, Kuha, Jouni and Jonathan Jackson. 2014. “Ethnic Diversity, Segregation and the Social Cohesion of Neighbourhoods in London,” Ethnic and Racial Studies 37.8: 1286–1309.
Wickes et al. (2014) seems generally to confirm Putnam.

Sturgis et al. (2014) has curious findings that seem to indicate that positive attitudes to diversity decrease with a person’s age, and ethnic self-segregation actually makes separate communities more cohesive, which utterly refutes the Cult of Diversity belief that mixing up people of different racial, ethnic and religious backgrounds makes them happier or their communities more successful.


  1. You should do a post on why the mass immigration of Europeans and Asians into the US in the 19th century did not have this catastrophic effect. These groups were effectively integrated into American society over a few generations, and the initial cultural frictions between them have died down over time. They have also over time contributed to American growth by founding productive companies and expanding the labor supply and thus the potential growth rate. You should explore the factors behind why this happened when it is clearly not happening in the case of Europe's mass importation of Muslim ethnic groups into their societies. This would add more nuance and depth to your arguments about diversity.

    1. I'll take a shot at it from the Alt-Right viewpoint.

      1. Asians and Europeans have higher IQs than ME Asians and Central and South Americans. HIgh IQ gives a person a greater range of adaptation and thus they are more likely to integrate.

      2. Europeans have a very close genetic distance whether FST or any other metric. Just as the genetic between twins means similar the mostly likely similar outcomes individual also applies to group integration.

      3. Immigration prior 1965 didn't have family reunification chain migration and that lowers the chances for ghettoization.

      4. The US prior to 1965 didn't have welfare state programs that could be given to immigrants at any level so they had to integrate.

      5. Europe and Asian have a wall of water between unlike the USA and Mexico or Europe and and Asian. A Mexican's proximity to the USA is much likely to keep their language and culture as they are about an 8-15 drive from Mexican relatives. That is why Mexican Spanish is now the most spoken language at home in California which is de-facto a part of Mexico (don't argue I used to live in that 3rd world trash pit).

      So unlike European and Asian migration especially since travel is now much more economical than prior to 1965 have many reason to maintain close contact with Mexico. The same applies to ME Asians in Europe especially Turks and North Africans.

  2. I think it’s important to be specific here.

    Even ethnically homogeneous countries are diverse. We are of varying ages, genders, religions and outlooks. Our backgrounds are different, as are our tastes and attributes. We live in different parts of our own countries - and in some countries this affects the way we live, speak and act. Even when we were relatively homogeneous on an ethnic level, we were far from the bland, cookie-cutter societies that the globalist left would have us believe.

    The idea that ‘diversity’ equates primarily (or only!) to ethnic/racial diversity is nonsense. But, with that said, it is nevertheless a useful nonsense for globalists of left and right who seek to disparage opposition to mass immigration - and the ethnic diversity that results from it.

    Diversity is natural, even within families. When we recognise the nation as an extended family tree (rather than as a random collection of people living under the same state apparatus) we can see how diversity and tolerance can be achieved simultaneously. I’m more forgiving of my crazy uncle than I am of some other crazy person who’s not of my tribe. He’s family, after all.

    In the same way, most reasonable people will tolerate diversity of opinion and behaviour from those they feel kinship with. Frank Salter’s work on ethnic solidarity and altruism shows that we’re more generous with people of our own ethnicity too.

    The organic nation is comprised of people with shared ancestry, history and broad cultural traditions. Within that group of people, there’s enough diversity to build a strong and resilient society - without introducing division through the mass immigration of other nationalities.