Diversity Is Fatal
by Douglas Mercer
ROBERT PUTNAM IS A descendant of Massachusetts Pilgrim folk — and is also both a convert to Judaism and a ruling class stink-sniffer. He has one of the most “powerful” names in American social science, but it will always be his lot to go down in history as the one who proved once and for all, and for all time, that diversity not only is not a strength, it’s a mortal threat. He’s tried to hem and haw his way out of this conclusion, but in the end there is only so much stink you can sniff.
In his famous experiment he set out to study “diversity” — but not with disinterest. No, he set out to prove one of the linchpins of the emerging multicultural and multiracalist world view of the time. Of course, a scientist is not supposed to set out to prove anything; but of course social scientists are scientists in name only; what they really are is political shills for the liberal order.
Their function is to provide the so-called intellectual firepower to justify White genocide, to give it a thin veneer of academic respectability.
But a funny thing happened to Putnam on his way to the bright rainbow future. As the world now well knows he came in for a shock, one of the rudest awakenings known to the world of the social disciplines. Not only did he not prove that diversity was a strength, he didn’t even come close, did not come within a country mile of it. Rather, much to his eternal chagrin, he discovered that diversity is the worst thing that can befall a people.
That is, if that people wants to be strong.
Which is not always altogether clear.
He defined social strength as social trust and social cohesion. And he found that social strength has a perfectly inverse relationship to diversity. The more you have of one, the less you have of the other; the more the one goes up the more the other goes down, like a seesaw on an ineradicable axle.
It is a mathematical certainty.
It goes without saying that this was bad ideological news, the worst that could be imagined. Bad ideological news for them, that is. (You know who “they” are.)
The truth always is.
And it’s why they keep like maniacs to the mantra that “diversity is our greatest strength.” If something were true they wouldn’t need to insist on it so much. But this central slogan of the “rainbow” society is like a fetish or a talisman they think they can force people to accept by dint of unremitting repetition.
But a lie repeated does not a truth make.
In his heart, every White person worth his salt knows that diversity is a bad thing. We don’t need proof of it, and we don’t need some Jew convert-social scientist to canvas thousands of people for it to dawn on us. White folks know it because since they were little they instinctively gravitated towards what is theirs, what is their own, and what is closest. And as one grows older this instinct is confirmed — the more you see and are aware of other races, the more you want to be with your own. The notion that diversity could be a good thing seems to us somewhere between preposterous and a sick joke.
What Putnam showed was that when diversity proliferates people tend to “hunker down.” That is, they don’t feel free and easy about going outside; they feel afraid. You never know what you might find out there — or what might find you. So lock the doors and close the blinds, put that TV dinner in, and watch some network pap. That will keep your mind off the Road Warrior terrain and urban hellscape outside your apartment.
At least for a little while.
The more diverse society gets, the more the bonds of community are broken, the more the social fabric is frayed, the more alienation there is. People become fearful of one another because they don’t recognize in the the other someone like themselves. These others seem to have strange customs, or bizarre ones, they act differently, and they often will speak an indecipherable language.
This bodes ill for social trust.
Simple survival becomes much more of a concern.
Not only does one separate oneself from the other races — which would be a positive thing — but, tragically and disastrously, also from members of one’s own race.
That is, the hunkering down is well nigh universal. Margaret Thatcher said “there is no such thing as society,” but she was a libertarian mercenary. Of course there is such a thing as society, and such a thing as community, but only in homogenous nations. There is truly no society in “diverse” ones. It is all just atomized individuals, no social trust, no social cohesion — it is a dog-eat-dog world; the war of all against all.
Putnam defined social cohesion the way conservatives do with their Burkean little platoons: voting, joining the PTA, borrowing a cup of sugar, checking on the old lady down the street to see if she’s ok, participating in a neighborhood watch, coaching Little League, coaching soccer, nodding to the person walking by you.
In fact when Putnam finally did get around to taking his work to a popular audience, he wrote the most famous book of social science since Habits of the Heart: he titled it Bowling Alone.
Presumably he chose bowling because bowling is a purely social sport. It’s not really even a sport, it’s like glorified darts, and the whole purpose of bowling is to fraternize with your social group. The image of a man bowling alone is a sad one. After all, if you’re bowling alone who will there be to hold your beer when you launch in to what the Negroes that are moving into the neighborhood have been up to.
But the time from the interviews and canvassing until the big book came out was less than glorious for Robert Putnam. At first he gave out his results in dribs and drabs but buried the lede: that diversity is not a strength. At length he came clean (or somewhat clean) on the main thing, but only because there was no way to get around something so glaring.
This was not the news he had wanted to bring down from the mountain top.
Later, when a cohort of racists and White nationalists gave Putnam’s work prominence of place, he complained that they had “seized on” his work and misinterpreted it. You see, he said, the “true meaning” of his research was that diversity was hard, that the downsides he listed were like growing pains, but that once the hard work of diversity was over, it would be all upside, all rainbows and unicorns.
He has absolutely no evidence for this, of course. He was just spouting unsupported assertions about the article of faith that all must believe on pain of excommunication and cancellation.
We are twenty years on from his famous book, and that “upside” has yet to appear. And the costs are getting more steep by the day.
Just take a look at that Road Warrior terrain to know it’s true.
If his point is that, in a long enough time frame, all of us are dead then, well, really, it’s no comfort and beside the point.
And with diversity the time frame won’t be that long. All those bills are now coming due.
Because diversity is not only not a strength.
It’s fatal, and that’s been proven for all time.
* * *
The Chinese call Western “woke” liberals baizuos. The Chinese words that make up this epithet could roughly be translated as “White mother whore.”
For the baizuo is exclusively White by definition. These are foul offscourings of our race, those who have gone to the other side out of fake “morality” and real ignorance, and have chosen to live their life on their knees.
Roughly speaking, a baizuo is defined this way:
Baizuos are mostly characterized by their heavy use of political correctness and double standards to covertly advance their own material or emotional interests at the expense of others, while claiming otherwise from a self-assumed superior moral position.
In their own minds, the baizuos are “free spirits” — but what they really are is social conformists.
In addition to representing the soft underbelly of the White race, baizuos form a crucial component in the enterprise of “diversity”: the White defector. It is they you see at your local high-priced coffee shop, sometimes adorned with purple, green, or orange hair, some have have prominent tattoos, bones through their noses — and they almost all sport that inevitable sullen look in their eyes. They have surrendered totally to the contemporary mindset. Today that means that they are the oddest of things: a person who hates his own race. No other race than ours harbors within itself such traitors. Except for vanishingly small exceptions that prove the rule, no Asian hates the Asians, no Black hates the Blacks — of that you can be sure. But over the past half century, the White race has had nested within its confines a huge and pathological cohort of its own who are explicitly dedicated to the destruction of their own people.
These are the baizuos.
Quite a few baizuos are educated and well-off. A baizuo can be a professor or a suburban mother “deeply committed to anti-racism.” A baizuo be a corporation executive who never stops drooling about “helping the underserved.”
What all baizuos have in common is that they are traitors. They are the weak links without whom no Jew could function in his role as subverter, and no Black could run amok in our cities without facing the most extreme of penalties.
Baizuos are the ones who open the door to “diversity.”
And as such they are fatal.
* * *
To hear the ruling class tell it, they had no idea of the magnitude of the changes that would be wrought by the 1965 Immigration Act (that opened our borders to the huge non-White invasion that continues today) — they were as surprised as anybody. At the time the law was passed, its promoters said that it would not upset the racial/ethnic balance of America. They said that it was not a “revolutionary bill.” Which means that it was a revolutionary bill and it did upset the racial/ethnic balance of this country beyond all recognition.
And then, to hear the ruling class tell it, they were mystified that such massive immigration at unremitting and breakneck speed would result in the colossal demographic transformation that has occurred. So it was in the 1990s that they had to come up with a new ideology suited to this new situation. This was the dawn of “hate crime” legislation to “protect” the “minorities” who were proliferating, an expansion of “Affirmative Action” to include the new arrivals, Political Correctness, and multiculturalism. Thus all of these things were framed as “necessary,” but ex post facto and ad hoc responses to the new and unprecedented — and certainly unsought, they claimed — fact of diversity.
They say they didn’t intend to bring it about, but they were forced to deal with it.
Don’t you believe it. “Diversity” — that is, the replacement of Whites by non-Whites — was the goal from the beginning.
Ever since the first liar lied and said that “there is only one race, the human race,” diversity has been the goal. Ever since Coca-Cola taught the world to sing in perfect harmony, diversity has been the goal. And, quite literally and openly, ever since the Supreme Court justified Affirmative Action — not on the grounds of giving individual non-Whites a leg up, but on the “fact” that society had a “compelling interest in diversity” — diversity has been the goal.
Diversity is the goal not because it is a strength — no, far from it. Diversity is the goal for precisely the opposite reason, because it is fatal. When you want to take down a strong society you have to have help on the inside in the form of defectors. Then you flood it with groups from the outside, to swamp and overwhelm it. And then, under the banner of diversity, you get the “minorities” to band together — so what you unleash is not really the war of all against all; no, far from it. It’s the war of all the rest against Whites, and in the end it will be fatal.
They think it will be fatal for us. If we fail to organize, they may be right. But maybe, just maybe, it will be fatal for them instead.
* * *