Diversity Is Fatal

Robert Putnam is descendant of Massachusetts Pilgrim folk and is also both a convert to Judaism and Ruling Class stool sniffer.  He has one of the most "powerful" names in American Social Science but it will always be his lot to go down in history as the one who proved once and for all, and for all time, that diversity not only is not a strength, it's a mortal threat.  He's tried to hem and haw his way out of this conclusion but in the end there is only so much shit you can smell. 

In his famous experiment he set out to study diversity but not with disinterest.  No, he set out to prove one of the linchpins of the emerging multicultural and multiracalist world view of the time.  Of course a social scientist is not supposed to set out to prove anything; but of course socials scientists are scientist in name only, what they really are is political shills for the liberal order.

They are designed to provide the so called intellectual firepower to justify white genocide, to give it the thin veneer of academic plausibility.

But a funny thing happened on his way to the bright rainbow future.  As the world now well knows he came in for a shock, one of the rudest awakenings known to the world of the social disciplines. Not only did he not prove that diversity was a strength, he didn't even come close, did not come within a country mile of it.  Rather much to his eternal chagrin he discovered that diversity is the worst thing that can befall a people.

That is if that people wants to be strong. 

Which is not always altogether clear.

He defined social strength as social trust and social cohesion.   And he found that social strength has a perfectly inverse relationship to diversity.  The more you have of one the less you have of the other, the more the one goes up the more the other goes down, like a seesaw on an ineradicable axle.  

It is a mathematical certainty. 

It goes without saying that this was bad ideological news, the worst that could be imagined.   Bad ideological news for them that is.

The truth always is.

And it's why they keep like maniacs to the mantra that "diversity is a strength."    If something were true they wouldn't need to insist on it so much, they would not have to protest like mad men.  But this central slogan of the rainbow society is like a fetish or a talisman  they think they can have people accept by dint of unremitting repetition.

But a lie repeated does not a truth make.

Of course in their hearts every White person worth his salt knows that diversity is a bad thing, they don't need proof of it, and they don't need some Jew convert social scientist to canvas thousands of people for it to dawn on them.  They know it because since they were little they instinctively gravitated towards what is theirs, what is their own, and what is closest.  And as one grows older this instinct is confirmed, the more you see and are aware of other races the more you want to be with your own.  The notion that diversity could be a good thing seems somewhere between preposterous and a sick joke.  

What Putnam showed was that when diversity proliferates people tend to "hunker down."  That is they don't feel free and easy about going outside, they feel afraid to do it.   You never know what you might find out there, or who may find you.  So lock the doors and close the blinds, put that TV dinner in, and watch some television.  That will keep your mind off the Road Warrior terrain and urban hellscapes outside your apartment. 

At least for a little while. 

The more diverse society gets the more the bonds of community are broken, the more the social fabric is frayed, the more alienation there is.  People become fearful of one another because they don't recognize in the the other someone like themselves.  These others seem to have strange customs, or bizarre ones, they act differently, and they often will speak an indecipherable language.  

This bodes ill for social trust.   

Social survival is much more of a concern. 

And even worse from the perspective of the champions of diversity is that not only does one separate oneself from the other races but also from members of ones own race.  

That is the hunkering down is well nigh universal.  Margaret Thatcher said "there is no such thing as society" but she was a libertarian mercenary.   Of course there is such a thing as society, and such a thing as community, and such a thing as in groups, but only in homogenous nations.  There is truly no society in diverse ones.  It is all just atomized individuals, no social trust, no social cohesion, it is a dog eat dog world of the war of all against all. 

Putnam defined social cohesion the way conservatives do with their Burkean little platoons: voting, joining the PTA, borrowing a cup of sugar, checking on the old lady down the street to see if she's ok, participating in a neighborhood watch, coaching little league, coaching soccer, nodding to the person walking by you.

And bowling.

Yes, bowling.

In fact when Putnam finally did get around to taking his work to a popular audience he wrote the most famous book of social science since Habits of the Heart:  Bowling Alone.

Presumably he chose Bowling because bowling is a purely social sport.  It's not really even a sport, it's like glorified darts, and the whole purpose of bowling is to fraternize with your social group.  The image of a man bowling alone is a sad one.  After all if you're bowling alone who will there be to hold your beer when you launch in to what the negroes that are moving into the neighborhood have been up to. 

But of course from the interviews and canvassing until the big book came out was a less than glorious time for Robert Putnam.  At first he gave out his results in dribs and drabs but buried the lede: that diversity is not a strength.  At length he came clean (or somewhat clean) on the main thing but only because there was no way to get around something so glaring.   

This was not the news and fanfare he had wanted to bring down from the mountain top. 

Later when a cohort of racists and White Nationalists gave Putnam's work prominence of place he rued that they had "seized on" his work and misinterpreted it.   You see the true meaning of his research was that diversity was hard, that the downsides he listed were like growing pains, but that once the hard work of diversity was over, it would all be upside.

He of course has absolutely no evidence for this, rather he was engaging in an article of faith and unsupported assertions.

We are twenty years on from his famous book and those upsides have yet to rear their ugly heads.  And the costs are getting more steep by the day.   

Just take a look at the Road Warrior terrain to know it's true.

If his point is that in a long enough time frame all of us are dead then, well, really, it's no comfort and beside the point.  

And with diversity the time frame won't be that long for all the bills to come due. 

Because diversity is not only not a strength.

It's fatal and that's been proven for all time. 


The Chinese call Western woke liberals "baizuos."  The Chinese words that make up this epithet could roughly literally be translated as White Mother Whore.

For the baizuo is exclusively White by definition.   These are foul offscourings of our race, those who have gone to the other side out of so-called morality and real ignorance, and have chosen to live their life on their knees. 

Roughly speaking a baizuo can be defined this way: 

"Baizuos are mostly characterized by their heavy use of political correctness and double standards to covertly advance their own material or emotional interests at the expense of others, while claiming otherwise from a self-assumed superior moral position. "

Of course in their own minds the baizuos are "free spirits" but what they really are is social conformists. 

In addition to representing the soft underbelly of the White race baizuos form a crucial component in the enterprise of diversity: the White Defector.   It is they you see at your local high priced coffee shop, they are the ones with purple, green, or orange hair, they are likely to have prominent tattoos, bones through their noses, and they sport the inevitable sullen look in their eyes.   In addition to seeing that they have surrendered totally to the contemporary mindset, you see they are the oddest of things: a person who hates his own race.  No other race than White people harbors within itself such traitors.  No Asian hates the Asians, no blacks hate the blacks--of that you can be sure.  But over the past half century the White race has had nested within its confines a huge and growing cohort of its own who are explicitly dedicated to the destruction of their own people.

These are the baizuos.

They are white defectors, in that they have gone over to the other side, over to the dark side. 

A baizuo can also of course not have purple hair but be educated and well off.  A baizuo can be a professor or suburban mother deeply committed to anti-racism.   A baizuo can run a corporation committed the helping the underserved.  

What all baizuos have in common is that they are traitors.  They are the weak links without whom no Jew could function in his role as subverter, and no black could run amok in our cities without facing the most extreme of penalties.  

Baizuos are the ones who open the door to diversity.

And as such they are fatal. 


To hear the ruling class tell it they had no idea of the magnitude of the changes that would be wrought by the 1965 Immigration Act--they were surprised as anybody.  At the time the law was passed it was said that it would not upset the ethnic balance of America and it was said that it was not a revolutionary bill.  Which means in practice it was a revolutionary bill and it did upset the racial mix of this country beyond all recognition. 

And then to hear the ruling class tell it they were mystified that such massive immigration at unremitting and break neck speed would result in such colossal demographic transformation.  So it was in the 1990s that this new nation had to come up with a new ideology suited to this new situation.  This was the world of hate crime legislation to protect the minorities who were proliferating, an expansion of affirmative action to include the new arrivals, political correctness, and multiculturalism.  Thus all of these things were viewed as necessary but ex post facto and ad hoc responses to the new and unprecedented and certainly unsought for fact of diversity. 

They say they didn't intend to bring it about but they were forced to deal with it.

Don't you believe it.   Diversity was the goal from the beginning.

Ever since the first man lied and said that there is only one race, the human race diversity had been the goal.  Ever since Coca-Cola taught the world to sing in perfect harmony diversity has been the goal.  And very literally ever since the Supreme Court justified affirmative action not on the grounds of giving individual members of minority groups a leg up but on the "fact" that society had a compelling interest in diversity--since then diversity has been to the goal.

Diversity is the goal not because it is a strength--no, far from it.  Diversity is the goal for precisely the opposite reason, because it is fatal.  When you want to take down a strong society you have to have help on the inside in the form of defectors.   Then you flood it with groups from the outside to swamp and overwhelm it.  And then under the banner of diversity you get the minorities to band together, so what you unleash is not really the war of all against all--no, far from it.  It's the war of all the rest against Whites, and in the end it will be fatal. 

It's now been proven once and for all, and for all time. 


Popular posts from this blog

The Good Jew

Repelling The Invaders