Diversity is Not a Strength, But a Weakness: A Reading Guide By Brian Simpson
The woke multiculturalists proclaim, as something of self-fulfilling thesis, that diversity is “our” greatest strength. This claim is never argued for, but is asserted with religious fervour. However, there is an overwhelming case against it. I am not going to argue first hand against the diversity myth here, but for education purposes, for any students wandering our way, provide an introductory reading guide.
- T. Dinesen (et al.), “Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: A Narrative and Meta-Analytical Review,” Annual Review of Political Science, vol. 23, 2020:
“Does ethnic diversity erode social trust? Continued immigration and corresponding growing ethnic diversity have prompted this essential question for modern societies, but few clear answers have been reached in the sprawling literature. This article reviews the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust through a narrative review and a meta-analysis of 1,001 estimates from 87 studies. The review clarifies the core concepts, highlights pertinent debates, and tests core claims from the literature on the relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust. Several results stand out from the meta-analysis. We find a statistically significant negative relationship between ethnic diversity and social trust across all studies. The relationship is stronger for trust in neighbors and when ethnic diversity is measured more locally. Covariate conditioning generally changes the relationship only slightly. The review concludes by discussing avenues for future research.”
- Dinesen and K. M. Sonderskov, “Ethnic Diversity and Social Trust: Evidence from the Micro-Context,” American Sociological Review, vol. 80, 2015:
“We argue that residential exposure to ethnic diversity reduces social trust. Previous within-country analyses of the relationship between contextual ethnic diversity and trust have been conducted at higher levels of aggregation, thus ignoring substantial variation in actual exposure to ethnic diversity. In contrast, we analyze how ethnic diversity of the immediate micro-context—where interethnic exposure is inevitable—affects trust. We do this using Danish survey data linked with register-based data, which enables us to obtain precise measures of the ethnic diversity of each individual’s residential surroundings. We focus on contextual diversity within a radius of 80 meters of a given individual, but we also compare the effect in the micro-context to the impact of diversity in more aggregate contexts. Our results show that ethnic diversity in the micro-context affects trust negatively, whereas the effect vanishes in larger contextual units. This supports the conjecture that interethnic exposure underlies the negative relationship between ethnic diversity in residential contexts and social trust.”
While there are no many papers showing that diversity undermines social trust, the above papers give a comprehensive guide to the technical literature.
For readers who need an easier read, not so academic, Brett Stevens at Amerika.org, has been hammering away at the diversity cult for many years, hitting it from so many directions, that at least philosophically, it has long ago hit the canvass:
http://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-sabotages-community/
“It [diversity] destroys the civilization around it. As the thesis of Dr. Eitan Adres from the School of Political Sciences at the University of Haifa, reveals, diversity — in addition to genetic and cultural genocide — also destroys any sense of social trust and work toward shared goals. In other words, diversity makes citizens into sociopaths:
The findings showed that the more people consider themselves to adhere to the values of globalization, consumerism, and individualism, and the more they regard themselves as “citizens of the world” exposed to globalization, the less likely they are to contribute to public goods and the more likely they are to seek to be “free riders” on the contributions of others.
This finding was particularly apparent in the first experiment, when the participants were divided into groups and received 100 tokens each. The participants were asked to choose an amount from their 100 tokens to be pooled in a communal pot. The total amount donated would be doubled and this doubled amount would be distributed evenly among all participants, no matter how much each one contributed. Thus each individual received the equal portion of the communal pot together with the tokens they did not contribute to the pot. The collective interest in this situation is that each participant will contribute all their tokens to the collective pot. The individual interest is not to contribute anything, and to add the money shared from the pot to the 100 tokens. The study found that 30 percent of German participants and 25 percent of the Australians preferred to keep all their tokens to themselves. By contrast, only 3.6 percent of the Columbians and 12 percent of the Israelis chose to do so.”
http://www.amerika.org/politics/diversity-doesnt-work/
http://www.amerika.org/science/equality-a-consequence-of-diversity/
http://www.amerika.org/politics/aristotle-and-plato-on-why-diversity-is-tyranny/
http://www.amerika.org/science/science-confirms-it-diversity-destroys-civilization/
“The analysis offered on this site of diversity does not look at the unique traits of groups, only the necessary idea that any group is constituted around a unique values system and in order to defend that, needs to have control over its destiny and the ability to exclude other groups. This means that more than one group in the same area causes social dissolution and civilization collapse.
In fact, for more than twenty-five years, the writers collected here have been pointing out that diversity destroys social order and is dysfunctional as a policy as a result. We cannot make it work because it is paradoxical and therefore will always fail, but will fail slowly, taking our civilization down with it as that society expends all of its resources to try to make an illusion into reality, although tyrants and rioting plebs love it because the perceived goodness of diversity gives them virtually unlimited power.
As if conjured up from our laboratories, confirms that diversity results in conflict (via Heartiste via hbdchick):
However, in countries where ethnicity is more strongly predictive of culture, as captured by a high, violent conflict is more likely, and public goods provision tends to be lower. Our interpretation of this empirical result is that in societies where individuals differ from each other in both ethnicity and culture, social antagonism is greater, and political economy outcomes are worse.
In other words, wherever there are groups that have united genetics to value systems (“culture”) there is conflict if more than one occupies a space.”
http://www.amerika.org/politics/what-asiatic-admixture-looks-like/
http://www.amerika.org/politics/why-white-ethnostates-are-inevitable/
http://www.amerika.org/politics/black-woman-points-out-that-diversity-is-genocide/
That should do as a start for your research!
Comments