patrick.net

The Danes leaving their babies outside in strollers is supposed to be a fresh air annealing process for their health. Or, maybe, it's just to keep the vampires from coming inside.

Diversity:

https://youtube.com/shorts/t4rJHkBsqV8?feature=share

Patrick says

People feel that safe only when there is very little diversity. The more diversity, the less they trust their fellow citizens.

I'd agree. I think small towns are more important though and staying away from big cities and suburbs. Even if they're not diverse. Nearish to me would be Naperville, IL or Geneva, IL where I once lived. Large suburban populations and mostly white. Probably 90% white. I didn't enjoy it to be honest. I don't like stop lights and people grouped close together without land/yard.

Now my town is 95% white, 4% hispanic and 1% black roughly (one being my nephew). Damn near everyone knows me and I've only been here 8 years. I'm an elected official on a board. It's so much easier to have control and input in a small town. The federal government and state government are all outside noise really. When my friends are on the village board and school board, I can get my voice out there.

I really don't like diversity. I like unique if I'm traveling. So a place like NOLA is fun. I've had fun in a place like Phoenix, but it's just so bland. I like the Caribbean the best. Fun people. They don't give a shit. Can be rough around the edges, but having worked in Chicago I can handle it.

Small towns have generally less crime all over world. Almost everyone knows each other and everyone has job /purpose so they kinda need everyone.

Regarding native americans they were treated pretty bad.
"Also, Europeans did not kill most of the American Indians. About 90% of them simply died from being exposed to new diseases. They have since recovered to the point where there are more American Indians now than at the time of European contact. Their population was quite small except in Mexico, where it remains large."

Natives americans literally helped original Europeans who didn't know how to farm, n fed them hence thanksgiving. Then it's pretty cruel how Europeans took over their land, enslaved and massacarred with them with guns. Pretty sure those treaties were not explained well and took full advantage. It's pretty hard to belive people just voluntarily left their ancestral home. So many times natives were moved from their own land. So many died from these moves and emotional issues . Diseases killed them but wars to land grab , getting kicked out own land killed many as well.

There is comfort in thinking same type group is better but diversity is needed for advancement of humanity, mix helps to see what works best. When Europeans enslaved n brought back ideas from world renesances started.

If people like Hitler who think blond hair n blue eye people are better and all should be same, then rest of European whites would have been killed. Irony is lot of defender of homogeniality world have been killed foe having brunette or black hair :). Scary how Europeans have tried to kill each other so many times just to get homogeniality.

Ultimately Darwin survival of fittest works. Equator with lot of sun requires dark skin with melanin. Whites will get cancer n die there. Far from equator with less sun areas ,light skin allows more sun rays absorbing.

KgK one says

Small towns have generally less crime all over world. Almost everyone knows each other and everyone has job /purpose so they kinda need everyone.

True.

KgK one says

Natives americans literally helped original Europeans who didn't know how to farm, n fed them hence thanksgiving.

I'm not sure that that story is true, but it definitely was not the usual case if so.

KgK one says

enslaved and massacarred with them with guns.

Were Indians enslaved or massacred with guns by white people? I don't think that was common. On the other hand, the Indians commonly enslaved and massacred each other, and would also take slaves from white people and massacre them where they could.

Of course there were many very different Indian groups, some more warlike than others.

KgK one says

Pretty sure those treaties were not explained well and took full advantage.

I agree there. The cultures were radically different. None of the Indian groups could really understand European culture at first.

KgK one says

It's pretty hard to belive people just voluntarily left their ancestral home.

Did someone claim that?

KgK one says

There is comfort in thinking same type group is better but diversity is needed for advancement of humanity, mix helps to see what works best.

The original article proves that diversity inevitably has large harmful effects, and you can see it for yourself everywhere.

I agree that cultures need to evolve and to adopt good ideas from each other. The Japanese tried to totally isolate for centuries, but eventually were forced to open up to the rest of the world because their isolation made them militarily weak. On the other hand, it is exactly Japan's ethnic homogeneity which makes it a high-trust society.

It's quite dishonest to say that "Europeans enslaved" without noting that millions of Europeans were enslaved by Arabs (the word slave comes from the word "slav") and that pretty much every culture had slavery. The Africans literally captured other Africans from other tribes and sold them to traders on the coasts.

Currently, India is worst offender: https://scroll.in/article/898862/india-is-home-to-the-worlds-largest-slave-population-yes-slavery-still-exists

Indians are by far the most racist people on earth:

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-racist-countries

To blame all white people for Hitler is offensive, given that Hitler killed more white people than anyone else.

True, white people are white simply because it was an advantage in northern climates to have light skin to get more Vitamin D. They do get more skin cancer when they move to very sunny places.

No one is claiming that all whites are like Hitler. That's ridiculous. Most white people are amazing. Hitler was big on homogenety blond hair blue eyes. Agree he killed lot of whites and probably would have killed lot more if not stopped. Point is people pushing homogeneous culture many times think their culture is best and want to get rid of everyone. Europeans have most to fear from themselves, only exception may be muslims. Muslims are very Homogeneous for most part, and it's scary for rest.

https://scroll.in/article/898862/india-is-home-to-the-worlds-largest-slave-population-yes-slavery-still-exists
It's sad that these conditions still exist. They used the term slave like condition, not really slaves. Slavery is illegal. When British came India's GDP was 25% of the world but when they left it was 4%. So poverty may cause many people to work in labor jobs or whatever jobs they can find. No one is forcing them to work but they have to take any job that they can get.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/most-racist-countries
This is hard to believe given that it is one of the most diverse. It has tons of Christians, Muslims many off shoots off Hindu( Jain ,Buddhist, and sikh and so many more). People typically don't migrate to poor countries. So not many people move in. North East people are similar to Chinese. Northeast Greeks and Mongols n afgans, persians were mixed. British, French, n other countries had trading posts n towns, there was mixing there. As for complexion, you can find really white n really black people.
So many people migrated into india to escape genocide.
E.g Dali lama, parsis, zorashtrians, ... except for Muslims, most have assimilated , Muslims tried to kill n convert everyone.
Wapo is faking these surveys, their surveys are like Hilary was 100% president.

Yeah like Tower of Babel and King Nimrod firing an arrow into the sky. We got diversity alright from that. Seems like a good analogy as far as chaos of diversity.

This Youtube video is from a late 1970s TV movie I recall watching as a very young kid. It was a series of movies of the Bible. I believe it was from this movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible:_In_the_Beginning...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhZDmdf8w0w

.

Patrick says

Correct, diversity is not a strength. Well, it's not a strength for the citizens, that is.

This should be every country's and every corporation's slogan:

Diversity is a disaster.

Meaning, that to deliberately bring in anyone just because of "diversity" is a massive loss for group cohesion.

It also undermines the desire to work, because you can see that your accomplishments and abilities do not matter as much as belonging to a favored race, such black or Hispanic.

The right answer is to stress unity as Americans, and not consider or talk about race at all, ever. Though obviously I have to mention it here to object.

Not just a loss for group cohesion, its being used as a tool for destroying group cohesion, so that the group can be weakened and thus controlled. What does control mean? It means economic exploitation

I think the Japanese understand this clearly, which is why they have essentially zero immigration. They have an aging population like the West, but even older. Still, they choose to deal with it on their own terms.

I think this is possible because the Japanese, living in a homogeneous country, still have a strong sense of civic virtue:

https://patrick.net/post/1378324/2023-01-19-civic-virtue-is-not-profitable-so-how

Patrick says

I live in Cuyahoga County in Ohio. It is believed that you have to have a certain name, for example Irish sounding name, to get elected in certain governmental positions, meaning, that people are voting based on ethnicity. This is one example but there might be other examples. So, its incorrect to say that whites gave up in-group preferences. It is a first world, luxury belief that exists among people who are either rich or seek power. If whites gave up in-group preferences, why did they do it? There are two possible answers to this, money (corporate profits) or power (political power). No one put a gun to white people and forced them to give up in-group preferences. No one put a gun to white people and forced them to send their jobs overseas or give visas to people from incompatible cultures. These were deliberate choices.

Like Joe Pesci's character notes in all mafia movies, its all about the dollah.

Stefan Molyneux was making important arguments, he should not have been Snowdened.

gabbar says

If whites gave up in-group preferences, why did they do it?

They did it because business interests used psychological warfare, mostly on white women, to make them feel guilty so that business owners could import and use much cheaper labor. I think that's about all there is to it.

Patrick says

They did it because business interests used psychological warfare, mostly on white women, to make them feel guilty so that business owners could import and use much cheaper labor. I think that's about all there is to it.

I think there is a plan to break up American families through various methods so that they can be controlled and economically exploited. And yes, women have been brainwashed and this has made break up (high divorce rate etc.) easier.

https://notthebee.com/article/youve-gotta-watch-this-vice-panel-on-asian-hate-where-one-dude-has-to-stand-against-all-the-wokies-and-try-to-talk-common-sense

So, if Mexico demanded that US makes Spanish a second official language, shall we cave in or tell them ro fuck off?

We don't any official language in the US. Strange but true.

Patrick says

We don't any official language in the US. Strange but true.

De-facto we do.

Dan8267 says

I have no problem stating that I want immigrants to be intelligent, educated, and liberal. And yes, being liberal should be a requirement of immigrating to any western nation. Western civilization is founded on liberal principles and if a person disagrees with democracy, liberty, equality under law, etc. then they cannot be assimilated into our society. Hell, we should even require that people are not affiliated with any religion and fully accept science and reject all supernatural nonsense (superstitions). We need people who are intelligent, rational, and believe in liberty.

Muslims will not assimilate with the majority; they would want the majority to assimilate with them because they are superior because of their religion.

Patrick says

gabbar says

If whites gave up in-group preferences, why did they do it?

They did it because business interests used psychological warfare, mostly on white women, to make them feel guilty so that business owners could import and use much cheaper labor. I think that's about all there is to it.

You know, that would make a good meme:

gabbar says

Muslims will not assimilate with the majority; they would want the majority to assimilate with them because they are superior because of their religion.

Yes, and this is another point of similarity between the US and the Roman Empire.

The Romans were successful at assimilating most people, but they found the Jews indigestible and ultimately crushed them. Yet in the long term, an offshoot of Judaism (Christianity) colonized Rome.

America is successful at assimilating most people, but Muslims are similarly indigestible. It will be interesting to see what happens in the long run.

Muslims do not assimilate anywhere or get along. While minority they talk Equality, once majority they kill off whole culture, historic buildings , etc.

About 200 to 600 years ago afganistan , Pakistan, Indonesia, bangladesh were all diverse non Muslim now 100% Muslim. Few years back they were destroying 5 story Buddha statues in afganistan.

Abrahmic religion jews, Islam n Christianity are at war for longest time.

KgK one says

About 200 to 600 years ago afganistan , Pakistan, Indonesia, bangladesh were all diverse non Muslim now 100% Muslim. Few years back they were destroying 5 story Buddha statues in afganistan.

Do you know why they did this?

Western nations were offering to help restore the statues, but Afghanistan had been at war with the USSR for years, and was desperately poor. They had starvation at the time, but the West wouldn't help, but they offered to protect the statues, but not help the people.

Our media never mentioned that.

The US was in Afghanistan before, and spent many hundreds of millions (billions today), since the 1950s.

There's footage of American Engineers and their families celebrating Christmas in Kabul with a decorated tree sometime around 1960.

https://allthatsinteresting.com/1960s-afghanistan

King Mohammad Zahir Shah had ruled over Afghanistan that was large scale violence free (not including the usual clan wars) for decades and before that there was 200 years of Monarchy.

The USSR destroyed Afghanistan by sponsoring several Communist Revolutions (not every leader/cadre was to their liking) starting in 1973. However the "Prime Minister" Daoud Khan was not Communist enough for the USSR, and was too warm with the US and Pakistan, so in 1978 there was a second Coup by hardliners in the same party as Khan. The Soviets denied their support, but backed the regime. Then there was another coup between elements of the Socialist Party, and in 1979 the USSR invaded. Both post-Khan regimes were Communist and immediately began massive "land reform".

Interesting thing about Communist Activists, many seem to come from at least comfortable circumstances:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babrak_Karmal

AmericanKulak says

The USSR destroyed Afghanistan by sponsoring several Communist Revolutions (not every leader/cadre was to their liking) starting in 1973. However the "Prime Minister" Daoud Khan was not Communist enough for the USSR, and was too warm with the US and Pakistan, so in 1978 there was a second Coup by hardliners in the same party as Khan. The Soviets denied their support, but backed the regime. Then there was another coup between elements of the Socialist Party, and in 1979 the USSR invaded. Both post-Khan regimes were Communist and immediately began massive "land reform".

I'm glad the USSR is dead, but I can entertain the idea that the US was actually helping the country at that time, although I'm probably being overly optimistic about that, considering Operation PBSuccess and Ajax.

I don't think it's wrong to exploit a nation, PROVIDED that nation benefits mutually. It's cheaper to install a dictator and setup a secret police than it is to give a nation prosperity and that's what the US has been doing for a long long time. China is (sort of?) providing prosperity, because it provides LONG TERM benefit. You can setup a dictatorship, but it will only last for a few decades at most. Become a savior, and I think you get a friend for life.

The US war in Afghanistan had nothing to do about removing the Taleban or even getting binLaden, it was primarily about running oil pipelines from the Caspian Sea.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/inatl/europe/pipeline100598.htm

That's from 1998. 9/11 was an excuse. The US had plans for Afghanistan long before 9/11. I don't agree with the Taleban's version of Islam, but it's their country. We shouldn't interfere. The Taleban opposes opium production, and they oppose bacha bazi:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacha_bazi

However, they don't think females should have the opportunity for an education. I'm a westerner. It's an alien culture to me. Anyhow, 2 out of 3 isn't bad.

richwicks says

KgK one says

About 200 to 600 years ago afganistan , Pakistan, Indonesia, bangladesh were all diverse non Muslim now 100% Muslim. Few years back they were destroying 5 story Buddha statues in afganistan.

Do you know why they did this?

Yes, because they considered the statues "un-Islamic," and publicly said so. Just like how Stalin blew up cathedrals in the name of Communism.

HeadSet says

Yes, because they considered the statues "un-Islamic," and publicly said so. Just like how Stalin blew up cathedrals in the name of Communism.

No.

It was a protest in that the West was offering to help preserve the statues, but not preserve the people.

richwicks says

I'm glad the USSR is dead, but I can entertain the idea that the US was actually helping the country at that time, although I'm probably being overly optimistic about that, considering Operation PBSuccess and Ajax.

I mentioned the 200-year monarchy to show that Afghanistan wasn't ALWAYS a hellhole of large antagonistic groups (though always had low level clan fighting) as claimed.

Forgot to mention the USSR poured huge sums into Afghanistan to extract resources as well in the 50s-80s and built pipelines to connect to their 'Stans in the North.

AmericanKulak says

I mentioned the 200-year monarchy to show that Afghanistan wasn't ALWAYS a hellhole of large antagonistic groups (though always had low level clan fighting) as claimed.

I cannot say I know much of anything about Afghanistan prior to the 1950's, and not much about it in the 1950's, but I do know the Taleban is basically the Mujaheddin. Our government creates bullshit problems in order to come up with bullshit solutions.

AmericanKulak says

Forgot to mention the USSR poured huge sums into Afghanistan to extract resources as well in the 50s-80s and built pipelines to connect to their 'Stans in the North.

Well, to be fair, Afghanistan had a communist government at the time and asked the USSR for assistance, the US frustrated this by funding and arming Afghan "freedom fighters".

The US wanted to get into Afghanistan, in part, to put pipelines through from the Caspian sea - that's PART of why the US invaded. I am not a fan of the Taleban, but just fucking do some negotiation for once, America! Just once. They'll spend TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS and killed 100's of thousands because they are too retarded to just negotiate.

All the US has to do is make an offer that is good enough, with the threat of military force. Instead, we lost Afghanistan entirely and there's no damned pipeline anyhow. Our government killed 3000 people in NYC and a few in DC and got NOWHERE. The pipeline could have been operating in 2005.

I know the Taleban aren't good chummy guys, nobody is but they're still in power. The entire thing was a triple distilled class A fuckup. I can't believe that the people that engineered this bullshit, are allowed anywhere near power. Their latest disaster is Ukraine. Russia is not going to be significantly weakened by this war, they are NOT going to try to end the war any time soon, they are going to draw it out, because fuck Europe, they've tried to work with Europe for 2 decades, and Europe is just a bunch of American cocksockers, so they wouldn't. It would be mutually beneficial for Europe and Russia to work together, but they won't because all that delicious NATO money and I'm sure all their "leaders" or bought off by the US.

Ukraine might be the end of NATO, it might even be the end of the EU.

Look, nobody trusts the United States anymore, if you don't realize that's a problem, it is. LOOK at our media, look at our politicians screaming "Russian disinformation" when truth comes out. Do you think China, India, and Russia aren't looking at this and laughing? Our government REGULARLY calls the truth "propaganda" and propaganda "fact checks".

This would work if they used it sparingly, but they don't, they use it constantly. Meanwhile, Russia doesn't even BOTHER with propaganda (that I'm aware of) - what does it matter? Propaganda won't win or lose the Ukraine war and it won't change US policy.

https://notthebee.com/article/please-enjoy-tucker-and-russell-brand-handing-out-redpills-about-architecture



As Tucker rightly points out, those buildings are beautiful because the people who built them were all related to each other or at least knew each other.

In a highly diverse society, no one gives a shit because they are not related to each other and probably don't know each other.

Not sure if Europe is diverse or homogeneous? Depends on how u look at it. Mostly white, n Christian but various language etc.

But they are at war pretty much all the time. Rome vs Germany
French vs England
Ww1
Ww2
May be ww3 now