patrick.net

I agree that some diversity is a good thing. You get exposed to new ideas, new ways of doing things, etc.

But there needs to be a single main dominant culture (I did not say race) for a country to remain a country.

I posted a link to some study by an economist recently which showed there is actually an optimum level of diversity for maximum economic progress and minimum civil wars. Latin America was given as an example area with too little diversity, and Africa as an example area of too much diversity. That's also interesting because it mirrors the actual genetic and linguistic diversity of those places.

When you go to countries without diversity, people give up their seat to elderly on buses/trains, step in to break up public fights, etc

In countries with diversity, people stay seated and pull out their cell phone cameras when they see a physical dispute.

Herdingcats says

Sociologists Maria Abascal, of Princeton University, and Delia Baldassari, of New York University, published a paper late last year which refutes Putnam’s conclusions. After reanalyzing the same dataset used by Putnam, Abascal and Baldassari asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities. In other words, greater distrust may stem from prejudice rather than from diversity per se. Therefore, Putnam’s conclusion that racial diversity leads to less altruism and cooperation amongst neighbors was incorrect. If there is a downside to diversity, it has less to do with the behavior of racial minorities and more to do with how Whites feel when living amongst non-Whites

This smacks of flawed ideology rather than scientific rigor.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Unsurprisingly, Asian and Hispanic migrants tend to be little different than European migrants in their ease of accommodation. Black Africans and Arabs are difficult to assimilate. Especially Black Muslims like Somalians and Eritreans.

Why is this unsurprising though? Indian-Americans have the highest per capita income, yet you'd be hard pressed to find cultures more unique to ours than India.

No way. The graphs were painfully clear. Diversity was directly negatively correlated with all forms of civic engagement.

Reminds me of the "scientists" who claim there is no race by being overly vague and technical in their definition of race.

Herdingcats says

Turns out some people think Putnam was wrong.

Sociologists Maria Abascal, of Princeton University, and Delia Baldassari, of New York University, published a paper late last year which refutes Putnam’s conclusions. After reanalyzing the same dataset used by Putnam, Abascal and Baldassari asserted that when it comes to distrust and diversity, most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities. In other words, greater distrust may stem from prejudice rather than from diversity per se. Therefore, Putnam’s conclusion that racial diversity leads to less altruism and cooperation amongst neighbors was incorrect. If there is a downside to diversity, it has less to do with the behavior of racial minorities and more to do with how Whites feel when living amongst non-Whites

I do not agree with Patrick's idea that diversity is inherently bad - we can remember that US in 1800's was rather diverse - it had nations living side by side which at the same time were at each other's throats in Europe and at the same time in US they were prospering and building a rich country - but this idea of Abascal that WHITES BAD BECAUSE RACIST ORANGE MAN, MINORITIES GOOD, OPPRESSED BY WHITES sounds just like typical NPC. Whites are undoubtedly the least raycist of all races now. I know quite a few TX Vietnamese - how they talk among themselves is not acceptable in white society - children get shunned if they date black people, Hispanics are not much better - they are not PC and actually say what they think etc.

Patrick says

No way. The graphs were painfully clear. Diversity was directly negatively correlated with all forms of civic engagement.

I wonder how one defines "civic engagement" and if all of "civic engagement" is actually good. SJW'ism also can probably be called civic engagement.

CBOEtrader says

most of the distrust is expressed by Whites who feel uncomfortable living amongst racial minorities.

I thought it is the PC police who always claims that it is uncomfortable for minorities to live among white people. I am in a city that is so-called "minority-majority" and I do not feel uncomfortable. Neither do any of my friends. Furthermore, the city is perhaps one of the economically most vibrant in US despite high diversity, and has relatively low crime for a large city, which goes against Patrick's idea of diversity being inherently bad.

Herdingcats says

CBOEtrader says

This smacks of flawed ideology rather than scientific rigor.

Yet they used the same data set.

yes, you are emphasizing my point.

The study was done in a white majority country, and therefore those infected with this toxic ideology see that as evidence "to do with how Whites feel when living amongst non-Whites" . This is pure ideological dogma.

d6rB says

Patrick's idea of diversity being inherently bad.

In a corporate culture, diversity of thought is GOOD as long as everyone shares the same corporate VISION.

Classic liberal values built on the writ of habeas corpus, freedom of speech, assumption of innocence, and equality under the law should be our shared American vision. If the vision of a classic liberal society is shared, then diversity is great. Jordan Peterson describes these Western cultural values as "nothing short of a miracle."

Unfortunately the cult of diversity wants to destroy these miracles of western culture. ^^ that is toxic diversity as opposed to diversity of though.

d6rB says

I do not agree with Patrick's idea that diversity is inherently bad

Not always. Like that economist, I believe there is some relatively small level of diversity which is optimum. Not zero, but not large.

MegaForce says

The US needs to radically decentralize along these lines it if is to avoid Civil War 2 down the road. The Reds and Blues can not see eye to eye on many common things that Americans used to, so the Feds should devolve health care, welfare and many other functions to the Sates or interstate compacts of the States.

Bingo. Let the states have it or let Civil War 2 happen and let one party reign supreme.

We can have multi-ethnic societies that work. I’d argue that America is quite diverse in this way. But multiculturalism on top of this makes for isolated groups within the country which neither understand nor trust each other and often find the ways and practices of the other groups annoying or laughable.
Which is why you have blacks vs Koreans, Latinos vs. blacks, And Japanese vs everyone.

MegaForce says

The US needs to radically decentralize along these lines it if is to avoid Civil War 2 down the road. The Reds and Blues can not see eye to eye on many common things that Americans used to, so the Feds should devolve health care, welfare and many other functions to the Sates or interstate compacts of the States.

Decentralization is another core american liberal value that we have lost and/or dont agree on.

I would suspect this goes by party lines as well. Blue wants centralized control over everything, and Red wants state powers reaffirmed.

CBOEtrader says

I would suspect this goes by party lines as well. Blue wants centralized control over everything, and Red wants state powers reaffirmed.

Pretty much. Just look at the issue of abortion. A very clear party line on "federal vs state".

CBOEtrader says

Blue wants centralized control over everything, and Red wants state powers reaffirmed.

Agree with characterization of Blue, disagree with Red. War on drugs example...

Patrick says

But there needs to be a single main dominant culture (I did not say race) for a country to remain a country.

Yep, 80/20 is good, but that 20 has to be fractured itself (ie no one group more than 12-15% of the total).

Pareto Theory strikes again.

CBOEtrader says

This smacks of flawed ideology rather than scientific rigor.

Yep, especially when Putnum had a wave of disagreement and had 20-30 factors which he demonstrated as accounting for.

It doesn't explain why distrust emerges within the minority AND the majority both, as well as between them. Usually a minority group exhibits group unity if truly oppressed, rather than disunity.

This is part of the SJW/Multi Cult: "All problems are from Whites" attitude, which is not supported by worldwide historical experience (India, Israel, Russia prior to conversion of Siberia and Steppes, etc.)

Poland actually has a lot to teach the world about diversity. As the original Poland-Lithuanian Commonwealth, it survived ethnic and religious conflict because it was governed in a decentralized fashion. However, that was also it's undoing because Military Force was decentralized, so the Commonwealth was eventually conquered by enemies piecemeal.

Since a Lord in Volyhina didn't want to spend money and troops to defend Silesian border from Prussians; A Danzig Merchant didn't want to pay to defend Lvov from Cossacks or Austrians.

The second time Poland tried to create a Centralized version of the Commonwealth, but this failed for the opposite reason. Catholic Polonization of parts of Ukraine + Belorussia, areas of Orthodox, Cyrillic-using people, caused independence movements. Also many areas had been under Soviet Communist control briefly and large numbers of Communists.

By the time the Poles recognized that the Grand Marshall was right, and Polonization would have to be soft rather than "hard", there wasn't enough time left before Hitler invaded.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

This is part of the SJW/Multi Cult: "All problems are from Whites" attitude

It was the idiot whites who invented SJW culture, so perhaps I agree w the SJWs on something

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Since a Lord in Volyhina didn't want to spend money and troops to defend Silesian border from Prussians; A Danzig Merchant didn't want to pay to defend Lvov from Cossacks or Austrians.

Yeah I was contemplating what I considered Trumps biggest flaw : increasing the military size for "peace through strength".

Libertarians dont want a huge centralized armed force... but tbc, our centralized armed forces successfully defended the world against nazis and communists, so perhaps we should be grateful for a neccessary evil.

Diversity = Division

Diversity is deliberately divisive, benefiting the oligarchy by keeping us from unifying against them.

The answer is unity as Americans.

Patrick says

I feel like the USA has become something more akin to a mega corp which has no loyalty to their peon employee laborers (citizens) and is only interested in maximal profit and continuance of power for its ruling class (the shareholders). Keep in mind one of the most significant and reliable ways for a mega corp to continue increasing profits is to sell to a growing customer base, and a growing population is a superb, easy, and reliable way to do it.

The white employees worked out pretty well for a long time, but their productivity (birthrate) has fallen far too low lately, and the shareholders see the writing on the wall: rapidly slowing productivity growth (whyte birth rate) at a time when competition from other countries is getting fierce. So they sideline and layoff their long time whyte employees so that they can hire new ones from south of the border that have a higher productivity (birth rate), while simultaneously costing the company less, helping ensure that exponential profit growth continues.

But Mega Corp USA worries that the veteran whyte employees will try to defend their jobs by trying to slow the new employee hiring rate (immigration rate), and demanding the new employees who break the rules be fired (deport the illegals), so they establish corporate training campaigns (propaganda campaigns) to encourage the whyte employees to accept and embrace the new employees (diversity and inclusion) else be punished for not being a team player (be called a racist and bigot for "hating brown people"). They also worry the whyte style of working (white culture) will rub off on the new employees, causing them too to lose productivity (reduced birth rate). So they create corporate training modules (propaganda campaigns) to attack whyte culture by devaluing it, and tricking whytes into trampling their own "toxic" culture, while simultaneously encouraging them to embrace, defend, and "celebrate" the culture of the new hires.

It kinda explains why it feels like the will of the citizens doesnt matter anymore, and the govt seems to continually do things that fly in the face of the interests of the citizen.

Hircus says

I feel like the USA has become something more akin to a mega corp which has no loyalty to their peon employee laborers (citizens) and is only interested in maximal profit and continuance of power for its ruling class (the shareholders). Keep in mind one of the most significant and reliable ways for a mega corp to continue increasing profits is to sell to a growing customer base, and a growing population is a superb, easy, and reliable way to do it.

This is strongly analogous to the late Roman Empire, which was essentially a corporation which kept expanding the citizen base for the benefit of the ruling class in Rome.

But in the long run, there was no longer any unity as Romans. Roman soldiers no longer wanted to fight, so the elite hired mercenaries from the Goths, etc, who, having the military power and better unity, took over.

I think the solution for the US is strong borders and strict requirements for any new citizens, so that the people who are already here establish a better sense of unity as Americans. Given enough time together in a specific geographic area, people marry each other and tend to reestablish a sense of nationhood.

We also have to have an AMT for Corporations of 10%, and a "One set of books" rule - they must report the same financials to the shareholders as they do the IRS.

Amazon, Google, etc. are paying almost nothing in taxes. Amazon paid a lousy 4.3% in taxes in the last few years of the 2010's.

Also, US Companies must start each day and shareholder meetings with the Pledge of Alliegiance.

Rare slip-up by the ultra-leftist Wikipedia editors:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wau,_South_Sudan

The population of Wau is ethnically diverse. Most of the inhabitants are Luo and Fertit, as the town lies on the tribal boundary between these two peoples.[13] Furthermore, minorities belonging to the Dinka of Marial Baai, peoples can be found in Wau.[14] Due to its diversity, Wau has repeatedly suffered from ethnic violence.[6][15][16]

The left always believes ethnic diversity is good, no matter what the facts are. But the truth is that ethnic diversity creates conflict.

Patrick says

The left always believes ethnic diversity is good, no matter what the facts are. But the truth is that ethnic diversity creates conflict.

diverse cultures don’t unite, that’s probably why elites like it that way.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

Patrick says

The left always believes ethnic diversity is good, no matter what the facts are. But the truth is that ethnic diversity creates conflict.

diverse cultures don’t unite, that’s probably why elites like it that way.

It is why they want it. Whatever it is they want, you can be assured it isn't good for you.

FortwayeAsFuckJoeBiden says

diverse cultures don’t unite, that’s probably why elites like it that way.

Yes, it prevents the public from uniting against the oligarchy.

Absolute homogeneity is diversity?

Patrick says

Just like Japan - very non-diverse and low crime

True.

Also note that after Ireland was divided into a homogeneous Irish Catholic republic in the south and a mixed Irish and British north, fighting and economic stagnation went on in the north, and the south became completely peaceful and more prosperous than Britain itself.

Diversity has a way of destroying civic engagement

someone else says

From multicultural festivals to pronouncements from political leaders, the message is the same: our differences make us stronger.

No, without a doubt it makes the GOVERNMENT stronger. Remember 1984:

War is Peace - peace for the Inner Party, provided there's always war, there's little chance of revolt because there's an external enemy.

Freedom is Slavery - freedom for those in the Inner Party, provided the Outer Party and Proles are kept in slavery, the Inner Party has complete freedom.

Ignorance is Strength - strength for the Inner Party, provided the Outer Party and Proles are kept in ignorance, the Inner Party has strength.

Diversity is Strength - provided that the population is at continual war with one another, the government has strength and is not threatened by the population.

They are following 1984 like a manual, it's obvious now, blatantly obvious.

Our common interests are our strength, our differences are the government's strengths. This is why there's such a scramble to keep us divided. The population has common goals, they ignore that. Who wants us to go to war? Who wants higher taxes? Who wants more government regulation? Who wants more government meddling in our lives? Who wants propaganda? Nobody does, but we never talk about these issues, because our "news" media never talks about these issues.

1984 applied to today is absolutely incredible

HeadSet says

Patrick says

Just like Japan - very non-diverse and low crime

FUCKING NAZIS!!

Patrick says

I think the solution for the US is strong borders and strict requirements for any new citizens, so that the people who are already here establish a better sense of unity as Americans.

If immigrants to the US were likely to vote conservative, US would probably have strong borders and an immigration and outsourcing system that was pro-US.

Patrick says

Hircus says

I feel like the USA has become something more akin to a mega corp which has no loyalty to their peon employee laborers (citizens) and is only interested in maximal profit and continuance of power for its ruling class (the shareholders). Keep in mind one of the most significant and reliable ways for a mega corp to continue increasing profits is to sell to a growing customer base, and a growing population is a superb, easy, and reliable way to do it.

This is strongly analogous to the late Roman Empire, which was essentially a corporation which kept expanding the citizen base for the benefit of the ruling class in Rome.

But in the long run, there was no longer any unity as Romans. Roman soldiers no longer wanted to fight, so the elite hired mercenaries from the Goths, etc, who, having the military power and better unity, to...

Is there any foreseeable reason to hope for things to change? Not in my lifetime, I think.