Diversity destroys social cohesion in the West

Post Reply New Topic

This statement is obviously false, as even a cursory review of history reveals.

As it's so clearly a lie, one wonders why it would be raised as the foundation of an argument? My guess is that it makes racism seem less unethical to those who want to practice it. "It may be a nasty thing that I want to do, but it's for a greater good."

In any case, let's be clear that this statement is both so vague as to be almost meaningless and (to the extent that meaning can be assigned to it) false.

It was vague and imprecise I agree, but not obviously untrue. Can you think of an example, comparable to what's happening in the West today, that ended in peace, harmony and a multicultural love-in with no blood shed where all parties live together on the same land without defined borders? Note examples that end in 1) Apartheid style segregation and oppression or 2) Destruction of one culture or the other through assimilation don't count. There may even be one or two, but that doesn't mean you can ignore the trend.

BTW, Pew Research recently polled the US public on the issue of racial and ethnic diversity:



Source: http://www.people-press.org/2016/03/31/ ... al-issues/

Looks like Mikah/Black Pigeon Speaks can't even rely on the support from more than 17 percent of Trump voters...

Last edited by GGPViper on 08 May 2016, 11:15 am, edited 1 time in total.

There will always be an 'us' versus 'them' mentality. It's why we get news and care about europeans over here in canada and the US but not about all the s**t that happens in Cambodia, for instance. It's natural. But just because it's natural doesn't mean that we mandatorily must go down that road over and over. People are more complex and smarter than that and can be taught. You know, learning, that thing that separates us from the other animals?

If you wanted to stop immigration though, I'm pretty sure that in like, all wealthy countries, the population would be in decline and cause all sorts of other economic and social problems.

I'm surprised it was even 17% given the question included the word "race". A word and topic we've all been trained to respond to in a very particular way. I'd be interested in complementary surveys that talk about mass immigration, border controls, or Muslims and see if that gets a different response.

Eventually, some of the movements of peoples which seems disruptive now, will have the payoff that it will make certain types of tribal conflicts much less likely. In time, everyone could share the same basic ancestral history.

More empty word play.

"that ended in peace, harmony and a multicultural love-in with no blood shed where all parties live together on the same land without defined borders"

There are no "endings" in history with score keepers assessing peace, harmony or degree of multicultral love-in, so I'll take that a fatuous hyperbole.

If you look at the Roman empire, China or Ancient Egypt, you will find examples of cultures sustaining centuries or millennia of a cohesive national idea while maintaining diverse populations. In the weasel words of your setup, you can always claim those are examples of assimilation, despite the evidence of ongoing regional and subgroup culture within each of those huge, long-lived states.

You can also arbitrarily assign "endings" to the perpetually evolving situations in each of these great civilizations and then claim what you want about them or say they don't fit your parameters, but they do clearly represent diverse regional, ethnic and "racial" groups living together without constant conflict for vast stretches of history.

Re the thread title – yes, diversity does destroy social cohesion. But even that’s not the real issue. Diversity in the West just means getting rid of whites. That is the real issue – or should be if you are white and half-awake.

You saying it’s ‘values’ that matter is nothing more than your opinion. Values are as difficult to define and as subject to change as culture is.



If the people of America were honestly asked back in 1965 whether or not they would agree with government policies that would lead to minority status for whites within a few decades, the majority would have disagreed, and you know it.

But the government/establishment went ahead anyway, and then set about manufacturing consent with a barrage of propaganda. It’s far easier to convince people that ‘diversity’ is good once you have already imposed it on them and convinced them it is irreversible – and after all the opinions of the masses mostly reflect what the elites want them to believe rather than the other way around. Add to that the fact that many of the people answering polls in 2016 would be relatively recent immigrants anyway, and the idea we’re supposed to care about that sh***y Pew Research poll you posted is pathetic.



We’ve been conditioned to respond in a certain way to the word ‘race’ because the people doing the conditioning know that race is the issue.

@Skysaw: I take it then that you are opposed to racial diversity, that you belive that there is a plot to do away with white people, that the "people of America ... back in 1965" that you refer to were white, that you believe diversity should be reversed, and that you believe that scientifically conducted polls are worthless.

Am I right so far?

@Adamantium You're the one who said I was "obviously wrong" . You mention Rome and China, and yes I suppose there is a measure of peace and harmony after the invaders violently impose their will and culture upon you.

The only kind of diversity that makes sense is cultural diversity. From a genetic p.o.v. there is less than 1/10 of 1 percent genetic difference between any two human beings currently alive. Humans are much less genetically diverse than any of the other primate species. This is probably because when the supervolcano Mt. Toba blew 75,000 years ago it nearly rendered the human species extinct. Experts on the matter figure there were fewer than 5000 human breeding pairs left after that eruption. This means all seven billion of us humans are descended from 10,000 or fewer human ancestors.

To a lesser extent modern society and culture in itself is a (much weaker) example of diversity and multi-culturalism increasing and society remaining sustainable.

Let us not worry about much of the stuff that happens in Africa as a lot of it isn't ethnically or religiously motived but simply an example of chaotic destruction.

Otherwise, aside from Muslims/Afghanistan/middle-east situation which is heavily motived by religion and such, many societies in the world in places such as most of Europe, North America, much of South America, and some of Oceania
have an existing 'peace and harmony' in the loose and broad definition of the word.

That is however after assimilation. But with fights for the rights of different cultures to thrive in a society, e.g. the Civil Rights Movement fighting for racial equality and expression in the United States, along with Australian Aboriginals fighting for their land and cultural heritage back; this is an example of multi-culturalism beginning in a society after the conquerers burned it to the ground and thus being rebuilt.

So for what, since 1900 this process has been happening and today, since, let's say 1970, we have something of multi-culturalism and wider tolerance for more groups of people in society and diversity than, say, 1900-1950?

So...It's been about 50 years now...let's see how long we'll last until Western societal collapse.

I can understand why some might see an impeding doomsday and social collapse; I especially observe it a lot among right-winged Americans.

But how can one believe multi-culturalism will cause 'societal collapse' if there isn't a built-up society containing multi-culturalism in the first place, if you understand what I'm trying to say?

I don't see the chronological process as: Conquerers conquer -> Multi-culturalism fights assimilation and wants to be a part of society -> Causes societal collapse, but more so:

Conquerers conquer -> Multi-culturalism fights assimilation, rises and joins society/culture -> Multi-culturalism is maintained in said society for an indefinite amount of time -> societal collapse.

"Diversity in the West just means getting rid of whites. That is the real issue – or should be if you are white and half-awake."

Having fewer whites is only a problem for whites if they then get treated as badly as other skin tones were treated. It is a total and complete non-issue if newer generations are f*****g smart enough and don't judge based on things like skin tone, religion, clothing choice, etc.

In the computer industry, groups argue that letting mega-corporations bring in Indian "cheap labor" immigrants is destructive to America. They say it destroys the middle class.

The new one, the TPP (Trans-Pacific-Partnership) supposedly lets employers bring in an unlimited number of foreign workers.

So, in this respect, immigrants cause "social cohesion" problems.

Economics is a whoooole kettle of fish.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... essed.html

Trevor Phillips has had one of the most interesting turnarounds on multiculturalism in the last decade.

Rome may not yet be in flames, but I think I can smell smouldering whilst we hum to the music of liberal self-delusion.