The Right's Retrograde Quest for a Homogeneous America

Enlisting a Harvard liberal can't whitewash the problems with an anti-diversity agenda.


"Diversity is overrated."

That argument against immigration—once confined to the alt-right gutter—has climbed its way into respectable right-wing circles in the Trump era. The idea


is apparently that people have a natural desire to be around their own, so there is nothing wrong with limiting "mass" immigration, especially from non-European countries that are too dissimilar from America.

And who does the right invoke when making its case? Not the Nazi philosopher Carl Schmitt, who famously argued that maintaining healthy polities requires treating cultural strangers like enemies. No, they are increasingly dusting off the work of liberal Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam, whose research purports to show the pitfalls of diversity.

The trouble is that Putnam oversold his own research—and conservatives are overselling Putnam.

Putnam, whose 1990 landmark Bowling Alone bemoaning the growing atomization of Americans became a household name, published a paper 10 years ago showing that ethnically diverse communities in America suffered a loss of what he called "social capital" or solidarity. He studied 30,000 Americans across 41 communities — ranging from declining inner cities like Detroit, rural areas like South Dakota, and bustling metropolises like San Francisco. He found that regardless of income level or crime rate, the more diverse the community, the less it trusted not just other ethnic groups but also, remarkably, its own. People don't riot in the streets, he found, they vacate them, retreating, turtle like, into their homes to watch TV rather than participate in community activities or neighborhood projects.

To some extent, this makes sense. It is incontrovertible that people are more comfortable with those who share their way of life and cultural outlook. One doesn't have to harbor animus toward other groups to prefer one's own. Yet it becomes harder to cut through the multi-ethnic thicket in super diverse communities and find one's cultural kin, leaving us isolated — unable to reach out to our own and unable to connect with others.

But just because one can find a plausible explanation for the finding doesn't mean it's the whole truth—or even the main truth. It is not easy to reduce complex cultural phenomena to measurable metrics. And even though Putnam's study is among the more thorough of its kind, his way of measuring trust— basically by asking people to rate on a three-point scale whether they would "say that most people can be trusted"—is arguably quite crude. Furthermore, George Mason University's Bryan Caplan notes, Putnam conveniently forgot to highlight that part of his research that showed that many other factors, particularly homeownership, correlate far more strongly with social trust than homogeneity. So why did Putnam bury them and highlight a less important factor instead? Essentially because it's more in line with his thesis in Bowling Alone. It's a classic case of "confirmation bias."

Furthermore, as Putnam forthrightly acknowledges — but his right-wing appropriators ignore—the loss of trust due to increasing diversity is a short-term phenomenon. Over the long run, people reconstitute new identities and bonds based on other shared characteristics. Yesterday's "them" become tomorrow's "us." For example, Putnam notes, in the 1920s, Americans were acutely conscious of divisions among European sub-groups—the Irish, Italians, Germans, Eastern Europeans—and in the 1950s of various Protestant denominations—Methodists, Lutherans, Baptists. None of these distinctions matter anymore.

Right-wing diversity critics argue that race is different. Unlike religion and nationality, it is an immutable fact of life and given the inherently tribal nature of humans, ignoring it to build a racially eclectic society means inviting conflict (which Putnam's study did not find, incidentally). In other words, the defining project of American liberalism to transcend the tribal ties of "blood and soil" through a commitment to a universalistic creed of liberty and equality is a farce in the eyes of these self-styled American patriots.

But a society dedicated to slicing and dicing people to ensure demographic homogeneity will wind up far more fractious. It is actually quite hilarious to witness the bitter disputes among alt-righters about who exactly is genetically pure enough to qualify as a member of their tribe. While in liberal societies big differences become irrelevant over time, in an ethnically homogeneous society small differences inevitably grow to oversized importance. Indeed, hierarchies over minor impurities or cultural differences will become magnified, breeding not harmony but strife. In 17th century Europe, people were almost entirely white. But it wasn't exactly a picture of comity. They simply replaced the internecine warfare among various European tribes in previous centuries with sectarian warfare among Protestants and Catholics. It was liberalism, with its commitment to protecting the freedom of all without regard to caste, class, or ethnic and religious differences, that finally brought a halt to Europe's centuries-long state of constant war.

The pursuit of ethnic and cultural homogeneity won't make America less conflict prone, but it will make it collectively dumber. Putnam's Harvard colleague, anthropologist Joe Henrich, notes that cultural evolution works much like biological evolution. It needs an environment rich in variation and complexity where different cultures can challenge, compete, and combine with each other to generate new ideas while jettisoning old habits and counterproductive traditions. Indeed, small homogeneous societies inhabited by ethnic clones become less dynamic and even regress. America led the world in cutting-edge innovations in the 20th century, especially the IT revolution, precisely because its relatively free immigration and trade policies allowed for a much more rapid and free flow of information among diverse groups.

Ethno-state purists like to point to Japan as an example of a society that has successfully combined a radical program of ethnic homogeneity with modern standards of living. But Japan is paying a heavy price for its cultural purity and restrictive immigration policies. It's in the midst of a demographic collapse as its population rate plummets far below replacement levels. And if social trust and isolation is a problem in large diverse societies, it can be an even bigger problem in small homogeneous ones. Because the Japanese don't have a critical mass of people to find the right mate or friend, they are hunkering down like Putnam's turtles, unable to form strong bonds. Indeed, Japanese people are slightly less trusting than Americans — and a whole lot less so than "high trust" Australia, a poster child for diversity.

To be sure, the American left overplayed its hand by insisting on a forced program of diversity on college campuses and elsewhere. But the right's program of forced homogeneity based on a tendentious reading of social science will be far worse.

This column originally appeared in The Week

NEXT: After Neighbor Gets Deported, Local Police Chief Rethinks Support for Immigration Crackdown

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Strawmen. According to the global Gallup polls, Americans, even Republicans, are more friendly to immigrants and accepting of minorities as neighbors than nearly every other country on Earth, including most of progressive Europe.

    1. Re: colorblind,

      The rhetoric and the fact that Cheeto-man, p...y-grabber extraordinaire, was voted in as president, contradicts your belief.

      1. Trump's election does nothing of the sort.

        1. I'm making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

          This is what I do... http://www.netcash10.com

      2. You mean the same people that elected Obama right? Oh and the Cheeto-man is married to an immigrant btw.

      3. No, you're right. FDR put all those Japanese-Americans in concentration camps, so clearly the USA is intolerant of minor races and nationalities.

        1. Regarding FDR, Progs are known for their rabid intolerance.

        2. While the Japanese were interned in greater numbers, Italians too faced internment and curfews.

          1. Germans too. Main difference was that not all Germans and Italians were removed like all Japanese-Americans in Hawaii and the West Coast.

            1. Yes. And Ukrainians too in Canada.

              1. That's unfortunate. Did they think the Ukrainians had pro-german sympathies or something?

                1. http://bit.ly/2hzkfHS

                  They were part of the Austrian-Hungarian empire in WW1.

        3. Canada placed more foreign nationals in internment camps and included Slavs, which the US didn't, and kept them there longer than the big mean USA. In fact, the big mean USA apologized for it before the sweet innocent all-loving canadians did. Canucks only apologized after we did.

        4. And leave us not forget Woodrow Wilson (who famously played "Birth of A Nation" in the White House) and Margaret Sanger, eugenicist, pro-Klan and Nazi sympathizer, who remains an exalted liberal icon to this day.

          Fact is, it is the liberals who believe unfettered immigration will undermine American society as we know it, which is exactly why they are for it. Conservatives have no problem with immigration so long as it is done in a way that respects our laws.

          I still marvel at the way "Reason" conflates the so-called "alt right" (which to my certain knowledge exists only in Hillary's fervid imagination) and actual conservatism.

      4. Trump's civic nationalism is the only game going in the US for ethnic tolerance

        The Left is all in on the fear, hatred, and resentment of identity politics
        Cuckservatives are white ethnomasochists, the bottom to the Left's top

      5. What a pity that we didn't have a handful of male middle-eastern refugees running for president. I don't speak Arabic or Urdu, but I'm sure they don't ever engage in vulgar locker-room talk. It would no doubt be inspiring to see them and their supporters in a rope line/grope line/rape line full of women voters who aren't dressed according to islamic standards of feminine modesty. It would be interesting to talk politics with such people. What do you mean, women get the vote??!!

    2. There is NO QUESTION North America is SUPERIOR to Europe on this front.

      I'm convinced of this.

      1. Just by chance, I was in a waiting room today and read a Time magazine article (several weeks old) which reported on a survey taken in various countries about whether immigration would help or hurt the nation. As I recall, UK, Australia and the U.S. were all at 35 to 40 percent favorable to immigration helping, while France was at 14% and Hungary at 5%. I'm not sure how the questions were asked because Saudi Arabia came in at 45% favorable on immigration helping the country. They were probably thinking about all those Pakistanis who come in to work at slave wages on construction projects.

  2. Kinda lame half-arguments* and a repost from another source?

    Jesus, it's like Reason exists now to confim that I was right to stop subscribing in the middle of the Gillespie era.

    (* And, Christ, it's not like I even disagree with the broad thesis; I like immigration and real diversity, even if I'm not a Totally Open Borders Is The One True Way type.

    But this is just pathetic, guys.)

    1. Diversity is great as long as you agree with me on everything.

    2. But this is just pathetic, guys.

      Shikha, when the walls fell

    1. SOMEBODY finally got around to watching the second season of Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt.

      1. How was it?

  3. I have no problems with a multi-racial society.

    I'm not in favor of a multi-"cultural" society.

    For example, accepting into the country people who think that cutting the clitoris off a little girl is necessary is not going to add value to this country.

    That is a "culture" that is definitely inferior to ours.

    1. Re: AZ Gunowner,

      For example, accepting into the country people who think that cutting the clitoris off a little girl is necessary is not going to add value to this country.

      What do you mean? Speak for yourself. For thousands of girls, living in a country where choices are more numerous improves their life immensely. Instead, ethno-nationalism as pushed by Trumpistas would condemn thousands of girls and women to servitude and mutilation. Perhaps you weren't paying attention but female circumcision is illegal and very much condemned in the US.

      1. No dumb ass. What concerns them is the people in the countries that do that to them. Trump or the US has nothing to do with it. It is not the US's duty to save the world.

        And we are talking about a common culture with generally accepted norms. That has nothing to do with ethnicity. If you think it does, you need to join the Alt Right. You would likely be right at home talking about how things like respect for rights and the norms of society are a white man thing.

      2. He doesn't actually care about female genital mutilation. If he did he'd be in favor of letting them in to the country where it's highly frowned upon, you'd think.

        1. Sounds pretty islamaphobic of you, Tony. You should get some remedial education.

        2. If he did he'd be in favor of letting them in to the country where it's highly frowned upon, you'd think.

          That does not stop many immigrants from countries like Sudan from sending their daughters back there so they can have it done. Its so common, in fact, that a few years ago, a US pediatrician recommended that doctors here offer a clitoral "needle prick" as an alternative, which is equally hideous in my opinion.

          1. So it's only bad if they come to America first? Are you afraid you're going to start liking the idea, or what?

            1. Only Democrats like torturing black people Tony. Don't you remember all those Democrats who owned slaves, Tony?

              1. I may be stupid, but you're too stupid to talk to me. So stop.

                1. At least you finally admit you're stupid.

                  I sure have gotten you to admit a bunch of things this year, Tony.

        3. When you mix savages with civilization it is civilization that loses.

          But, while FGM "is highly frowned upon here" may be true, it is not stopping the Muslims that are here from doing it.

          And the girls that it is being done to don't have a choice in the matter.

          And I didn't see any national news media coverage of the 2 docs recently charged with doing just that.

      3. Perhaps you weren't paying attention but female circumcision is illegal and very much condemned in the US.

        Yet it gets done here.

        And there is a community that actively supports it.

        Yeah, we need more of THAT, don't we?

        1. It gets done here, and thanks to "sensitivity" toward Islam it is not prosecuted. Shame on us

          1. FGM is an African cultural practice that has been incorporated into Islam by some Muslim groups, just like it has by some Christian groups (yes, there are Christians in Africa that practice FGM). Obviously, the Animists practice it.

            As best I could find, there are two forms of FGM: Sunna, the circumcision of the prepuce, and Pharonic, the removal of some or all the female genitalia. The Prophet Mohammed condoned the first if done with care but did not make it obligatory. Or he did, because in Religion any cultural practice can find justification by careful interpretation.

            I agree with you that no sensitivity should be given to any group that practices the Pharonic FGM. The Sunna is the least of concern. Think of the groups that go bat-shit over male circumcision...

            1. FGM of any matter is done to deny pleasure from sex to women.

              Male circumcision has nothing to do with sex.

              1. The least of the sunna circumcision isn't for that purpose as best I can find. The rest are. It just isn't as simple as 'to deny', or 'it's Muslim' given Christians like the Copts do it as well as Animists.

                While male circumcision is for 'health', but first given as a covenant to God, it has the effect of decreasing the sensitivity of the head and also creates a ring of scar tissue around the penis at the base of the head. It also removes 'the Glide' which further impacts sexual pleasure. Worse, like all operations, it can go sideways. So how isn't it about sex?

                Personally, leave the structures alone. Whether hand-crafted or from evolutionary pressure, they have a purpose.

      4. Yeah?

        Well it is happening now in the US.

        And only because we imported the Muslims who are doing it.

      5. "Instead, ethno-nationalism as pushed by Trumpistas would condemn thousands of girls and women to servitude and mutilation."

        How so, Frito Bandito?

    2. I'm fine with a multi-cultural society as long as every aspect of each culture is openly offered to be shared with every other culture. It is the recent rise in segregation of cultures and the notion that a person can "own" a type of music, hair style, or art style solely on their ancestors that is the problem.

      Multi-cultural societies can work only if there is no cultural segregation, so that the natural cultural appropriation allows the cultures to blend and eventually create a new culture.

      1. Even with "multi-cultures" you still need a common culture for America to work. That common culture is European enlightenment, rule of law, and keeping a Constitutional Democratic Republic alive.

        Who cares what holidays you celebrate, what food you eat, and how you dress as long as you want the USA to remain a free country.

        1. Who cares what holidays you celebrate, what food you eat, and how you dress as long as you want the USA to remain a free country.
          I dunno, but aren't we due for the annual Fox "war on Christmas" report? Seeing as they think that sells advertising slots, I think the answer is "a lot of conservatives"

          1. PC has taken a year off since Trump was elected.

      2. Multi-cultural societies can work only if there is no cultural segregation, so that the natural cultural appropriation allows the cultures to blend and eventually create a new culture.

        ^ This.

        And 25 years ago this was what "multiculturalism" was about, and why "diversity" was touted as a great benefit.

        Now "diversity" has become a sacred term whose justification has long since been lost, such that "diversity = good" + "appropriation = bad" ----> balkanization, rather than "multiculturalism." Which was already a thing, and not a good one.

        1. Diversity is worship word! You will not speak it!

        2. Great summation.

        3. "Multiculturalism" means cultural genocide of Whites

          Where are the calls for open borders and multiculturalism in China? In Niger? In the Cherokee Nation?

      3. I think you confuse multi-culturalism with sharing of superficial cultural characteristics. It's great that we can get ethnic food, but that's not the issue.

        Modern multi-culturalist ideology is about segregating cultures, and it is implacably hostile to any cultural features that have made the West and especially the US the most successful in the history of the world. In other words, it's just another form of leftist hate for all that gave them the economic wealth and society in which they can put forth that nonsense.

      4. One of the silliest things I've come across regarding cultural segregation, often called cultural appropriation, was a rant against a white woman singing the song 'Strange Fruit'. A black woman's song, Billie Holiday, about the lynching of black men, so obviously solely a product of black American culture and how dare she as a white woman appropriate it. Except, it was written by a white Jewish guy, as a poem which became lyrics, because of how profoundly he was affected by the horror of a picture of a lynching. If it was cultural appropriation, then it was done by blacks claiming something that wasn't theirs: the horror a white man saw in lynching. That's the 'Strange Fruit' born of the New Segregation.

    3. Is there any country that's not multi-cultural?

      1. Yes. Lots. Like Japan and South Korea, Finland come to mind.

        1. Well, to start, Okinawans would be surprised to hear that.

            1. As would the Shirime.

          1. Well, to be honest a cultural/ethnic group whose minority "sub-cultures" are a whopping 2.6% of the population, in a nation that is 98.5% made up of said ethnic group is not exactly "multicultural" or "multiracial". It's pretty damn homogeneous.

            1. I like that this thread began with a sharp distinction between race and culture, which is now abandoned.

              Observing my friends growing up, it seemed to me like there is your expected diversity among Japanese prefectures (a particular Okinawan friend being very vocal on this point). Japan's also a funny example given how much the country has absorbed from elsewhere. I haven't been to Japan, or the Koreas, or Finland, and I don't doubt that they're not as extremely diverse as White America's cultures are, but I'm sure there are people in Fukushima who spit on Kyoto's ways.

            2. I actually brought up the two as separate, distinct, but related categories, MJ.

              Japan is racially homogeneous. And it is culturally homogeneous. That doesn't mean that there are absolutely zero differences from one prefecture to another. It means they remain culturally similar to the point that outsiders can't really tell the difference.

              The culture in Brandenburg isn't the exact same as the culture in Bavaria, but they are both German.
              The culture in Helsinki may not be the same as the culture in Lapland, but both are distinctly Finnish.

              Sure, within these nations, they can identify each other as different, and they may even mock customs that vary between them, but none would say they are different cultures in the sense that multiculturalism means.

              1. The culture in Helsinki may not be the same as the culture in Lapland, but both are distinctly Finnish.

                But that's a bit like saying "the culture in Los Angeles may not be the same as the culture on the Navajo Reservation, but they are both distinctly American."

                The dominant culture of Finland is Swedish at its foundation. The Laps are an entirely different race of people who span the northern reaches of Scandinavia generally speaking, and whose culture is related to that of Scandinavians only in tangential ways at best.

                Finland is also heavily culturally impacted by Russia, and Russians are themselves a blend of Swedes who founded trade colonies on the Volga in the ninth century and the Slavic populations that they found there.

                1. Swedes. They sure get around.

                2. I think you're confusing Swede with Nordic. The Finns are Nordic, but they're the outlier. Their language is not related to the other Nordic languages whatsoever. That they were ruled by what was Sweden about 150 years ago doesn't mean that the Finns became cultural Swedes, only that Sweden at that time (which isn't the Sweden of today) affected their culture.

                  Of course Finland would be impacted culturally by the Empire next door, just ask the Canadians. As far as the Russian blend, I think you forgot the impact of the Greeks Cyril and Methodius that still goes on today, including the Russian Orthodox Church, for some trade colonies on the Volga. The Russians aren't a blend of Swedes and Slavs, they just had contact with the Swedes. There are far larger influences.

            3. I'm way late coming back, don't know if you'll see this Square, but as I recall there are less than 10,000 Sami people in all of Finland, and the overwhelming majority of Lapland is Finnish. The language is Finnish. The culture is Finnish. The people are Finnish. With the exception of the very small number of Sami people up there, who you could try to equate the Navajo Reservation loosely.

              I've tried to avoid American analogies, because they really just aren't very good for most parts of the world, and are absolutely atrocious for homogeneous areas. Even trying to say "Well compare Las Angeles to White Appalachia" is a horrible analogy in most cases due to ethnic/racial diversities that just aren't present in say Finland, Japan, South Korea, etc.

        2. South Korea does have a lot of religious diversity.

      2. There was once a time when Somalia used to brag that their lack of ethnic diversity meant that they were immune to the tribalism that caused so much civil war in other parts of Africa.

      3. Is there any country that's not multi-cultural?

        Probably the closest existing examples would be Saudi Arabia and certain islands in the South Pacific.

        But I think strictly speaking, you could point to exactly two "mono-cultural societies" that have existed - Egypt prior to the Hyksos, and Mohenjo-Daro prior to the Aryans.

        Both persisted for about a thousand years in what to modern eyes is a bizarre cultural stasis. The cultural products of the later end of both civilizations are distinctly lackluster and increasingly have the air of copies-of-copies-of-copies.

        But whatcha gonna do when ain't but the one way?

      4. Probably not depending on how narrowly you define 'culture'.

      5. North Korea is the star at being single-culture.

      6. There are 57 countries in Asia and Africa that are not multi-cultural, and proudly so.

  4. Diversity is White suicide. How often to you visit diversity places like Detroit, Garry ............. There is a race problem in our country. There is one race that never has and never will be on the same level as the other races. Don't blame White people because Negros evolved in an environment where planning was not important.

    1. Go back to Stormfront, fuckwit.

      1. He's probably an IndyMedia plant.

    2. Can i blame White people for the fact that you're retarded?

      1. Not if that is, in fact, White Power Dave Chappelle.

        1. His name was Clayton Bigsby you racist piece of garbage.

          1. Stop breath'n all the white man's air.

    3. Negroes have been in this country longer than the English.

      1. Paloma|11.13.17 @ 2:28PM|#
        Negroes have been in this country longer than the English.

        Well, that's not true.

          1. St. Augustine? According to your little wikipedia link, was founded in 1565.

            White people, named vikings, settled North American in the 10th and 11th Centuries.

            Then you had white people, who were led by a Genoese Cristopher Columbus "discover" North America in 1492.

            The you had some more white people, in particular Giovanni da Verrazzano explored the East Coast of North America from Florida to presumably Newfoundland in 1524.

            You people really need to pick up a book.

            1. Paloma|11.13.17 @ 2:28PM|#

              Negroes have been in this country longer than the English.

              loveconstitution1789|11.13.17 @ 3:13PM|#

              Well, that's not true.

              I pointed out that the Spanish were the first to bring slaves here from Africa. Not the English.

              "English" =/= "White People"

              1. Yes. When someone identifies as White Anglo Saxon Protestant, Blacks were definitely here before the Anglo Saxons, and definitely before Protestants.

              2. I knew you would fall for that. white people =/= English.

                The English had settlements in America before slaves were brought to America.
                First English settlement was Roanoke in 1586.

                The first slaves to be imported into Jamestown was not until 1619.

                The first recorded black child to be born was in Spanish Florida in 1606.

                Although there were African slaves in hispanola in the 16th Century, it is not clear if those slaves were taken during trips to Florida.

                Even though the Spanish had slaves in Spain, it does not appear that slaves were taken on the 3 ships that discovered the Caribbean. Quite a few indentured servants were aboard which is probably a better risk than having african slaves onboard when trying to sail where nobody had chartered before.
                Christopher Columbus crew

              3. Slaves in that era were not all, nor even necessarily predominately black. Vikings, for example, took slaves when they conquered in Europe and sent them to the Islamic slave markets to be sold. As a consequence, some of the earliest slaves in this country were Irish.

                1. I remember reading an estimate of the Viking slave trade being around a million to one-and-one-half million, all or nearly all other Europeans, and this when the world population was well below 500 million. It, even correcting for world population, doesn't match the Atlantic slave trade or the Islamic slave trade, but then there were so few Vikings too while doing so much.

          2. The Spanish are white. At least they are these days.

            1. Yeah, and like the Italians and the Portuguese, they weren't 100 years ago.

              The people that push group identity today are just the successors to the people that saw Italians, Spaniards, and Portuguese as non-white. They just have the new false beliefs. However, they are doing social justice so it's all good.

      2. Hahahaha! Hahahaha! Hahahaha! Hahahaha! Hahahaha!

        oh, that's funny. OMG, you should get a stand up act. That was hysterical.

    4. I'll give you a D- for trolling.

    5. That's like a d- troll job. It feels like one of Hillary's campaign staff came into reason and commented, then called CNN.

      1. It feels like one of Hillary's campaign staff came into reason and commented, then called CNN.

        Not enough 'own goal'.

        Needs more 'Podestapassword1234 says:' or 'Would a black person be smart enough to get debate questions up front?'

  5. The idea is apparently that people have a natural desire to be around their own

    Who ever heard of such a stupid thing? People wanting to be with others who share their interests, pssh. *eyeroll*

    1. Next you are going to tell me people tend to distrust and often make war against outsiders. I don't believe it!!

    2. Exactly. Who decides who is "their own"?

      1. I feel like there should have been a little more thought behind this question.

  6. This column originally appeared in The Wee


  7. Dalmia can never articulate why diversity, a concept that only values the color of one's skin, is in fact 'valuable' in the first place.

    Hardly surprising, really.

    1. Because axioms are self-evident, duh ...

      1. Basically. It's question begging at it's finest.

        1. Melanin is what makes you you. Well that and subjective gender identity.

    2. Here you go.
      Best thing ever written on why diversity is great for capitalism.

    3. Because she views skin color prejudice as a virtue?

  8. If the author isn't talking about any of my Republican friends, then who is he talking about? He didn't quote anyone or identify any power broker. I think he is merely pontificating. If this attitude defines anyone, it would be liberal gated communities members that have set curfews on immigrant employees.

    1. The author is a haggish harpy so that's your 1st mistake shitlord. Shikha is the guiding light of the unwashed masses and she will rise up like an ancient many-limbed god/dess/xe and smite all the white males down.

  9. She links to an article about how "racism" has lost all meaning as proof that the "alt-right gutter" is now respectable in the "Trump era". Astonishing lack of self-awareness.

    1. If she is so concerned about the Alt Right being respectable, she should stop slandering respectable positions that advocate for something less than total open borders as alt right. All doing that does is make the alt right seem reasonable by association with reasonable positions. She doesn't care. She just wants to slander her opponents and make dishonest arguments.

      1. Nobody advocates for total open borders John. What have those fat men on the TV done to you?

        You're doing the exact thing you're accusing her of doing.

        1. Nobody advocates for total open borders John.

        2. Oh yeah, they'll go along with some pretend rules, then advocate amnestying anyone who breaks the rules

    1. Fact: "Diversity" is the name of SIV's current favorite love-chicken.

      1. Icky, Elvis, and Diversity are always battling to push each other to the front of the pen when SIV shows up. He mistakes it for enthusiasm.

  10. A Menorah and a Christmas tree CANNOT coexist because using the power of the state the Jews killed Baby Jesus.

      1. Yet he grew up to look like Max von Sydow. Damn, those Swedes do get around.

  11. The Right's Retrograde Quest for a Homogeneous America

    Dalmia takes the LVF add seriously, I guess.

    "Diversity is overrated."

    Depends. We talking superficial skin tone diversity? Intellectual diversity?

    The idea is apparently that people have a natural desire to be around their own

    Humans are tribal.

    so there is nothing wrong with limiting "mass" immigration, especially from non-European countries that are too dissimilar from America.

    Not all cultures are equal. Those that do immigrate should assimilate. It is not in our interest to import people from incompatible cultures and/or those that refuse to assimilate.

    1. It is not in our interest to import people from incompatible cultures and/or those that refuse to assimilate.

      There's that word import again. Why is import so often used in this situation? It's just not accurate.

      1. In part because that's how many who do support increased immigration seem to view it. They are importing a demographic more compatible with their own perceived goals and interests.

  12. So can we keep the Drumpfenc?cken?

  13. "That argument against immigration?once confined to the alt-right gutter?has climbed its way into respectable right-wing circles in the Trump era. The idea apparently..."
    Even Shikha does not care to know why most Americans are against mass immigration but just decides that its some shadowy extremists.

    Shikha, most Americans don't want mass immigration because most immigrants are socialists and vote that way. Plus, American has enough people.

    But hey, keep up the ignorant articles about how evil most Americans are and not only will trump be elected a second term but more and more pro-secure border types will run the government or push their politicians to slow immigration to a trickle.

    1. Plus, American has enough people.
      Someone hasn't looked at the numbers regarding upcoming Baby Boomer retirees, and the economic and labor consequences of that demographic cliff.

      1. Or we are aware, but think that does not mean we should just sacrifice the nation and the ideals our forebears fought for just because tough economic times are ahead.

        More importantly, someone hasn't looked up the percentage of immigrants on welfare. (Hint, it's more than half)

      2. The demographic cliff argument is overblown. We need to adjust (abolish!) our ponzi scheme government retirement/old age programs anyway, and other than that there is ZERO wrong with a population going flat or declining. In some ways it would help, like deflating property values so it's easier for the young to buy real estate when starting out in life. Endless growth is not a bad thing if that's the way things are going on their own, but it isn't required either.

        And yeah, I'd rather be Japan than turning into Brazil... Anyone who thinks traditional American values would survive true mass immigration is a fool. They're already getting killed, largely because of the immigration we have already allowed. If we stepped it up it's guaranteed socialist hell. Like it or not white middle class people are the only group where the majority of them believe in the ideals of America, every other group it is a minority position, sometimes an extreme single digit position even. FACTS: Sometimes they suck and don't fit your preconceived desires.

        1. The problems seems to be more of conflicting ideas of governance where the libertarian "live and let live" mantra falls short.

          If white supremacist or whatever could form their own communities without much antagonizing from the powers that be, I doubt immigration would be as much as a polarizing issue. As it is, there is still debate as to whether the full scope of the Civil Rights Act was a good idea.

          And not just race; I fully want San Francisco to be its own socialist utopia, different from Sugarland.

          The problem is each group is enforcing its ideas of what "America" should be where this is little common ground, and apparently no room for several different ideas to exist.

          1. Very true. The fact is that opinions have diverged in this country over what we want to be. We want to be two different places. This is why I have been advocating California secession to anyone politics comes up with. It's the only way to make both sides happy.

            Immigration being a problem isn't all white supremacists though... It's a lot of people who just want to not rock the boat and potentially fuck things up. They're happy with the status quo. That doesn't make one a white supremacist. But yeah I think if those sorts could have their own country it would make them happy, and perhaps take some wind out of the sails of that general sentiment to a degree.

            Secession is the only answer! I will say it until it happens, or the left becomes sane... Which I ain't holding my breath for!

        2. The Irish really screwed up this country fleeing the Potato Famine and English oppression. So did the Italians fleeing the problems of the first decade of 20th century Italy. And those Poles, other Slavs, Swedes, etc. all really screwed this country. You know, the people that make up the white middle-class today. Hey, they aren't all English and German.

          Really, all you are saying now is what was said in the mid-19th through the early to mid-20th century about the very groups you accept today. Those groups were destroying American culture too according to Americans of the day.

          If you like a population that's either stagnant or declining, especially by aging, and with an insufficient workforce to, well, harvest crops for example, then you like a lower standard of living. And, no, it wouldn't deflate property values so the young could afford housing, in fact it could lead to a scarcity of affordable housing.

          1. You wanna know a funny thing though? Those people were somewhat correct. American culture DID get changed forever by those immigrations. The thing was their cultures were similar enough, and they were ethnically similar enough, to where once things settled down they weren't massive changes. But many of the gripes were true at the time, and carried into today.

            Italians and Irish DID suppress wages by being willing to work for less money. Their religious views DID change society and politics, because the people cared about Catholic/Protestant back then. They also DID increase crime in areas, because they were impoverished upon first immigrating. On and on.

            FDR only got elected because he overwhelmingly won the immigrant vote... So the very president that really kicked off America on the road to big government only won because of immigrants. You're going to tell me that wasn't a big deal? I'd be pissed.

            Did we survive? Yeah. Were there pros? Yeah. But there were also things that could reasonably be considered cons.

            Funny thing. The period of time that many consider our golden age, the 1940s-1960s, for a variety of valid reasons, was also the time we had the lowest immigration. New people had come in, assimilated, gained entry into the middle class and almost the whole country was doing well. Imagine if we didn't import millions of uneducated and impoverished people every decade... We wouldn't have a lot of the poverty problems that fresh immigrants always bring.

          2. That was pretty much what made everything so "peaceful" back then. Everything had settled down and found its stride. We weren't dealing with many new impoverished groups coming in by the millions rocking the boat. Everything was just chill for lack of a better term. And people really friggin' liked that peace and serenity. That is something that's lost with constant upheaval and infighting.

            Another thing is that I don't think the immigrants coming in now are not culturally as compatible as the various Europeans that came in the past. We magnified our differences because they were so small, and people like to have their tribe. But fundamentally the differences between them were almost non existent really. So once you had that half English half Irish kid in a single generation the culture was basically melded. Also, nobody could really visibly tell anyone apart. That kind of stuff matters for assimilation purposes.

            Just look at how blacks have STILL not assimilated into white American culture, largely because they themselves WANT to maintain a separate and distinctive culture from whites. Black kids make fun of other blacks for acting "too white" if they like pay attention in school and shit or don't try to dress like a gangsta. I'd know, I grew up in a minority majority city in Cali. They could have adapted and acted like whites, even when whites excluded them, but they chose not to.

          3. I'm afraid what we're getting now is going to be a dozen different groups that end up like blacks with their own subcultures, and all fighting amongst themselves, and not the clean mixing that Europeans actually had happen. Even some proggy people have written up articles on this subject because they fear it might derail their multicultural utopian dream. Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I think the racial aspect plays into assimilation being a problem. These people show signs of wanting to remain a "them" to our "us" just like blacks.

            The truth is we will likely not have an insufficient work force, because with automation the demand for labor is shrinking, and productivity is rising. And you're wrong about housing. The suburbs of Tokyo are seeing a massive oversupply of housing, and prices are dropping. So you're wrong. The ponzie scheme stuff by governments are about the biggest concern with a flat population, but even with that there are ways to deal with it.

            We should be having more babies as the BEST solution... But if the choice is between a slower growing economy or destroying our entire culture and everything good about this country I will certainly take a slower growing economy.

  14. *Opens bag of Sour Patch Kids*

    This should be fun.

    1. Deport all illegals and slow immigration to a trickle.

      Yup. Fun.

    2. Movie theater candy ranked:

      Milk duds
      Peanut M&M's
      Junior Mints
      Sno Caps
      Sour Patch Kids

      1. I'll eat peanut M and SPKs but the rest can fuck off.

        1. You'd say no to a Junior Mint? That is literally the worst thing about you.

          1. Mint goes with savory food not sweet.

            1. What goes with socialist murder of millions of people?

          2. Wow, I agree with Tony. The rest can, actually, fuck off.

      2. I've never had a Sno Cap, but otherwise you very good taste in candy

        1. I'd have to put dark chocolate raisinets in my top 5

        2. you very good taste in candy

          Literally the most intelligent comment you have ever made. Ever.

          1. and articulate

      3. Sno Caps FTW

  15. When you set up a strawman like "Diversity is Overrated", you should probably dedicate at least some of the article to why diversity is not in fact overrated.

    First she cites a study that says diverse communities were less likely to riot in the streets. When was the last time a white community rioted? Are you trying to say we are less liley to get black riots if we dilute their populations?

    After that we get uncited nonsense and navel gazing.

    1. When was the last time a white community rioted

      Almost every time a sports team wins a championship? I mean, even the Canadians did it.

      1. You wanna see a real Canadian riot? Just arrange it so two Canadians arrive at a revolving door at the same time.

        1. My previous employer was a Canadian company, and the man who hired me is Canadian, and a program he is going to make me implement is Canadian.

          My point: I am consistently cucked by the wretched snowbacks.

          1. Hello.

          2. Hah, snowbacks.

          3. Maplebacks.

      2. Nope.

        That's a multi-cultural riot.

        And it's not a 'community'.

        It's whoever was willing to pay to get into the sports venue.

        These types of riots always get called 'white' riots because they tend to have a racial makeup that mirrors society as a whole--which means that there are going to be more white people.

  16. I for one am outraged at Trump's plan to round up legal immigrants and banish them from the country. Especially since Congress has worked so diligently to make our immigration laws work so seamlessly.

  17. Yup, those single-race dorms and clubs.

    DEFINITELY not evidence that people want to be around people like them. That's just silly talk.

    I've not heard Dalmia speak out against them. Or even racial groups like the Congressinoal Black Caucus et al. Why?

  18. Skin-color diversity is pointless.

    Intellectual diversity is the only diversity that matters.

    1. no no no, see there's only 1 approved viewpoint. If you don't side with me then you are an oppressor and should be marginalized.

    2. Are you referring to diversity of viewpoints, or diversity of IQ? We definitely have the latter covered here.

      1. Viewpoints. Though I've seen people with mind-blowingly high IQ's make some of the most moronic comments and have the most moronic ideas imaginable.

  19. Luv them strawman.

    The "Right" doesn't want an immigrant free-America, but it does want a unifying culture. A melting pot, not a tossed salad like the SJWs.

    I have family friends who came here from Iran 10+ years ago, are Muslim, and are citizens. The dad has completely bought in and loves America (Baseball, BBQ, etc). The son, who's around my age, used to be a socialist, and has done a 180, now completely anti-SJW, pro-Libertarian, in more of the Ben Shapiro variety.

    Contrast that with my SJW / Prog roommate, who is "brown" (his term), etc, and his head explodes when trying to understand. Try using your standard cards on that.

    There are those in America who really do hate it, and they should leave. I'm all for letting people come here is they want to become part of our culture and embrace it, like my Iranian friends have.

    1. What culture are you talking about? You mentioned a sport, a form of food, and then suggested that to be an American you have to have a certain set of political beliefs.

      Does this country even have a culture? I mean beyond that which has been defined by the people living here whose recent or ancient ancestries have extremely divergent cultures.

      1. The culture he refers to is the one that you hate. Even though you live it and in it, you despise it. Just like you do yourself. You hate yourself so much that your one luxury is to get on comment boards just to make someone else hate.
        *hugs Tony*

        1. No I really just hate retarded white supremacists who can't stop stupiding my country into a shithole.

          1. you're a pretty sad and pathetic person, Tony. Your sole purpose in life is to troll a comment board even though you are way out of your league.

            Wouldn't surprise me if you are a closeted white-supremacist. The most racist D-Bags I know are all on the left.

            1. Wouldn't surprise me if you are a closeted white-supremacist

              I think most proggies are. They peddle the soft bigotry of low expectations and generally seem to think that people are limited by the color of their skin.

            2. So are you saying I'm a good troll or a bad troll?

          2. No I really just hate retarded white supremacists

            Who, here, is a white-supremacist?

            1. Anyone I say, bitch.

              1. Tony, remember when Democrats formed the KKK and instituted all those Jim Crowe laws?

                1. Remember when Republicans were the liberals? You don't, unless you're 150 years old.

                  1. Oh, the whole "THEY SWITCHED SIDES!!! FOR REALZ GUYS!!!" fallacy. Can't say I'm shocked.

                    Number of segregationists who left the Dems for the GOP? 3.

                    The rest remained Dems until they left office.

                    1. It's almost as if each of the two Teams is willing to take on whatever floating voter-pool looks like it can be dislodged from the other Team, with the "ideology" to be developed on an as-needed basis in a desperate attempt to hold together a coalition of groups that don't actually have that much in common.

                    2. It mattered less what people called themselves back then. They voted along regional interests more than party line. Now the parties are pretty much fully sorted ideologically. And it's the Republicans who got the white supremacists in their base. Obviously.

                    3. Now the parties are pretty much fully sorted ideologically. And it's the Republicans who got the white supremacists in their base. Obviously.

                      I have to confess that there is a certain tenacity to be admired in your persistent and unrelenting idiocy.

                    4. And it's the Republicans who got the white supremacists in their base. Obviously.

                      One of the party's had one of the most admired members as a former leader of the KKK.

                      One side has a newly-elected governor who, for political reasons, kept the black Lt Gov off of campaign literature.

                      Wonder who it was...

                  2. I'm convinced that if the Republican party embraced abortion rights, the left would find a reason to oppose abortion.

                    1. The reason Republicans are wrong about everything is because they're doing what you're talking about. They don't have policies much beyond "The Left is bad. Democrats are bad. Oppose everything they believe in."

                      Up to and including basic scientific fact.

                      That's not to say they don't have some core beliefs, the federal government forcing women to give birth against their will being up there at the top.

                    2. The reason Republicans are wrong about everything is because they're doing what you're talking about. They don't have policies much beyond "The Left is bad. Democrats are bad. Oppose everything they believe in."

                      Yup. That's just Them. Fucking hate Them. Them is always wrong about everything.

                      Thanks for unwittingly proving my point, like you always do. If not for you, I don't know who I would rely on.

                    3. Are you saying Republicans are a diverse set who believe a whole bunch of conflicting things?

                    4. That's insightful, Tony. You should post that on #resist so the other anti-GMO anti-Vaxxers can agree.

                    5. Up to and including basic scientific fact.

                      ...like one's sex being determined biologically and not by a doctor saying what it is?

                  3. That depends on how you defined "liberal".

                  4. Mao, Stalin and Hitler because right-wing conservatives as soon as the killing started.

                    Oh, you think I jest but this is how progressives are spinning history now.

                    And this is what they're trying with this whole Bullwinkle 'Republicans were liberals' nonsense.

            2. Pat Hines (see below) is a white supremacist.

    2. The son, who's around my age, used to be a socialist, and has done a 180, now completely anti-SJW, pro-Libertarian, in more of the Ben Shapiro variety.

      Contrast that with my SJW / Prog roommate, who is "brown" (his term), etc, and his head explodes when trying to understand. Try using your standard cards on that.

      Here is a clue esteve7. THEY'RE BOTH AMERICANS. They are both products of American culture in different ways.

      One of the things that I loathe the most about the modern right is their attempt to redefine "REAL MURICAN" as right-wing conservative. Umm, no. There is no ideological litmus test in order to be an American in good standing.

      1. Thankfully we have the left protecting all of our individual rights and defining "who we are."

      2. There is plenty of room for diversity of opinion, but YOU ARE DAMN RIGHT that I will say somebody is not a REAL MURICAN if they don't believe in some of the core values. Limited government being the broad umbrella most of them could fall under.

        Many people don't believe in almost any of the most important parts of American ideals. Freedom of speech, 2nd amendment, low taxes (Don't fight it, this really is one of the core beliefs if you look at the founding era), and all of the general freedom to swing your fist type stuff.

        Socialists and people who want to run everything for everybody are NOT real Americans. They really are fucking slavers, and I wish they would either move somewhere else or drop dead. The country would be far better off without them. Unfortunately many were born and brainwashed here by the left, so we can't legally deport them 🙁

        1. Socialists and people who want to run everything for everybody are NOT real Americans. They really are fucking slavers, and I wish they would either move somewhere else or drop dead

          Slavery was a "core American value" for the first seventy or eighty years, so I'm not sure "slavers" is as incompatible with "American" as you want it to be.

          1. Yeah but you're not supposed to try to enslave WHITE PEOPLE like the progressives want to do! That's what makes it wrong and un-American!!! LOL

    3. False choice. Here's a third: America and it's culture is a stew with a common sauce yet still having distinct chunks. You know, as I kid I thought Lawrence Welk was a Swedish immigrant...

      "There are those in America who really do hate it, and they should leave." And I'd agree with you if we could agree on what 'hate it' means, otherwise you just did "Love it or Leave it", a phrase used to mean if you don't agree with me you aren't an American.

      1. I get your point, and there's something to it... But there are lines that cannot be crossed while still claiming you believe in the founding principles of America.

        A Bill Clinton of the 1990s style Democrat (if they still existed!) can definitely claim to be an American. There crazy ANTIFA people running around with communist flags and supporting violent communist overthrow of the country... Not so much. Bernie Sanders is on the edge too, or perhaps a touch over the line.

        It's tough to draw a definitive line in the sand, but there is one somewhere, it's really fuzzy but it's there.

  20. When you have multiple groups sprouting up on college campuses with a "white people are evil" message, you can have all the diversity you want, but it will not be a civil society.

    1. And eventually the people being oppressed, whites, will get sick of it and finally start swinging back... This is essentially what is going on after decades of being hated on. It was an obvious outcome if you think about it, the only question is how hard are white people going to swing back... I believe history shows we're pretty good at swinging fists when we want to...

  21. Who on the right is calling for limiting diversity? I have heard the calls on the left for self segregation and for white people to stop "appropriating cultures" to the point of if your white you can only eat potatoes even though that is also from the Americas

    1. If it's not herring-related, it's not white enough.

  22. There is no real default value to surface diversity. If a group of different people is allowed to mingle, exchange ideas, and explore / tolerate differences, some good might come out of that. What matters is freedom - things like diversity and equality are products of that, they're not endgames in and of themselves.

    When my family came to this country my dad didn't say "Hey, let's move to Minnesota because it's mostly white and could use diversification" I mean..... no one thinks like this. It's human nature to be with your own people. Single cultures allow diversity to matter in the first place. When I listen to J-pop or eat REAL Asian food, I expect to experience things that cannot get from America.

    "Diversity" at policy level is unlibertarian, and Shikha agrees. It involves exclusion for the sake of inclusion. It's one of the reasons why the notion is unpopular among the right. It's the thought that you MUST tolerate other cultures that turns off people. The democrats don't tell my parents "Do something different and go to a Kwanzaa celebration or something". Why should it be different for anyone else.

    1. or like when Obama put Somali refugies in Idaho he didn't do it for the benefit of the Somalies he did it to diversify the white conservative voting block this helps neither group and only creates angst between them.

      1. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/

  23. E Pluribus Unum. Out of many one. The process of homogenizing our diversity, choosing the best parts from each culture, and making a single unified society it what the US should be striving for. Striving for diversity causes strife and hatred. As we learn from immigrants they need to learn from us. As we are more and they are less in numbers they need to change more than we. We should strive not for sameness, but for unity. We should be US citizens, not TexMex, Hispanic, Asian, or Eastern European. If we are not citizens we should be US immigrants, striving to be part of the country.

    1. We are what we are.

      And we are currently becoming a browner country than we used to be. I don't see how you have any right to tell anyone how to live their life when you'd absolutely not tolerate the reverse.

      1. "We are what we are.

        And we are currently becoming a browner country than we used to be. I don't see how you have any right to tell anyone how to live their life when you'd absolutely not tolerate the reverse."

        The thing is Tony, it's our fucking country. That means our rules. I'm not going to have some asshole come into my country and tell me I need to learn his language. My great grandpa moved here from Germany and learned English... He didn't demand everybody learn German to suit him. That's as it should be. I would never be such a prick as to move to someone else's country permanently and expect them to accommodate ME and MY language. That's just a dick move.

    2. Your post is egalitarian nonsense. The current sad state of affairs in the US show, unequivocally, that whites must be in charge.

      And that non-whites are a huge problem.

      1. Maybe someday, if we all work really, really hard to overcome prejudice and bigotry, we may have a white president.

      2. Non whites are a problem for who, exactly?

        1. Well, other non whites mostly. Blacks murder each other at rates higher than some wars! Same with Hispanics. But whites and Asians do have to shoulder the bill for all of the welfare that others collect in far higher percentages... So there's all that. I could go on...

  24. We do need to restore the 90% white population level that existed in the US almost until the 1965 immigration law began to water that down.

    The US was created by and for white, Christians. It's impossible for this country to function as is today. Almost all of the issues in the US are due to the reduction of whites from 90% to the current 63%.

    1. White people made an insane, senile orange clown president. If anything, maybe we should take a break for a while.

      1. Ignore all the non-white people who openly supported Trump and later voted for him.

        1. Omarosa is not a coalition.

      2. And the alternative was an insane, unhealthy, war mongering, crooked, inept, deceitful, disingenuous buffoon who thought it was her turn.

        1. And yet, here she was, a white Protestant.

          1. Exactly. Lets take break for a while.

      3. We also made an inept black President who couldn't make a correct decision on anything if his life depended on it President.

    2. The US was created by and for white, Christians.

      Constitution 101, bitches.

    3. How can you possibly be serious? Or THAT stupid? We really do need a lot fewer people like Pat Hines.

    4. America hasnt been 90% white since 1690.


      1. And read it again, it was damn near 90% non Hispanic white during the first half of the 20th century. All those European immigrants pushed the percentage UP for a long time.

    5. Ever think in one of your lucid moments that in 1789 when the country was 99.99 % white Christian (my apologies to black slaves and Native American Indians in those United States) that they wrote that part of the 1st Amendment because White Christians as you mean it today meant nothing then? Those White Christians saw any sect but theirs as either heretical or just so wrong that laws needed to be made to stop the spread of those beliefs. The FFs wrote an Amendment that was so expansive that it forbid the Federal Government from taking sides with a particular Christian sect, but also over any religion. I'm amazed by the ahistorical nature of your comment.

      "Almost all of the issues in the US are due to the reduction of whites from 90% to the current 63%." Well, the 2010 census put 'white' at 72%, but 63% certainly helps you. I'm not even sure what you mean by white given my grandfather and my mother could have qualified for NA if only they had did the right things...Oh, wait, do you mean those that embrace the American version of European culture?, or do you mean racial purity?

      The funny thing is that you speak a language that has never cared where it's words come from, but only how those words make it a more expansive, more encompassing, more expressive language to describe the world. It has a vocabulary that puts to shame all other languages. Yet you want only a 'white culture' when the very language you speak puts the lie to it.

      1. Let me put it to you this way. Whites planned and directed the entire construction of this nation, including its core principals. We also did 90% of the labor, since that was the approx. percentage of the population. We innovated and surpassed the entire world in basically all areas. The only others that could even come close to competing were other Europeans. The Japanese, then the Koreans, and now the Chinese are coming into their own... Every one of these nations was racially homogenous to a very large degree.

        My point is that diversity is completely unnecessary to having a successful nation. We don't need to cut off all ties with the rest of the world, and we don't need to start being dicks to anyone either... But there is no historical sign that actually having a bunch of ethnicities/religions mixed in a single nation state has any positive effect... Indeed, there is a TON of evidence that it has a lot of negative effects.

        The fact that we'll pilfer a word here or there, or learn things from other people is irrelevant. There's nothing wrong with that. The question is is it a good idea to create a society that has no culture/ethnicity that is calling the shots, but a bunch of groups jockeying for power? I think history shows this to be a BAD idea. We seem to be relearning this lesson as I type this in the west. Utopians always think nice sounding fluffy ideas that have always failed should be tried again because this time it will work... But I don't buy it anymore.

  25. Her analysis of Japan's ethnonationalism is retarded even by Shikha's usual standard of idiocy

    " Because the Japanese don't have a critical mass of people to find the right mate or friend"

    Apparently, Math Class is Tough!

    Fewer Japanese means they need fewer mates. Duh
    Population density is 10 times the US

    Now that Shikha admits that the Japanese are ethnonationalists, why isn't she shrieking that they are Evil Evil Evil Racists Racists Racists?

    Is ethnonationalism only a moral evil when Whitey does it?

    Don't say she's reticent to shriek "Racist!" at people

    She shrieks "Racist!" at people who want border controls *regardless* of race, yet not a peep of *moral* condemnation for open, unapologetic Japanese ethnonationalism.

    Shikha on
    Japanese Ethnonationalism: You poor people are being hurt by your immigration policies - it makes you so lonely!
    White Ethnonationalism: Evil Racist Racist Nazi scum!
    American Civic Nationalism: Evil Racist Racist Nazi scum!

    It's all rather odd, since as far Ethnonationalistic Evil goes, Imperial Japan was at least as savage as Nazi Germany

    1. Yes, it is only racist when it is white people who want to preserve their culture. See, it's enriching when white nations have their cultures diluted/replaced, but it's GOOD for other people to maintain their superior non-white cultures. It's all very simple to understand if you're woke enough.

      But in all seriousness, I am 100% convinced that 95% of this immigration stuff is intentionally being done specifically to destroy western civilization. The power mongers simply can't stand for Europe and the Anglo sphere existing as peaceful and prosperous societies any longer. Our ideals of individual liberty, and our immense wealth and success are simply TOO GOOD. So they want to fuck us up with uneducated immigrants, people that will never assimilate, and to cause internal strife. The thing that really pisses me off is that it's mostly self hating Europeans doing this all...

  26. Multiracial is good, multi-cultural sucks ass. A lot of cultures just suck and are directly responsible for the conditions causing people to flee their regions. Yet if they bring the same culture that caused the problems, they will ruin other people's societies..

    See basically everywhere Islam goes.

    1. This is kind of my opinion still, but I think it undersells human nature. People that can't "pass" will always see themselves as an other, and stick to their own kind. This creates parallel cultures, a-la black Americans.

      I think the only reason all the Europeans integrated is because literally one mixing between 2 Europeans from wherever produces kids that could be from wherever. You might be able to pick out a Swede from an Italian, but you'd be hard pressed to nail down their kids. From the kids on everybody was just a generic American, albeit in the above case one that would probably like meatballs a lot!

      This doesn't happen with a Somalian or whatever, they'll just mix into the native black subculture. Whereas Hispanics, Arabs, etc are now forming their own ethnic cliques which will probably never dissolve and assimilate in fully. The old "if you can pass" rule seems to really hold true for assimilating in in my experience.

  27. What a load of crap article. I'm no GOP person, but the mainstream GOP voter isn't white centric or anything like it.

    Reason is typically sensible in the stories that is pushes but this open borders worship is idiotic.

    Most of the legitimate opposition to mass immigration is the impact it has on the poor rural and inner-city Americans. That's right if you are a citizen of the US, I care about your welfare first before I care that someone immigrates to take a job. I don't care what skin color or ethnic background the citizen; they are American.

    Immigration should be tightly restricted like it is on other countries and opened up only as workers are needed. We will never get control of the rising cost of the welfare state when hoards are crossing the boarder.

  28. I did not read past the first sentence. "Diversity is overrated"

    Yes it is overrated.

    There is no virtue in diversity per se. Tolerance is a good thing. Tolerance leads to diversity most of the time. But trying to force diversity (whether by affirmative action or "diversity lottery") is very non-egalitarian. And if people want to self-sort based on whatever criterion they like , they should be allowed to. Just keep the govt out of it.

  29. "The pursuit of ethnic and cultural homogeneity won't make America less conflict prone, but it will make it collectively dumber. Putnam's Harvard colleague, anthropologist Joe Henrich, notes that cultural evolution works much like biological evolution. It needs an environment rich in variation and complexity where different cultures can challenge, compete, and combine with each other to generate new ideas while jettisoning old habits and counterproductive traditions."

    Agreed! In fact, let's be proactive and exclude though with obviously counterproductive traditions from getting into the environment in the first place.

    Next question - you there, eating the paste!

  30. I'm very pleased with myself that I am now familiar with the Liberatarati enough to know which atrophied brain manufactured this nonsense with only knowing the article tagline.

    Someone must dig the shit she writes because they keep letting her publish this manure here. Is she fucking the EiC?

    She makes ENB sounds like Victor Davis Hanson

  31. If we destroy the US economy and make this into a worse third-world shithole than the people are coming from, that would solve everything.

    1. If by 'we' you mean illiterate progressives, then yeah.

    2. We tried that for the last eight years.

      1. The Bush economic calamity did indeed result in a net halt to immigration, and Obama deported people at record paces.

        But none of that matters to anti-immigrant crusaders. No circumstantial reality gets in the way of the necessity to always deport more brown people always. Almost as if economic concerns are not their actual priority.

        1. Obama deported people at record paces.

          By counting "turning away at the border" as "deporting" for the first time in history, mind you

  32. The firs truly idiotic article in Reason, did you guys lift it from NYT?

  33. Import the 3rd, become the 3rd world.

  34. No question that lack of cultural diversity makes people dumber. Just look at all the homogenous states the minority president won and whose voters still support him.

    1. We got a live one over here!

  35. The article is shallow and uses a strawman.

    It might apply to a few fringe characters on the right, but the headline applies it to all. That is weak.

    Furthermore, the author conflates race based objections to unfettered immigration with culture based concerns. The latter are real and significant. Why should we import large numbers of people from failed cultures, in a way where they do not assimilate, and expect good to come of it?

    I understand that libertarians generally are for free and open borders, which is pretty foolish. But this article is useless.

  36. So just out of curiosity, for those who favor more restrictions on immigration, who decides which people from various races/ideologies/cultures get to immigrate to the US? How do you do so in a way that respects individuality?

    1. Well, there would be as many answers to that as there are people. I for one DO believe there is strength in having a majority ethno-cultural group in charge of a country. I think the fractures in America today prove my point, along with the entire rest of human history. Being tolerant of minority populations is a very good thing, but having a nation with no group at the helm seems to cause trouble.

      As far as for me personally, I'm okay with letting people in from anywhere, provided they're not sick, criminals, obvious trouble makers (think known religious extremists from certain cultures that have an affinity for blowing themselves up or political activists who espouse communist rhetoric or whatever), and have some sort of useful job skills. We don't need more bus boys or lawn guys in the USA. Doctors and engineers welcome!

      But that's all just me. I suspect many people would be perfectly happy with some basic criteria like that though.

      1. I get that you as an individual have your opinions, but what group of people/entity/institution enforces those, and how do you ensure that your preferences are the ones that are enforced in the first place?

        1. Uhhh, well in theory we already have very watered down versions of much of the above, except out system is far less weighted towards "job skills" than almost any other country on earth. This crap gets legislated by the morons in congress. They'll do a piss poor job, but honestly I'd rather exclude people that are on the edge of acceptability rather than err on the side of letting blow it cases in. They would likely use objective criteria like degrees attained, jobs held, etc.

    2. Like this--

      Do you value the ideals and concepts that make up the idea of America and it's goals?

      Are you willing to uphold and work towards the furtherance of those ideals and concepts ?

      Are you a criminal?

      Do you have a useful skill?(see 'List of Useful Skills')

      Do you have a way to support yourself and your family until you can start generating income from this useful skill?

      Simple, really. Focus on what we need--non-criminal people who can work at non-subsistence jobs who understand the basis of what we're trying to do with this USA thing.

      Everything else is ephemera.

      1. Do you value the ideals and concepts that make up the idea of America and it's goals?

        Who's idea of America? The slightly-over-50% of the 60% that voted in the last election, who themselves don't even have one, singular idea of America? Some politicians' ideas of America? A bureaucrat in DHS?

        Do you have a useful skill?(see 'List of Useful Skills')

        Same as above. Who determines what is useful and needed?

        Simple, really.

        Said every 5-year planning committee.

        Keep in mind the lesson that many of us are hoping progressives are learning right now - there is no guarantee that the people that you *want* to have control over such things actually will have that power 4 or 8 or 20 years down the road.

        1. This is the entire problem with America today. We USED to have probably 90% agreement on core American ideals. Now it's down to about a 50/50 or 60/40 split on a lot of important aspects. The funny thing is white Americans mostly DO still believe in the old school idea of America, it is a small minority of whites and the vast majority of non whites who have disdain for the stereotypical old school American ideals. This is largely why racial tensions have flared. Whites want to keep old school America, and minorities and bleeding heart whites want to usher in socialism. Since it divided along racial lines this has created racial resentment. It's too bad minorities buy into the victim mentality, things would be a lot better for everybody if they didn't.

  37. This column originally appeared in The Wee

    Surely it deserved better placement than that!

    1. It should have been in the number 2 position.

  38. OK, I'm sure you can find people like Spencer who want no immigration at all, but which mainstream right-wing figures are calling for this?

  39. I live in Japan and always enjoy people who clearly have never been here citing statistics about the horrors of life in Japan. Are there downsides and is their population decreasing? Undoubtedly. But it is their country, their society, and their choice. If their voters choose to accept the possible economic problems from a shrinking population and do not feel obliged to supplement them with poor Muslims from Indonesia or hordes of Filipinos or whoever the people may be, why does the rest of the "progressive" world feel like they need to guilt them into accepting hordes of immigrants? It's dumb.

    And let's talk about trust in Japan. I can trust my bike to not get jacked if I leave in unlocked anywhere. I can trust that no trash will be on the ground. I can trust that no graffiti will be on the buildings. I can trust any random kid going to school on the train with everyone else will not get kidnaped or assaulted by some crazy pervert. I can trust that the vending machines everywhere will not be broken into by meth heads needing to score. I can trust that no disgusting hobos will be sprawled on the train all day and making half he car a no-go zone. I can trust Japans crime rate will remain astonishingly low. I can trust their unemployment rate to stay at about 3%.

    You want to sell me on multiculturalism you best find a better example of the horrors of a uniculture than Japan because this country is pretty fantastic.

    1. And that's the rub, Europe and America were largely like this. America less so than Europe because we started our racial problems by importing slaves. Within countries in Europe though (not between different countries!), everything was pretty chill since the end of the Catholic/Protestant mess.

      In America we have more or less doomed ourselves to the strife that has come along with 100% of multi racial/multi cultural societies throughout history. This is essentially all that the alt right guys are pointing out. Then they're saying "We'd prefer that option, because we don't really see an advantage to creating all these obvious racial problems since there doesn't seem to be a quantifiable benefit." Then a lot of them are told they're literally Hitler for pointing out the obvious, and having a preference for a stable and harmonious society versus one in constant tumult.

      1. What if the problem is not racial diversity but people who are butthurt about racial diversity?

        Deport whitey!

        1. But you're wrong. Whites are the least racist of any group in America today. The FBI hate crime statistics that just came out show whites are almost 1/3 under represented based on their percentage of the population, whereas blacks are there at almost DOUBLE their percentage of the population. All the minorities are the ones stirring the pot and starting shit.

          Any which way Tony, when you get mugged by a black guy who insults you for being white while doing it... You can come back and tell me how it's all white people that are racists, and 0% of the problem is the racialist views that minorities espouse at 1000x the vigor of white people.

          I've come to accept that they're just being tribal, which comes naturally to us all. Whites have beat the tribalism out of ourselves to a degree, but I feel it's going to come back now that we're being openly attacked on so many sides specifically for our race.

  40. Immigration is about diversity!!! Literally, the central thesis of the article. And ya got it WRONG. Wow! UnReason.

  41. Are we still pretending that the "left" is for diversity?

  42. Blargh. Shikha, did you even read the Jared Taylor article you linked to? I never had, but did just now, and if you did... How did it not make a lot of sense to you? How do you not see his point? I started reading some alt right stuff awhile back to see what all the fuss was about, and if one turns off knee jerk PCness they have a hell of a lot of science, logic, and human nature behind their arguments. Most of them aren't even supremacists, they just recognize mixed cultures tend to have problems homogenous ones don't... And they prefer the peace of homogenous societies. It's not necessarily a bad conclusion to come to given human history either. You avoid a LOT of problems with an ethno state, ya know like Japan.

    I used to buy into multiculturalism/multiracialism. I really did. But I no longer do. I think that it is just like communism in that it ignores innate human behavior, then plans around humans not acting like they obviously will, then not understanding how it's failing.

    People DO prefer to be around others like them. Go watch any friend group in action and they'll usually be mostly the same ethnically, with perhaps a token Asian friend etc. Look at neighborhoods. The entire reason that countries exist is this very behavior! It's not that most people are overtly racist, or won't be friends with someone of another race, most surely will... It's just that it's more comfortable to be around others similar to you for some undefinable reason, hence that's what most do.

    1. I don't even want to post another long rant, but I really feel that multiculturalism is going to end up in the ash bin of history as another failed utopian idea. If things don't sort themselves through secession or otherwise (I wouldn't be surprised if there is a largely race based war in the USA) we're going to be doomed to eternal infighting, which is entirely possible. Many empires survived for centuries and simply endured the civil wars and internal strife caused by racial/religious differences, so we may well survive as a nation state... That doesn't mean it was the smart way to do it though.

      I am 100% positive the USA would have been far better off if we'd never imported slaves, which have been nothing but a huge fucking problem the entire time, not to mention it's morally repugnant. We basically got Jazz, Blues, some funny comedians, and trillions in welfare costs and hundreds of thousands of extra murders/burglaries/assaults out of having blacks in America. Oh, and they hate us for making them the most well off Africans on earth too. What a deal!

      We also never should have allowed large scale immigration from non similar societies. We would have been far better off without the troubles caused. It's not that there were zero benefits, but the costs seem to outweigh the benefits. Europe didn't have minorities and they did fine, and we didn't have minorities in real numbers before the 60s (other than blacks), and we did GREAT.

    2. Whites built this country, period. It's simply a matter of facts. The last few decades non white immigrants have done some good stuff, but we would have done just fine without them, and not had all this infighting and social strife. This is the point that alt right people are making. We don't NEED people from other cultures to do fine, and we would definitely avoid lots of problems by not having them here in numbers large enough to be voting blocks. That's all that most of them advocate.

      I don't believe a society needs to be 100% pure or any such nonsense, but I do believe all societies need to have a strong majority ethno-religious group in charge. If you have 80-90% of the population, and the rest is just small blocks of 1-5%, then you avoid all the obvious infighting our society, and most other multicultural empires have had throughout history.

      What about all those benefits of diversity we lose out on??? Like what? Name one for me. There aren't any other than ethnic food. Small numbers of exceptional people from other countries are fine, and I would be highly in favor of, but you don't gain shit from having teeming masses of random foreigners in your society, other than the group fighting dynamics that one generally wants to avoid.

      1. Whites built this country, period? No help whatsoever from other races?

        1. Conceptually?



          1. Ah, the business school model of getting credit. No one doing the actual physical labor gets any, only the managerial class.

        2. Yes, what are you a moron? Oh wait, you're Tony, so yeah.

          Well, we created the moral and legal basis for the country entirely on our own. That's for sure, no black dudes signed the Declaration!

          Whites were 80 something to 90% of the population of the US from it's founding until the 1965 immigration act set off the change in demographics we see now. So yeah we built it. They did ~90% of the physical labor, and 100% of the planning and directing of everything. I think that qualifies as saying it was built by whites. You could say blacks contributed that other 10% or so though in all fairness, and a fraction of a percent for the Chinese who helped build the western railroads. Other than that it was all whites.

          So don't be stupid.

          If you completely designed, laid out, and physically constructed 90% of your own house... But hired and oversaw contractors to do 10% of the work, would it not be reasonable to say you built your own house? I think it would be perfectly reasonable. So fuck off.

    3. I didn't like coming to this conclusion recently, but I think it's what facts and logic say is correct.

      Any of you out there that actually care about knowledge and accurately assessing the world I would suggest you try watching some YouTube videos by some of the alt right people, reading articles etc. Jared Taylor is one of the more intellectual ones. There are plenty of idiot fascist types in there too, but a lot of them are actually just intellectually honest about that fact that wildly disparate groups seem to mix like oil and water in the real world.

      This is all without even getting into the matter of race and IQ, and other biological traits which have been scientifically shown pretty consistently to be real things. That's a whole different can of worms right there, but also interesting if one wants to know the truth. If you're SERIOUS about "fighting" these people too, you should be honest enough to actually understand their positions and their reasoning as well. So man up and go read their stuff, but don't be surprised if some of it seems pretty reasonable and intelligent after you get the facts. I wouldn't call myself alt right by any stretch, but they have some valid points on some subjects.

  43. What about the Left's push for "black-only" student groups and even dorms? The anti-white narrative of the Left is pushing for separate but equal policies. Soon black student groups will be demanding black only water fountains and restrooms and insist they should have their own special seats on buses. As they say, the more things change the more they stay the same.

  44. Race doesn't matter, but culture surely does. One can look to Germany and see problems with admitting a very large number of immigrants with mainly incompatible culture.

    If the immigrants are willing, and a small enough number the immigrants can assimilate over time. But this doesn't work with continued large amounts of immigration. Time and willingness to assimilate matter.

  45. So wanting to keep Western culture and civilization intact is "racist" and "anti diversity"? The same culture and civilization that helped birth libertarianism in existence? "Reason" is becoming ridiculous with all the cultural Marxist garbage this publication is trotting out.

    1. You missed the irony in your last sentence. Marxism is a product of Western Civilization out of Germany. Marxists wanting to throw out Western Civilization create an oxymoron.

      1. Well, it's not like different parts of a culture can't hate itself! And in all fairness for any actual Nazis out there, let us all remember that Marx was a Jew and not a true German or true westerner by their standards!

        Not a big fan of Marx, but I like many other German Jews, so I'm voting to keep them myself! LOL

        1. Well, its not like different parts of a culture can't see what's wrong with the general culture. Would seeing it be hate or just a realization of what is wrong with the general culture?

          Frankly, that America embraced Jim Crow in and out of the South, and that any Americans considered MLK a Communist agitator, is good reason for some to hate America. A further frankly, like the Japanese, too many Americans try to sanitize the history of these United States. They are just as bad as those Marxists that want Western Civilization gone. Neither can face anything except their feelings...and their feelings are what is reality with any evidence to the contrary just fake news (I so love this current administration for it's lack of historicity but it's embrace of ego, it's so leftist and rightist at the very same time).

          1. Yes, sometimes subsets of the culture spot flaws. Libertarians are pretty good at that! We did indeed do many horrible things in America, but IMO nothing nearly as bad as the communists of the 20th century. It's a misconception that we actually slaughtered lots of Indians... They mostly died of disease, and we strolled in and took their land after fighting with them and killing relatively small numbers. Not that that makes it right, but we weren't killing 60 million people per regime like the communists!

            Slavery, also crappy... But Europeans also were the ones who literally fought international wars to stamp out slavery worldwide. Africa and the middle east wanted to keep it long after it was abolished in any European controlled territories. Arabs and Africans would probably still have slaves if the British hadn't forced them to stop it!

            So we're shitty, but no more shitty than anybody else, and in fact far less shitty than lots of people. So I'm not going to apologize for this shit. We've played that game long enough, and I'm over it.

            1. It's not flaws, it's wholesale abdication of what we claim as ideals for our nation.

              Why did you go to slavery other than as an excuse for Jim Crow? We fought a war, a horrible war, to stop secession but not to end slavery. The Union did not say "We are fighting these Rebels to end Slavery" but instead to fight secession. Had the South not tried secession, then slavery in these United States would have continued well after 1865 because the USA was not trying to end slavery at the moment but contain it, look at the history of the 1850s. What we did do after Reconstruction is condone and embrace American Apartheid. That is the stain on our nation, one we share with South Africa.

              When you use slavery, yes you can claim we are no more shitty than the Greeks, the Romans, the Native Americans, the Muslims, the Vikings, all those that made slaves. When you finally face that we created Apartheid first and practiced it longer, then your argument about slavery and we aren't any more shitty just fades into ahistorical ignorance.

            2. Just to help you with your history, the Arab states had lawful slavery into the mid-20th century. States created by the British. Further, the Brits were just one colonial power in Africa, there was the Germans, the Italians, the Dutch, the Belgians, and the French.

              "So we're shitty, but no more shitty than anybody else". See, if you define it as slavery (why does everyone forget the Russian serfs?) then you win, but if you include American Apartheid you lose. So let's just keep it to slavery so we can declare 'shitty' on everyone else too. Let's ignore American history from the end of Reconstruction in 1877 until 1965 and further cuz 'slavery'.

              Yes, the American public education system is a failure.

              1. Happened to refresh this page and see this long after the fact...

                Your idea that we invented segregation is every bit as ridiculous and incorrect as that we invented slavery. Almost every society that ever existed that had multiple large ethnic groups in fact absolutely had laws that treated different groups differently. Jews were limited in Christian kingdoms, Jews/Christians/Others were limited in Muslim kingdoms. The Chinese treated different ethnic groups as inferior to Han Chinese. On and on and on. This was generally racially, religiously, or culturally based.

                So again you're completely wrong. Once again we're no worse than anybody else. The truth is that what we should have done was shipped all the slaves back to Africa so we were fucking done with the problem. Then nobody would be whining about Jim Crow! Many empires have expelled unwanted ethnic groups, and when they didn't they usually treated them as 2nd class citizens.

                So anyway, try again, because we're not worse... We just kicked more peoples asses than anybody else ever did, if you want to call that our great crime.

        2. I let this go, but then I came back.

          Oh, yes, let's give any worth to the Nazis belief that a Jew cannot be a true German (the Nazis cared nothing about being a 'true westerner', where the fuck did you draw that phrase? Neo-nazis?), then let's look at what the Nazis had to do to define Juden. They quickly realized that if they were to wipe out ever drop of Jewish blood they had to kill a lot of Germans in Germany and all those other German lands. Damn Jews, they were in Europe too long (I have a German Jew great-grandmother and an NA great-grandmother, I just can't be a true westerner can I?). What you gave to the Nazis is that blood is culture.

          Again, who the hell would give any worth to their standards? They made science racial. Special Relativity was Jewish science, not German Aryan science. I pity Planck who watched this unfold and knew he could do nothing.

          1. Well, in fact the Nazis DID hold up Western Culture as an ideal. You do know that they call themselves the Third Reich (empire) right? The first was Rome, the second The Holy Roman Empire, and they were number 3. So DERP, wrong again.

            They thought there were various levels of how awesome the different sub sets of Europeans were, but they believed that Europeans were all better than anybody else. Basically followed by the "good" Asians like the Japanese, and so on. It was a heirarchy that didn't entirely make sense, but it wasn't ONLY Germans are the best and everyone else is inferior.

            As far as things go you did see I was joking with that line right? I don't have a problem with Jews. ALSO the Nazis weren't even against people that were part Jew, they had laws about how Jewish was okay. You incidentally would have been fine in Nazi Germany as you're not Jewish enough to matter even to the Nazis!

          2. To your end point there, blood is not culture 100%. But it is a factor. Consider this: When a black American talks about the Vikings, he doesn't ever say "We" or "My people" or "My ancestors" whereas white Americans do... Even ones that probably aren't very Scandinavian or Germanic. I say "We" because I am mostly German and Scandinavian, plus Native and Mexican in smaller amounts.

            That is a disconnect. That is a fracture in our culture, something that the black guy will NEVER identify with. In other words he will never be able to identify with white Americans on a shit ton of issues, ever. Likewise a black guy doesn't say "We went to Africa and imported slaves," the We being Americans, even though he is an American. He wouldn't say that even if he were 3/4 white and 1/4 black!

            People who pretend that national identity and cultural issues can be 100% decoupled from race are lying to themselves. They don't correlate 100% either, but it is split. Race has always mattered, and always will. People divide themselves along racial/cultural lines automatically, it is innate behavior. It can't be stopped.

          3. As such I now believe it's a bad idea to not have a dominant ethno/religious group in a country. Doesn't have to be "pure" and perfect, but maybe an 80-90% majority group.

            History shows multi ethnic nations fracture, have civil wars, endless infighting, etc... They're never stable for long. How is that desirable?

            I have no ill will towards any other group, but many of them clearly have ill will towards white people nowadays. They won't ever stop with their hatred, so the best way to have it not be a problem is to not live with too many people that are inclined to hate you! Makes obvious sense when you think about it.

            I don't have a problem with either Mormons or Satanists... To each his own I say. But would it make sense for those two types of people to be roommates in the same house? Obviously not. But as next door neighbors even the tensions will be far lower, hence a better situation for both. They can probably be civil while grabbing mail or mowing the lawn, but in the same house it would be an endless battle royale. So it's better to not live together. That's kind of the best analogy I think I've come up with.

  46. Conservatives do not want an ethno-state, they want an American state. As Andrew Wilkow of SiriusXM Patriot radio has said, he doesn't care what color the people are, as long as they're American. The flood of immigration has not ceased in many years, and integration has been poor; people are coming faster than they can be turned into Americans, and culture and linguistic enclaves are multiplying. Integration will happen in time, but immigration must be slowed down to give it time. We're not obliged to take in everyone who comes knocking, no matter how hard their case is. We have a right and an interest in knowing that they are good people who will struggle to fit in with existing Americans, and not to noisily impose their own values and culture on the rest of us. Immigration should benefit America; bringing in losers and potential criminals and terrorists is not a benefit.

    1. I made a comment to this earlier but it was moderated out of existence. I'll try to not offend the moderators.

      1) The flood of immigration is in your imagination. Immigration has been pretty flat for decades as a percentage of population. The greatest periods of immigration were before you were born.

      2) All immigrants take generations to become "Americans" as you may define it. Me, the very act of seeking naturalization is becoming American, but nativists, you know, those people whose immigrant forebears were real Americans as well their first-born into America, can only see foreigners.

      3) If you want cultural and linguistic enclaves, look to the last part of the 19th century and well into 20th century. There is no flood, but there is continuing xenophobia.

      Frankly, I'm tired of the same old shit being repeated decade after decade. The flood of Irish and Italians destroyed America, just ask the Americans of the time.

  47. ""Diversity is overrated."

    That argument against immigration?once confined to the alt-right gutter?has climbed its way into respectable right-wing circles in the Trump era. The idea MultiCultiHolidayRICHARD B. LEVINE/Newscomis apparently that people have a natural desire to be around their own, so there is nothing wrong with limiting "mass" immigration, especially from non-European countries that are too dissimilar from America." That argument isn't against immigration per se but against an ill-defined concept of diversity where skin-color, that quintessential concept of identity of the entire American political spectrum from alt-right to alt-left, is the measure of diversity. One can argue that both intellectual diversity and ethnic diversity bring new ideas to our nation, but no one but a racist can argue that skin-color does or doesn't because only racists argue about skin-color. Yet so many do thinking they aren't racist.

    "against immigration" is a weasel phrase to hide the word "illegal". Yes, Americans have been against immigrants but as a post hoc response to change. They haven't been against immigration laws and our immigration laws left Eurocentric about 50 years ago. So long as you have to frame it as "against immigration" so long will you be part of the impediment to resolving it. Fuck guy/gal, you can't use the term "illegal" when it's the big modifier. Okay, he who defines the terms wins the argument...

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.