Amerika

In the 1980s, those of us living in the most diverse part of North America observed a commonsense truth: we did fine with our own communities, but when communities mixed, culture got abolished and each group asserted its interests against all others. Trust vanished.

As a result, in this diversity-Utopia we chose to be happily segregated. You had White neighborhoods, Hispanic neighborhoods, Oriental neighborhoods, Irish neighborhoods, Russian neighborhoods, Italian neighborhoods, and Black neighborhoods, and no one really mixed.

The Whites — Nordic-Germanic ethnic Western Europeans — were as alienated from off-whites like the Irish, Poles, and Italians as they were from the Mexicans, Blacks, and Indians. We made Polak jokes, mocked the drunk egghead micks, and recoiled from the criminal greasers.

(Side note: if you cannot handle being called ethnic slurs, it is time to kill yourself. You are too weak for this world. We all get called nasty names or told nasty things, and sometimes they are true or partially true. You have to be thick-skinned. Weaklings are weakness.)

It turns out that other ethnic groups, because culture is genetic like all other frameworks of traits, have different moral values, in addition to other aesthetics and values about direction, which means that diversity makes incompatibility that leads to permissiveness:

“In morally diverse groups, there’s actually less consensus about what is right or wrong, because everybody is prioritizing different things. These different ‘moral priorities’ make it harder for the group to agree on what is right or wrong, and thus group members become more accepting of somebody acting inappropriately,” Osborne said.

Osborne is the first author of “Moral Diversity Fosters Cultural Looseness and Reduces Norm Policing,” forthcoming in Social Psychological and Personality Science. His co-author is Mohammad Atari, assistant professor at the Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences at the University of Massachusetts Amherst.

“We’re not making the case that people actually reward violent crime, but what I think this paper illuminates is how we evaluate incivility is actually nuanced. Rather, by virtue of the composition of the group—when people in a group have different moral priorities—it makes them more accepting of somebody acting inappropriately.”

Boiling that down, when people have different values systems — these are genetic, too — it creates a social environment where there cannot be a values system.

In other words, diversity abolishes the ability to have culture. It means a loss of social trust because no one has any idea what will be rewarded and what will be punished, in terms of actions they could take.

When you have one group with one standard, you can have a standard. When you have multiple groups, you adjust that standard to make space for them, but that makes the standard so permissive and vague that it no longer has any meaning.

Diversity leads to civilization decay.

Not surprisingly, the same diverse division through averaging that created a lack of moral standards also creates a lack of social trust:

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

Diversity, it shows, makes us uncomfortable — but discomfort, it turns out, isn’t always a bad thing. Unease with differences helps explain why teams of engineers from different cultures may be ideally suited to solve a vexing problem. Culture clashes can produce a dynamic give-and-take, generating a solution that may have eluded a group of people with more similar backgrounds and approaches. At the same time, though, Putnam’s work adds to a growing body of research indicating that more diverse populations seem to extend themselves less on behalf of collective needs and goals.

Higher diversity meant lower social capital. In his findings, Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.”

“People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.

Back in the late 1980s, to me it became clear that with more than one ethnic group in the same place, you got a hybrid of cultures, which meant that the new culture had to include lots of contradictory standards, therefore gave up on having standards.

Even more, it was no longer clear what actions were rewarded by social goodwill, nor which were censured. Therefore, people did whatever, and everyone was afraid to call them out on it, so the idea of social order went away.

Diversity is genocide and civilization collapse. It is not the fault of “good” groups or “evil” groups, just that if you have more than one group, you no longer have a society. You have an open air shopping mall where the only rules relate to money and politics.

Not surprisingly, diverse societies lose social order and become third world level poor as a result:

Speaking at the Semafor World Economy Summit in Washington, DC, Tshabalala said the country’s biggest remaining constraint is the restoration of the rule of law.

“There’s a direct correlation between the rule of law and GDP growth,” Tshabalala noted, pointing to persistent institutional weaknesses.

The issue has come into sharp focus following revelations from the Madlanga Commission, which is investigating procurement failures and corruption within the police. The inquiry has exposed systemic issues that have eroded public trust and weakened enforcement institutions.

South Africa has been staging reforms for thirty years. None have worked.

The argument made at this site and by its writings is both simple and hard to understand: the problem is diversity itself. You need culture; if you let in even one foreigner, your culture goes away and is replaced by economics and law.

Myself and other writers have been making this argument since the late 1980s with screeds first on BBS systems, then early USENET, flyers, parodies, and then, the web. We have been right all along, and society finally proves it: poly-ethnicity is suicide. Diversity is genocide and failure.

The only solution is to have mono-ethnic societies, not because you “hate” outsiders, but because you love your people and want them to thrive.

Tags: diversity, mono-ethnic