The Benefits of Homogeneous Ethnocultural States

Greetings everyone once again. I'd like to take a little bit of time today to digress further into the my ideal of a homogeneous ethnocultural nation-state and how I've come to the conclusion that this is the best form of internal order within a state. Luckily, while checking a few of my news sources today, I managed to find an excellent article on Western Voices World News which is an excellent news source for those interested in the cause of European ethnic nationalism. News is updated daily from various other sources, one of which in this case was the renowned Professor of Psychology, Dr. Kevin McDonald. In this article writing for the Occidental Observer, another excellent source for articles regarding Western civilization, McDonald provides an excellent argument for the pervasiveness of nepotism, the innate preference of people in choosing to live alongside people of similar backgrounds, heritages, cultures etc.

Anyways, onto the article. Essentially McDonald goes onto say that people naturally self-segregate into areas according to background, the most prominent example of which in America is race. He uses a variety of articles to prove his point, many of which I will cover as well. One major article that refutes many of the commonly accepted myths and fallacies employed and superstitiously believed by multicultists is the article regarding Chicago being the most segregated city in America.

In the article, they examine the lives and choices of two people, one black and the other white in choosing to live alongside members of their own race. They found that based on their responses and observable trends in residency that European Americans generally stick with other European Americans and African Americans generally stick with African Americans. This is all rather dull and obvious to anyone educated in these matters, but what I find as being the most important part of this article is towards the end where they make the critical point that this segregation exists despite income level, that is to say that high earning blacks will not associate with whites based on class, for them, it is more important to live among their own kin, a testament to how nepotism and ethnocultural affiliation largely trumps the class conflict argumentation. This might be some useful ammunition against socialists ;)! Even more importantly, higher earning blacks will choose to live amongst other blacks despite the fact that it lowers their quality of life and prospective earnings according to the article. What people should take from this article is that in terms of affiliation - which is an essential component to any state seeking to create a sense of unity and order - people generally place a far greater emphasis on ethnic affiliation [people!] than one based solely upon class affiliation [money!].

If you look further into the article, you'll find that McDonald talks about another renowned Professor, this time of Political Science named Robert Putnam who became quite the famous figure in I believe 2000 for publishing the book "Bowling Alone." However, we'll be examining another paper that Putnam has only recently published involving a statistical examination of the benefits and costs of diversity. Unfortunately, I do not have a link to the actual study, however the title is "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century" if anyone is interested. Much attention was heaved upon this research and it took a great deal of time [I believe 5 years] to put together directly because of the overwhelmingly negative conclusions that Putnam reached regarding the effects of diversity upon social cohesion. In the report, Putnam openly says that increased diversity results in:
1. lower confidence in local government, local leaders and local news media
2. lower political efficacy - a lower belief that they can influence politics
3. lower frequency of registering to vote
4. less expectation that others will co-operate to solve dilemmas of collective action [i.e. working together as a community]
5. less likelihood of working on a community project
6. lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering
7. fewer close friends and confidants
8. less happiness and lower perceived quality of life
9. more time spent watching television and more agreement that "television is my most important form of entertainment"
Source

There could very well be more that I do not know of because I have not been able to access the entire article, only fragments of it from other sites such as vdare.com. Furthermore, that pesky argument that multicultists use: "well, it's all because of socio-economic factors, they're poorer etc. etc. etc." doesn't quite cut it in these circumstances given the results are adjusted for class, income and other factors [source]. What do you get at the social level when you add this all up? I'll tell you: greater distrust, less co-operation, ineffective and non-representative government, lower community cohesion, reduced cultural vitality and creativity [needs community spirit], unhealthier lifestyles [watching excessive TV], lower social capital and lastly, as explicitly stated, less happiness and a lower quality of life. All this just by increasing the diversity of your state, sounds like a bad deal to me! And yet now that we can statistically prove that diversity has negative effects, for the past two years [actually, similar studies have proven the same thing going as far back as the 70's], how can the news media continue the blatant lie that "diversity is our strength"??? It truly boggles the mind how deceptive and malicious these liars can be; now you know why I rarely spend even a second to consider what syndicated news media blabs on about.

Not only do we trust people of other backgrounds less in more diverse environments, but the report reveals that we even begin to lose trust in people that are alike us! [source]

But wait, there's more! In light of all this negativity [in-fact, increased diversity increases only two things: the propensity to watch TV as stated earlier and the number of protest marches...yes...because we definitely need more of those, far more important than community cohesion or quality of life!!!] Putnam had to delay "publishing his research until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying 'it would have been irresponsible to publish without that.' " [Source]

Essentially what Putnam is admitting to here is that the results of his study were so surprisingly negative, beyond what he could have imagined, that it took him five-six years [the study was started in 2000 if I'm not mistaken] to create a sufficient spin upon the results in order to make it palatable for the mass public and mass media to digest. It's disappointing to see such a renowned and trusted academic scholar prostrating and prostituting themselves to appease the erroneous beliefs of deluded multicultists in power at the sacrifice of academic honesty and accuracy. Putnam even goes so far as to use the constructivist argument within his own report in a meager and desperate attempt at legitimizing diversity once again by proudly, if not dishonestly declaring that societies have been "socially constructed, and can be socially reconstructed." Yes...yes...yes...we all know how the state attempts to enforce their system of artificial social reconstruction upon European people and their own organic culture within their own nation, we've already been through that in my last post. So let me get this straight Dr. Putnam, first natives of European nations must be dispossessed from their own lands and culture, then they must tolerate the socially destructive influences of diversity [look above] and finally, their entire culture and society itself must be changed and/or eliminated... "reconstructed" [in Putnam's words] by the state, against their will in order to appease this almighty God of diversity that you worship?! Have I got that down right? So let me ask you a simple question, why? Why should Europeans ever seek to foster diversity within their own lands when it comes at such immense immediate [loss of trust, community etc.] and long -term [reconstructing the identity of the people, effectively, liquidating any and all things natively European] costs????? What's so wrong with allowing Germany to be German, or Britain to be British, or Italy to be Italian. Are these somehow intrinsically less valuable than more diverse societies, do they need to be "enriched" as you say? Doesn't that strike anyone as a tad arrogant to essentially make the declaration that being Italian and celebrating Italian culture and heritage is insufficient???

Here are a few more of Dr. Putnam's outrageous quotes for viewing pleasure:
"What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us." [Source]
Why is the onus of "reconstruction" upon us, the natives of the land. Why must we change ourselves and eliminate our own culture, or at the very very least, marginalize its significance in our lives at the behest of foreigners? Hold on, let me quote one more and then I'll provide a historical example of what Putnam would like us to do and just how outrageous it would practically sound.
"Advanced countries such as the U. S. will inevitably see increases in immigration and diversity..." [Source]
There you have it folks, the bijillionth time diversocrats [that's a new one!] and multicultists have used the word "inevitable" in conjunction with the theory of multiculturalism. So let's combine these two quotes together, it would look something like this: Because "diversity" is inevitable, we must change who we are to accommodate it. Alright, there we have it, now let's apply that historical example that I was thinking of, one of my favourites to use in a debate. Let us put ourselves in the shoes of Native Americans in the early times of the colonization of North America. At that point, witnessing increasing European immigration into their lands, it might've seemed inevitable that the continent they lived on was becoming increasingly diverse. In so doing, read over the last part of my summary of Putnam's quotes: "we must change who we are to accommodate it," basically, what Putnam would've expected from the Native Americans would be to simply lay down and accept their being invaded, having their lands taken away and their culture diminished in importance. They might as well have committed cultural suicide and just given up had they taken the advice of Dr. Putnam! Is this what we should expect of ourselves too? In 400 years, will we want to live in reserves in what were our formerly native lands [like Native Americans of today] because some academic on his knees before multicultist dogma encouraged us to promote our self-de[con]struction? I don't think so.

I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm tired of being told to "reconstruct" myself, why can't we simply be who we are and celebrate what we are in our own nations? Is there anything so wrong in that? Do we really need to change our sense of "we"?

Anyways, I feel that I've pretty much beaten this dead horse hard enough, as I said before, I'm very disappointed in Dr. Putnam's proposals from his "analysis" if that's what you'd like to call it, to me it just sounds like another academic trying to trivialize and rationalize the decline and disappearance of Europeans within their own homelands. I could never imagine any of these multicultist academics employing the same reasoning against nations with strong ethnic identities such as Japan or Korea, telling them that they must change and substitute Korean customs for African, European and Indian ones. Personally, I would see the disappearance of Korean and Japanese cultures as being a travesty equivalent to the disappearance of say Polish and Spanish cultures. They are all valuable in their own way.

My very last paragraph, as I am very tired tonight, is with regards to Putnam's last statements in this source. Putnam goes on to compare changing our ethnic identity as being comparable to how America gradually placed less and less importance upon a person's religious identity from the 1950's into the modern era. According to Putnam, back then, religious identity was an important factor in American society whereas now-a-days, people have changed and largely disregarded this component of their identity, they have in Putnam's words "reconstructed" themselves. In the 1950's, it was thought to be just as impossible as we think "reconstructing" ethnic identities is now. In comparing these, Putnam seeks to make a case that with time, even "reconstructing" ethnic identities will be possible and acceptable in society. However I see one major flaw in this comparison, simply put, the two do not compare. One is a purely spiritual and non-tangible factor of one's identity [religion] which can be relatively easily switched at the whims of an individual, an ethnic identity however, is not quite so easily disposable or "reconstructible" because of its basis on the tangible, biological world. It is a part of your DNA, the very essence of who you are and this cannot change no matter how badly you may wish it. I hope to extrapolate further upon this phenomenon in my next post, the importance of a common genetic history that indelibly roots an ethnic group together. Thank you all once again.