It’s parroted over and over in our media, in our schools, and by our politicians; diversity is not only a strength, but a cultural phenomenon worthy of the sincerest of praise. When diversity comes to mind to the average Westerner, he may picture men and women from all over the world coming together in mutual market interests, sharing their culture with those around them in harmonious living, and through this experience of diverse unification, we gain greater wisdom and greater knowledge.
However, is this truly an accurate depiction of what transpires on the sociological level? Yes, of course, the “rational” egalitarian may expect a few snags in a newly “diverse” society, such as those which irrationally react to the change of their culture; clinging to a whole series of nasty little “isms” to preserve something without irrational justification. Bigots, racists, and many other sorts of modern heretics clinging to a past in which mere simple and honest critical reasoning would dismiss from the individual devoid of fear; to the enlightened mind open to change.
Unfortunately for the “enlightened,” philosophy can only take us so far away from who and what we are – a diverse species with diverse needs. These needs are not raised merely from conditioned and meritless sociocultural nothings, but of our ancestral bloodlines. For example, it is of no mere coincidence that Whites tend to favor culture which is sociologically individualistic, as there are genetic variants associated with individualism which are much more common in White populations than non-White populations (1). It can be argued that perhaps this is the outcome of a shift in survival tactics during the Ice Age, as large collective methods of survival would have been far less effective. Whatever it may be, however, the genetic variants are a reality with far reaching sociological consequences. This desire for a more individualistic lifestyle goes hand-in-hand with our misguided philosophical propositions of a united diversity. Unfortunately for Whites, the desire for a non-uniformed way of living is not a result of enlightenment, but a general result of being a misguided White.
Regardless, White or not, diversity on a collective level has been shown to be detrimental to social cohesion. One example of where this is best shown is in a sociological study conducted by Professor Putnam, a political scientist. On a quest to prove diversity has more pros than cons, Putnam analyzed more than 40 regions in the United States, comparing racially diverse regions with racially segregated regions, and the social capital of these different regions. He controlled for poverty, crime, age, and other variables which may conflict with the outcome. Rather than the results he expected to find, he found that diverse regions were far less trusting of one another. Furthermore, these residents were far less likely to sociologically contribute to their community. They voted less, donated less to charity, were less likely to be involved in local projects, and they were overall much less happy when compared to their segregated counter-parts (2).
These results are not unique to Putnam’s study. Similar results have been replicated over and over, from England (3) to the Netherlands (4), we witness the same lack of social cohesion. Furthermore, in the United States, a meta-analysis of 90 previous papers confirms this social degradation is most common in regions which are most racially diverse, rather than merely ethnically or religiously diverse, and studies conducted which fail to replicate Putnam’s findings are less than 25% (5).
We can see this decline in happiness observed over time, not simply within a vacuum. Take the USA, a nation with an abundance in wealth and high survival rates. We can see as the White population begins to decline, due to the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965 forced upon its citizens, so does its happiness and social capital, and popular explanations for this decrease in social capital, economic or otherwise, fall short when put to the test (6). In fact, the United States has only increased in GDP and PPP over time as the happiness of the nation falls over time. On top of this, older individuals are typically happier than younger individuals born into more racially diverse societies, which is to be expected by this analysis (12). These same trends can be witnessed in other Western nations facing White displacement and racial diversity, such as in Britain (13). Ultimately, there are no compelling studies which suggest racial diversity provides any form of strength to a society; only a deflation of social capital.
One may perhaps point to studies which suggest there is a benefit to racial diversity in work environments as a compelling case for sociological diversity (6). What is usually not understood about these studies is that individuals in these diverse groups were better at coming up with solutions to hypothetical problems in which they were less likely to trust each other, and therefore, largely unaffected by imitation and conformity. Racially homogenous groups were far more likely to place trust one another, where the distrusting diverse groups were less likely to distinguish between wrong and accurate answers to their problems. This may perhaps be beneficial within a workplace vacuum (and then only to employers), but extremely detrimental to society at large.
The “rational” egalitarian may object to this data as a mere irrational human reaction to change in environment; one that must be combat through societal “discussions” of tolerance and diversity. This is a very selfish and irrational objection; that we must subjugate and condition society at large, against their natural desires, to fit our sociological whims. Furthermore, I would point out that yes, while we are often familiar with data which suggests we are more likely to enjoy the company of those more physically similar to us on a phenotypical level (7), it is shockingly true on a genotypical level as well.
The fact of the matter is, friends and spouses of individuals tend to be far more genetically similar to an individual than his outside peers. One may point out that this is to be expected, as individuals regionally develop most friendships, and members of one race tend to be more genetically similar than two members of outside races (8). However, the genotypical relations are shockingly specific. The more heritable a trait is, the more similar friends and spouses tend to be in it (9). De facto, as expected similarity in highly heritable traits is a better predictor of marital success than less heritable traits (10). Because of this, we may conclude that our fondness for our kin is more than mere irrational clings to familiarity; it is our evolutionary inclination.
The racial segregation witnessed in our neighborhoods, schools, and churches is not the result of an underlying hatred of others, but of the natural fondness, trust, and understanding we experience when interacting with our own race. Racially ideological or not, individuals tend to befriend those of the same race, and the closest friends of any individual are, much more often than not, members of the same race. This is true regardless of racial minority or majority status (11). I do not believe this is due to mere racial tension, but mostly due to natural sociological interactions.
It seems that, empirically, a case for racial diversity cannot be made. Rather, it must be argued ethically as a moral good regardless of the end result. This being the case, it would need to be a devastatingly convincing ethical proposition, as promoting something which ultimately destroys happiness and social cohesion is undesirable on all accounts. The ethical good must outweigh the functionality, trust, and peace of a homogenous society. We have yet to hear such an argument.
For some committed advocates of diversity, these objections and answers do not suffice. For the devoted egalitarian, these biological inclinations are a force to surmount. It is here we begin to see the absurdity of these egalitarians; they combat nature tooth and nail as she made us to force her into their ideological frame. This is not a fight that can be won. This is a perpetual struggle with no end in sight forced upon our populace by psychotic sociological utopians. The ignorant civilian must be made aware he is a subject forced into a sociological worldview which is ultimately against his best interests.
Imposing diversity upon a population is demonstrably a net negative. De facto, maintaining racial homogeneity is in the best interests of all of Western civilization. This is not an “evil,” as so many young men and women have been conditioned to believe by sociological utopians. This is not only good, but sane; just as refusing to swallow poison is not only a “good” decision, but an obvious act of sanity. As sane members of our nation, we have a responsibility to our nation and society. Therefore, we have an interest in maintaining the well-being of our kin; not only physically, but psychologically. The anti-nationalist has no love for his nation, only a fervorous commitment to ideological universality in the name of his conditioned philosophical interests and political aims. The rejection of globalism is an act of rationality. Fighting nationhood is an act of violence against prosperity and happiness itself. Those pushing a globalist philosophy are not seeking the best interests of society, but of themselves.
Reject the anti-homeland conditioning of egalitarian sweet nothings. Embrace your kin, for they have already embraced you, whether they know it or not. A high trust society of high social capital is already in place. It must be defended against arrogant philosophers seeking to morph and alienate society to fit their global egalitarian ethical foundations. Defend your kin from politicians seeking to usurp your nation in the name of ethical dopamine highs. Defend your kin from international “compromises” seeking to undermine your race, identity, and culture. You already have something beautiful to cherish and maintain. Do not toss it to the dogs.