This post is part of a series. Link to Preface, Parts [1], [2], [3]

In the prior post we demonstrated that immigration does not consistently produce the effects advertised by proponents, and in fact appears to be largely negative in many instances. But what about the benefits afforded by our greatest strength – “diversity?” While different ethnic and religious groups living in close proximity have traditionally been a catalyst for conflict, war, and other atrocities across history, it is now common knowledge that “diversity” comes with many benefits – which is why we see this mantra plastered everywhere in society and repeated ad nauseam by our glorious leaders. Surely, diversity will strengthen us and mitigate any negative effects from immigration in the short or long run.

FRACTIONALIZATION

How does one measure “diversity?” Some of the pioneering work on this front was put forward as recently as the late 1990s and early 2000s. Works by Mauro in 1995 and Easterly & Levine 1997 employed a method of measure first invented by the Soviets in the 1960s. This early literature was expanded upon in subsequent years . Some of the main works in conjunction with the idea of “fractionalization” are three papers: Fearon 2003, Alesina et al 2003, and Alesina and LaFerrara 2005. Here is the definition of “fractionalization:”

Fractionalization measures are computing the probability that two randomly drawn individuals (from a country) are not from the same group (ethnic, religious, or whatever the criterion is). Its theoretical maximum is reached (at the value of 1) when each person (in a region) belongs to a different group

Typically, the categories are “ethnic”, “racial,” “cultural,” “linguistic” or “religious”. You can see a list of fractionalization indexes by country here.

These economists took these indices and compared them general economic metrics, data from the World Values Survey, and some other sources. They found that ethnic and linguistic “fractionalization” was associated with lower GDP growth, higher corruption, lower social trust, and lower quality of public institutions. I could go over the methodologies and figures in each of these, but I don’t really have room for it and I expect we’ll just get to this in the comments somewhere. To quote from Alesina et. al 2003 “Fractionalization:”

A large literature on US localities show that in more ethnically fragmented communities, public goods provision is less efficient, participation in social activities and trust is lower, and economic success, measured by growth of city size, is inferior

a) On economic growth, we broadly confirm the results by Easterly and Levine (1997). In fact the negative effect of ethnic fragmentation on growth is reinforced with the new data, and we are able to highlight the differences between ethnic, linguistic and religious fractionalization.

c) Ethnic fractionalization is also closely correlated with GDP per capita and geographic variables, like latitude

b) On quality of government and policies we make some progress over La Porta et al. (1999). They argued that both legal origin, distance from the equator and ethnolinguistic fractionalization explain the quality of government

d) While ethnic and linguistic fractionalization are associated with negative outcomes in terms of quality of government, religious fractionalization is not; in fact, if anything, this measure displays a positive correlation with measures of good governance. This is because measured religious fractionalization tends to be higher in more tolerant and free societies, like the United States

Recall that most Western nations have annual GDP growth in the range of 0-2%, which would imply that full “diversity” would result in 0 growth, or even contraction of the economy. This is not the narrative we were told about “diversity.” What do these economists think about the findings? To quote from “Ethnic Diversity and Economic Performance” Alesina and Le Ferrara 2005:

What are the policy implications of all of the above? The issue is quite difficult and politically charged and it is relevant in at least two areas: immigration policies and local policies that may increase or decrease racial integration. The implication of promoting racial homogeneity is unappealing and probably incorrect both in the short and in the long run.

Hmm, I’m having some trouble reading into this, but for some reason I get the impression that maybe the idea of “diversity” being a “strength” might not hold up at all empirically - and that these economists might be trying to downplay their own findings to avoid rocking the boat or attracting too much negative criticism. Let’s forestall judgement for now and see what else we find.

Take a second also to note just how recent these studies are in the grand scheme of US immigration policies. The Hart-Cellar Act was passed in 1965. Alesina et al’s analysis covers a time period of 1979 to 2001. You would’ve thought that such a radical departure from the status quo and promotion of “diversity” would be paired with data to support it. These studies are literally 40 years late. Again, this just goes to show that much of what drives our political decisions are not predicated strongly on economic theory or evidence - and can even be in complete contradiction of these things. Intuitively, “diversity” does not offer much in the way of obvious benefits - and in fact has been a catalyst for war and conflict across history. However, some of these events and negative effects have been offset by delicious food. Plus, there could be benefits in other contexts we haven't seen yet.

FIRM PRODUCTIVITY

We don’t just see “diversity” promoted as a demographic social goal, we also see it promoted in the corporate world as well. Women, People of Color, and LGBTHIV+ come from different backgrounds of uhpreshon and “perspective” - so naturally, such unique experiences lend themselves directly to innovative insights in the business world. Firms should thus obviously benefit from “diversity” – and we expect having more diversity would increase firm productivity What does the data show in this regard?

In a meta analysis of 40 years of research, Katherine Williams and Charles O’Reilly found

“There is substantial evidence from both laboratory and field studies conducted over the past four decades that variations in group composition can have important effects on group functioning. These studies show that increased diversity, especially in terms of age, tenure, and ethnicity, typically have negative effects on social integration, communication, and conflict.”

Darn. I guess this is not really surprising given the fact that we know job performance varies widely by ethnicity. Lets see what else we find. From “When Passionate Advocates Meet Research on Diversity, Does the Honest Broker Stand a Chance?” Alice Eagly (another woman) sums up the reality of “diversity” in the modern corporate climate:

In an ideal world, social science research would provide a strong basis for advocacy and social policy. However, advocates sometimes misunderstand or even ignore scientific research in pursuit of their goals, especially when research pertains to controversial questions of social inequality.

Despite advocates’ insistence that women on boards enhance corporate performance and that diversity of task groups enhances their performance, research findings are mixed, and repeated meta‐analyses have yielded average correlational findings that are null or extremely small.

Rather than ignoring or furthering distortions of scientific knowledge to fit advocacy goals, scientists should serve as honest brokers who communicate consensus scientific findings to advocates and policy makers in an effort to encourage exploration of evidence‐based policy options.

Welp, that’s a bummer. Again, it just goes to show: The mantras repeated in society that cite “consensus” or “studies show” etc. are often not even true. They only exist to placate common concerns and conveniently drive the current social agenda forward. It’s not based in “science,” and it never was. A big-brained neoliberal might insist that diversity must be a positive for firms - because the firms push for diversity themselves. Since firms are “profit-maximizing,” “perfectly rational,” and “perfectly competitive” entities they would never behave in any way that would compromise their future profits. Of course, this is where we all get to point and laugh at the neoliberal - because anyone who has spent more than a few months at a real-life firm knows that modern companies are neither of these things, and the neoliberal is just being silly – his theoretical assumptions are simply just not true in the real world.

SOCIAL CAPITAL

By what mechanisms does “diversity” stunt GDP growth as suggested in these studies? Or why does it result in less productivity, bureaucratic inefficiency, corruption, or other effects? In Robert Putnam’s 2009 work E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-First Century using participant surveys and census data, he finds that “diversity” erodes trust and social capital generally.

In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits. In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down’. Trust (even of one's own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer. In the long run, however, successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross‐cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.

Does Putnam make a verdict that “diversity” is a negative? Of course not - he maintains that we will somehow overcome the negative effects of diversity (but never substantiates how).

These findings aren’t unique to the US either. Laurence and Bently (2015) replicated Putnam’s findings in England and, utilizing data on an 18 year period, found that the more diverse a neighborhood became the less people reported liking their neighborhood and engaging with their neighbors. In Denmark, it was found that people from "diverse" postal codes had less trust in their neighbors. And this was also observed in UK schools

Diverse schools do not make White British students more inclusive in their attitudes on immigrants.

The initial positive link between diversity and inclusiveness represents only a selection effect.

Diverse schools reduce trust in people of one’s own age.

Trust is also not the only measure of social capital. We also have measure of things like “civic participation” and mental health. In a recent study, “Neighbourhood Ethnic Diversity and Mental Health in Australia”, it was found that

” a standard deviation increase in ethnic diversity is associated with a decline of 0.129 standard deviations in mental health.”

Not great evidence for the diversity festishists, unfortunately. But, these and other reasearchers in the field are optimistic. Quoting from Putnam’s abstract:

In the long run immigration and diversity are likely to have important cultural, economic, fiscal, and developmental benefits.

Lol. Thank you for your prediction, Mr. Putnam – but unfortunately, we have no actual reasons to believe such a thing (beyond “food.”)

NOTES ON METHODOLOGY

One thing to understand about these studies’ methodologies is that “diversity” or “fractionalization” indexes can be very misleading. For instance, imagine a country that has five ethnic groups of exactly equal population. Such a country would have a diversity index of 1 - (1 / 5) = 0.8 (using one simplified method), which is fairly diverse. However, it could be that the country is almost perfectly stratified by race, with each being confined to its own region of the country. This would mean the different races hardly ever interact with each other at all – except of course in national politics. Even these could be minimal though – perhaps this country is little more than a loose confederacy of mostly independent nations. If we wanted, we could’ve subdivided this country into the 5 regions and would have found that each one of the regions individually had an index of 1- (1/1) = 0. A near-analog for this in reality is maybe a nation like Switzerland..

Notice also that all of this greatly depends what you consider to be “diverse.” Is Switzerland “diverse” because it has a mix of German, French and Italians in it? Well, in a sense “yes” – but that’zs not usually what people mean when they say “diverse.” Note also that this has important implications if you are tracking “ethnicity”. By this metric, a society that is half French and half German is just as “diverse” as a country that is half Han Chinese and half Bantu. Clearly these are not the same thing, and “diversity” is a matter of degree. Given what we know about race and IQ, a homogeneous nation of Africans will almost certainly do poorer on socioeconomic metrics than a highly fractionalized country full of Europeans and East Asians - and this would be the opposite of what most studies find. And as stated, a national index of diversity might not reflect the lived reality of citizens at say, the neighborhood level.

SEGREGATION

Leftists will often say that while “segregation” as an official policy has been outlawed for decades, segregation in practice is still in effect. Actually, no one really disagrees with this. In fact, some of the most “diverse” cities are also the most segregated. This data came from Brown University, and used methodologies very similar to these aforementioned studies. To quote from the article:

You can have a diverse city, but not diverse neighborhoods. Whereas Chicago’s citywide diversity index is 70 percent, seventh best out of the 100 most populous U.S. cities, its neighborhood diversity index is just 36 percent, which ranks 82nd. New York also has a big gap. Its citywide diversity index is 73 percent, fourth highest in the country, but its neighborhood diversity index is 47 percent, which ranks 49th.

Some of our most “progressive” places are among the most segregated – places like Silicon Vallley for instance.

Absent legal mechanisms (that are now mostly outlawed), the answer to the question of “why are people segregated?” is that people just choose to self-segregate. This has been known for a long time and reflects most people’s lived reality. Even in US suburban communities there are “Chinatowns,” Koreavilles and Little Mumbais where Asians self-segregate from Whites (and even each other) - despite being mostly similar in terms IQ and some other traits. A famous model by created Thomas Schelling in the 1970s) demonstrated that even very slight preferences toward certain groups could easily result in total segregation over time. You can play with this computer simulation of this if you want. What is important about Schelling and others’ work is that it does not matter what the motives of the agents are. Leftists charge that modern segregation is still due “racism,” and this is probably partly true – but even they acknowledge that some of this “racism” is subconscious, thus not intentionally nefarious in nature. The reality is people are probably just genetically predisposed to like people from their group – because they are human beings, and not “rational agents.” There is a ton of evidence for this, just to drop a few:

Three year olds demonstrate in-groups preferences for their own ethnic groups and even babies have a preferences toward their own race 1 2

Even HuffPo has something to offer us here:

"These results suggest that biases in face recognition and perception begin in preverbal infants, well before concepts about race are formed. It is important for us to understand the nature of these biases in order to reduce or eliminate [the biases]," said study researcher Lisa Scott, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in a statement

Absent the fog of social conditioning, none of this is really surprising. Humans obviously evolve like any other animals and would probably have genetically predisposed preferences for their own kind. This is ultimately related to the biological concepts of kin selection and kin recognition - but the genetic and evolutionary mechanisms for this phenomenon are a bit beyond the scope of this post. The fact of the matter is, people do have inherent biases, these are real and they matter – but whether or not these are driven by “racism” is kind of irrelevant. You cannot just ignore real economic effects – or else try and offset them through costly policy (like “diversity” initiatives). An inconsistency of leftists (among many) is that they usually only have a problem when it comes to whites self-selecting. They demand that white spaces be made “diverse” etc. - but clearly is does not make sense to force one group to fight against the grain of human nature and not make the same demand of others, since that group would just end up being taken advantage of over time.

“NO-GO ZONES”

In some places in Europe, sharia law and general ethnoreligious hostility has gotten so bad that police and emergency services are suspended in these areas – because the “diverse” inhabitants attack them. This used to be well-known, but officially denied - however, the progressive Ms. Merkel herself has had to admit that her Arab angels are anything but. These places are now made useless and dangerous to natives. What’s the point of having immigrants in your country “increase GDP” if you cant even visit the places these people will live in anymore? You might as well have diplomatically ceded these areas to whatever country these immigrants came from. In fact, they’d probably do a better job of keeping order in them. But don’t worry Europe – I’m sure things will improve very soon. Just remember to be “tolerant” and “inclusive.”

MOST DIVERSITY FETISHISTS ARE LYING (OR DELUDING THEMSELVES)

Despite pundits claiming to love diversity etc., they apparently do not actually in practice. From The Washington Post in ”Three Quarters of Whites Don’t have any Non-White friends”

If the average white American had 100 friends, 91 would be white, 1 Black, 1 Asian, 1 Latino, and 5 would be "other."

If the average black American has 100 friends, 83 would be black, 8 white, 2 Latino, and 8 others.

Pew Finds something similar in 2013

“Among adults who are white with no other race in their background, fully 81% say that all or most of their close friends are white. Among single-race blacks, 70% say that all or most of their close friends are black. And among single-race Asians, 54% say all or most of their close friends are Asian.”

Especially given what we know about the history of race and racial demographics in the US, these are pretty damning statistics. How much longer do we have to wait for people to stop being so racist? In fact, Science even validates that leftists themselves are subconsciously racist

Most Whites, particularly socio-political liberals, now endorse racial equality. Archival and experimental research reveals a subtle but reliable ironic consequence: White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent. In an initial archival demonstration of the competence downshift, Study 1 examined the content of White Republican and Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign speeches. Although Republican candidates did not significantly shift language based on audience racial composition, Democratic candidates used less competence-related language to minority audiences than to White audiences.

So leftists say they love minorities and diversity – but many come from suburban households in segregated areas, hang around with mostly white friends, and even demonstrate implicit biases in scientific studies. Why should we take these people seriously when they themselves either 1) Don’t have non-white friends or 2) have no exposure to “diversity” or scholarly work on race and race differences? Why should we care what a white person from Vermont has to say about “racism?”

WHITE FLIGHT AND SUBURBIA

The creation of suburbs has been very bad for the environment. I don’t care to substantiate this empirically because I’m tired of writing and everyone knows it to be true anyways. It would obviously be a better use of land to not have suburbia because the space is so poorly utilized. The propagation of this model ruins wild country, lawn fertilizers ruin watersheds, and black rooftops increase local temperatures. There’s also light pollution to consider, the pollution of commuter traffic, etc. There’s plenty of theories out there that suggest the creation of suburbia in the US is a product of 1) The car, and 2) race - specifically whites trying to flee the inner cities, since they can’t legally discriminate in them anymore. The residents of Detroit at the time segregation ended warned that forced desegregation would ruin the city (had a good source for this, now lost). Well, were they right? In this way, multiracialism and the resulting segregation contribute to the destruction of the environment.

SHARED RESOURCES AND COMMON GOODS

Related to the issue of fractionalization is the use of shared resources. Leftists sometimes ask the question “Why can’t the US have welfare/healthcare system be like [insert small, homogenous, European country]??” The answer is multifactored but the main reason should be obvious – it’s because these countries are made up of homogenous European populations, and the US is not. These people can sustain such a system because they are genetically similar, and have high-trust, high-IQ societies.

Diversity makes it much harder to have a government that functions properly. This is intuitive – the more groups you try to fit into a single government, the more exceptions and regulations you need to make to ensure an equal and representative “one size fits all.” Think about how much the issue of race and "civil rights" has distorted our legal system, for instance. In a 1997 paper, Easterly And Levine discuss this in this in economic terms:

..Polarized societies will be both prone to competitive rentseeking by different groups and have difficulty agreeing on public goods like infrastructure, education, and good policies… Ethnic diversity may increase polarization and thereby impede agreement about the provision of public goods and create positive incentives for growth-reducing policies..

This is the lived reality. Look at the state of the US. Congress has not passed a consequential law that wasn’t reactionary finance reform or funding for middle-eastern wars of dubious merit in the last half-century. Not only can congress not anticipate or react to future problems (environment, automation) it cannot even solve problems that have been around for a very long time, like healthcare and student debt. The ACA, touted as some landmark healthcare reform bill, was really just a Medicaid expansion (that was struck down by the SC), a personal mandate, and minor insurance market reform. Passed in a democrat-controlled legislature, Americans then turned around and elected a man with absolutely no political experience who ran on the platform to throw it all away.

In the paper “Group Loyalty and the Taste for Redistribution” Erzo Luttmer talks about this using GSS data and the demographics of US states. Using populations of “blacks” and “non-blacks”, he found was that people generally perceive welfare recipients of their own racial group as more deserving, and were more likely to support welfare policies when their group was perceived to benefit.

These interpersonal preferences are characterized by a negative exposure effect— individuals decrease their support for welfare as the welfare recipiency rate in their community rises—and racial group loyalty—individuals increase their support for welfare spending as the share of local recipients from their own racial group rises. These findings help to explain why levels of welfare benefits are relatively low in racially heterogeneous states.

He goes on:

It seems plausible that the effects of racial, ethnic, or religious group loyalty apply to other redistributive policies and to other countries. This suggests that interpersonal effects can explain why the heterogeneity of the U.S. population compared to western European countries leads to relatively low levels of redistribution in the United States. (Frank Salter also outlines the phenomenon in his theory of "Universal Nationalism," described in his book Genetic Interests: Family, Ethnicity, and Humanity in an Age of Mass Migration.

"More ethnically homogeneous nations are better able to build public goods, are more democratic, less corrupt, have higher productivity and less inequality, are more trusting and care more for the disadvantaged, develop social and economic capital faster, have lower crime rates, are more resistant to external shocks, and are better global citizens, for example by giving more foreign aid. Moreover, they are less prone to civil war, the greatest source of violent death in the twentieth century.”

As European countries are made more “diverse,” their welfare states we can predict will suffer strain from 1) supporting more people who we cannot expect to be net contributors and 2) Falling public support due to a breakdown of social cohesion. If you want a “socialist” (read: “Social Democracy”) country like you find in the (once) homogeneous Nordic states then you almost definitely need ethnic homogeneity to have the high trust necessary to sustain the institutions and prevent waste and corruption.

So at this point you can see that it is mostly acknowledged by economists (and other experts) that diversity is “bad.” In fact, such a platitude was even acknowledged in my class at uni where the aforementioned 1997 study by William Easterly and Ross Levine was referenced. I wonder why the public seems to think “immigration is good for the economy” but don’t know what economists actually have to say about “diversity.” What do you think?

ETHNOCENTRISM: THE ONLY (SERIOUS) LONG RUN STRATEGY

The conflict and dysfunction in the US or even places like South Africa and elsewhere are unsurprising. There is overwhelming evidence that cross-cutting racial preferences in "diverse" societies are associated with less civic participation, more corruption, and lower GDP growth – and historically, ethnic conflict and civil war. Biological determinism for things like IQ means we will always be stratified economically, and consequently we will always have very different ideas of what income redistribution should be. These differences are ultimately not reconcilable because they are rooted in biology. This doesn’t even consider the fact that some groups will be perpetually interested in being “oppressed” and we will have to forever eat up public discourse with endless allegations and investigations into “racism,” and support costly “diversity” initiatives. In the US, our democratic disunity has also allowed corporations and moneyed foreign interests to usurp our government and institutions, and as a consequence, we can no longer legislate real change. All these decades of feel-good platitudes and social conditioning on race have done is keep whites silent on legitimate demographic concerns and kicked the can down the road for actual long-term solutions – and made the prospective adjustments to actual solutions more and more painful. The dominant leftist religion on race is a large part of the reason why the US is now a confused and dysfunctional mess. Europe needs to learn this lesson sooner rather than later – or else officially commit to suicide.

Consider the history of a nation like Ireland. The Irish fought countless battles for literal centuries to be independent of England. 80 years since independence, they now have a gay Indian president and insist they need to be “diverse” by importing African and ME migrants. What were the Irish even fighting for all those years? They would’ve been better off if they were just tolerant of the English and weren’t such biggits in the first place. How could this newfound patheticism be otherwise justified?

A good contrast to ¬¬¬¬Europe is Japan. Japan also has an advanced economy with very low birth rates, but does not import invaders to compensate for this. And there is no sense of crisis there, despite the dire cries of econ nerds that there must be. At the end of the day, no matter what happens in the future, Japan can at least count on the fact that they will still be Japanese. Once you lose your ethnic homogeneity, you cannot get it easily get it back.

I don’t really want to take the time to go into this, but a variety of models have also demonstrated that ethnocentrism is the winning strategy, compared to other societies. Here is one example

Their simulations of more than 20 million virtual “neighborhoods” demonstrate a troubling paradox: that community and diversity may be fundamentally incompatible goals. As the authors explain, integration “provides opportunities for intergroup contact that are necessary to promote respect for diversity, but may prevent the formation of dense interpersonal networks that are necessary to promote sense of community.”

CONCLUSION

We have already mentioned the importance of distinguishing between short and long run effects. Recall also that there are things we can and cannot predict about the future. We KNOW that different human populations are not the same in average intelligence and other traits. We can easily extrapolate this knowledge and anticipate that any multiracial society will experience a multitude of negative effects – and this is especially alarming if a high-IQ population declines, and a low-IQ population increases. It would be one thing if leftists or immigration pundits were ideologically committed but acknowledged things like IQ and were thoughtful about short-run and long-run effects, and then tried to justify our unwitting forfeiture of land, community, and right to self-determination with some kind of “plan” – but this is not even what immigration proponents do. They just spout empty phrases like “nation of immigrants” “good for the economy,” etc. - and as we have demonstrated, such platitudes are meaningless and completely unsubstantiated. Not only are their policies reckless in regards to future effects - they cannot even defend them in the face of the evidence as it exists right now. Of course, when we point out their falsehoods and the obvious fact that their policies will not have the advertised effects, they just call us “racist transxenist misogynophobes” or whatever and attempt to kick us off the internet and out of public discourse. They would then invite hordes of our historical enemies into our countries in droves while insisting natives must not be “racist.” When things then predictably go wrong, they endlessly blame “racism,” “right-wing extremism” and the like on natives and for “failing to integrate” people that hate them into their homelands who wanted to exploit, rape, and murder the natives from the very start.

All appeals to “diversity” or “multiculturalism” are just a sham. Its propaganda that help traitorous elites to get away with pumping western countries full of third-worlders in order to keep wages low and to disrupt our homogeneity and democratic unity so they can maintain control for themselves. What else could be the benefit of low-IQ third world immigration? Even if select immigrants from these populations are high-IQ (and mostly “not”) we still have the phenomenon of regression to the mean for their offspring, who will be significantly less intelligent than their parents.

Religious and ethnic “diversity” has been a catalyst for conflict and war for all of human history. It’s a lesson that can be learned in books, observed in recent conflicts like the Balkans, and even seen right now in areas like the Middle East and Africa. Yet, despite our continued disapproval, the elites push on with it. No matter who we elect, no matter what happens politically, the neoliberal/Zionist world order gets what it wants.

Technology and relative economic stability in Western countries might have allowed, for some, the ability to deny reality and escape most of the consequences of racial and ethnic differences. But, history is not over. Even under the best conditions, human societies still have to contend with many known and unknown future problems – like global warming, automation, artificial intelligence, the space race, nuclear weapons and geopolitics, natural disasters, and economic recessions - just to name a few. We can speculate that any one of these could spur conflict or create drastic reversals or resource shortages that could result in humans reverting to tribalistic societies and tendencies. In the context of just the US, a collapse of the either the government or the economy could easily result in ethnic violence – and the reckless immigration policies of the globalist elites have sown the seeds for this disaster to happen. If the US was homogeneously European, then such atrocities (of this nature) could not occur. In the grand scheme of time, the globalists (and their leftist pawns) are already guilty of an atrocity - due to their short-sighted negligence and zealous denial of reality. Immigration, especially of the nature happening in Europe and the American SW, is a terrible idea that continues no matter who we elect in our supposed “democracies.” In fact, calling it “immigration” at all is disingenuous. The closest analog to what is happening today with “immigration” are mass migrations and invasions that resulted in the collapse of civilizations.

In the absence of modern technology and propaganda, the native populations of Western countries could never be convinced to accept invasions and the demands imposed on them by leftists, invaders, or the globalist elite - or the absurdity of modern narratives and the extent of denialism (e.g., IQ). Leftists endlessly accuse the right of being “racist” or “inciting violence” - yet they themselves live in denial, and are complicit in laying the foundations for ethnic violence despite our continued protests. They will forever refuse to acknowledge their own recklessness, or the reality of the dangerous situation they themselves created. They will never accept any responsibility for what they have done.

So at this point we’ve discussed Immigration and “Diversity,” and showed that the beliefs and platitudes don’t actually play out as pundits claim at all. To the credit of the internet economists though, it is rare that they actually try and defend “diversity” alone in any serious way. One thing that that they do love discussing though is “Free Trade” and Globalism, and this is the subject of the next post.