Category: Putnam

Revisiting Putnam

No White racial solidarity.

Let’s again consider Putnam’s oft-discussed findings about diversity eroding societal trust and repressing social engagement and investment in public goods (similar to findings by others and a topic often brought up by Salter).

Putnam not only found that diversity decreased trust between groups but within groups as well. That latter finding is somewhat counter intuitive, since one could reasonably assume that increased diversity, and the consequent increased distrust between groups, would strengthen a tribal “us against them” mentality and therefore increase trust within groups. But the opposite occurred, at least with those examples Putnam studied. 

How can we interpret the counter intuitive finding that diversity erodes trust and societal cohesion within groups as well as between groups?  This depends on whether this “within group” problem applies to all groups, or only to Whites.  Perhaps those more familiar with the nuances of Putnam’s work – which I read some time ago and have no interest in revisiting as Putnam is a disgusting excuse for an academic who hid his findings for years and only published it with an accompanying screed promoting social engineering to grease the wheels of White dispossession (*) and my hypothesis here will require more data in any case for a fair evaluation – know more of this.

My hypothesis is as follows. 

If within group trust is eroded by diversity for all groups, then this phenomenon reflects a general human (or should I say “hominid”) trend to withdraw and “hunker down” when faced with diversity,

If the effect is restricted to Whites (which I believe will be the case if a careful quantitative study is done), then this is a strictly White mental phenomenon.  And how does this happen?  The hypothesis suggest the following.

One could speculate various mechanisms if this was the case, but consider – a la Ignatiev’s “Race Traitor” paradigm – that Whites are the only group in which large numbers of the group – including a majority of influential elites – act overtly against group interests.  Thus, there is no racial solidarity among Whites, no one you can racially trust unless you really know them – hence, when faced with diversity, Whites will mistrust other Whites because  – given the omega cuckiness of many Whites – one can never be sure whether a given White is “on our side” or “on their side.”  In a homogeneous White community this isn’t so much of a problem (of course political disagreements – including whether or not to import diversity – can precipitate such mistrust, but even so, in a homogeneous community such conflicts would be muted).  However, in the presence of diversity, Whites must tread carefully.  Is your White coworker someone you can trust to share your disgust over multiculturalism, or will they “report you to HR” because of your “bigotry?”

On the other hand, non-Whites (including Jews) can reliably depend on their co-ethnics showing ethic/racial solidarity, and siding with them against “the other” (and particularly against Whites). For Whites, a given fellow White is just as likely to be a Universalist cuck as they are to be someone sharing your beliefs.  

Thus, diversity erodes within group trust among Whites (and likely only among Whites) because Whites are ideologically split on this race-diversity issue, and many Whites are SJW “altruistic punishers, so that in diverse environments fellow Whites may pose a threat since they would identify with “the other side.”

Ignatiev would be proud.

*Salter rightly claimed in On Genetic Interests that for a majority being replaced, the only thing worse than a multiculturalism that does not work is one that does work, since the workable multiculturalism will make race replacement more agreeable to those being replaced, while the pain of a failed multiculturalism may wake the majority up to prevent their dispossession.  Putnam is clearly on the side of those who want multiculturalism to succeed.


Diversity Paradox

Actually, fraud and paradox

Even if true, who cares about some narrow economic application?  It certainly doesn’t broadly apply, as the West’s decline is in direct relation to increasing diversity – never mind the costs in genocidal reduction in majority EGI and Putnam’s findings on societal distrust. And of course, “diversity” never seems to include a true diversity of ideas and opinions.

But, aside from all of that, for all these types of studies, if you scratch the surface, you find they are fraudulent. For example, one of Breezy’s readers comments:

The homogeneous groups were Latino. 

The article says:

“To ascertain that we were measuring the effects of diversity, not culture or history, we examined a variety of ethnic and racial groups. In Texas, we included the expected mix of whites, Latinos and African-Americans.” 

In the appendix of the study:

“In Texas, we created homogeneous markets by including only participants

that were Latinos. In diverse markets, we included at least one participant of a numerical minority ethnicity.”

So, adding Whites to groups of coloreds can improve performance.  Who knew?

But there is a paradox here. Liberals are universalist humanists. They view “all humanity” as their ingroup.  Very well.  If diversity really enhanced performance, how can this be leveraged to help all humanity?  What is diversity from the perspective of humanity?

Answer: the benefits of diversity to humanity would be maximized by having distinct, ethnically/racially homogeneous states, all interacting with each other as  part of a diverse tapestry of nations and peoples. Diversity among humanity is maintained by Salterian Universal Nationalism. The type of “diversity” favored by liberals – multiculturalism – leads to a long-term reduction of diversity through biological and cultural panmixia,

Therefore, I look forward to liberals safeguarding diversity by promoting the work of Salter.

Diversity,Trust, Individualism, and Collectivism

Diversity inhibits its own opposition.
For background, read this.
Putnam’s work on diversity revealed that increasing diversity not only lowered levels of between-group trust, but also decreased the levels of trust between individuals of the same group.
If one considers that it is precisely collective group action that is a necessary component of a group’s resistance to the corrosive effects of diversity and multiculturalism, then one observes that diversity has the ability to disarm its own opposition.
One can consider a majority ethny subjected to increasing levels of diversity within their nation-state. This diversity directly damages the interest of the native, majority ethny through negative effects on ultimate interests (e.g., EGI decreased through race replacement immigration, differential birthrates, and miscegenation) as well as important proximate interests (socioeconomic, political, cultural, etc. displacement, as well as legal and illegal acts of aggression by the newcomers against the natives).  
The long term interests of this endangered native ethny will require an organized resistance to diversity.  This organized resistance will require collective action, a sense of group identity, and must be proofed against excessive free riding.  All of this requires reasonably high levels of trust between group members. But the very diversity they wish to oppose erodes inter-group trust and makes a more collectivist mindset ever more difficult to create and maintain. Instead, diversity would tend to promote atomized individualism, derived from a sense of mistrust and alienation (“bowling alone”), that would sap the strength of any organized resistance movement.  
While this process of group disarmament could in theory occur in any group subjected to diversity, it would have the most harmful effects on groups already relatively high on individualism and low on collectivism.  A very collectivist group may well be more resistant to the ingroup mistrust promoted by diversity, and even if diversity caused this group to move in the individualist direction, if they had started high on the collectivist scale, they may be able to maintain a sufficient level of collective group action to protect themselves and their interests.
On the other hand, a group already individualist, with weaker abilities to engage in collective action, such a group would be pushed into pathologically radical atomized individualism by diversity, and lose whatever ability for collective action they had previously possessed.  Europeans are relatively low on collectivism, while being high on individualism, and are thus exquisitely vulnerable to the effects of diversity on ingroup mistrust.  Jews and Asians, being more collectivist, would be far more resistant to diversity; even if they were to move toward a more individualist direction, they may still fall within a “safe” range that maintains the ability for group collective action.
For example, imagine a 0-100 scale, with 0 being maximum individualism, and 100 being maximum collectivism.  Imagine that the position of different groups on this scale is fixed within a range, by both genes and deeply ingrained cultural and historical influences.  A group may have some ability to move around within their range, based on circumstances, becoming a bit more collectivist under threat and a bit more individualist during times of peace and plenty (the magnitude of these shifts may also vary between groups, but we need not concern ourselves with this detail here).
Let’s say that the threshold for collective action is at a rating of 50 or greater. Europeans may fall within the 30-55 range, with the 30-45 range being the default position, and levels of collectivism of 45-55 observed in times of stress (as a historical example, National Socialist collective organizing of the German people against Jews and other enemies).  Jews and Asians would be, normally, in the 65-90 range.  If diversity causes a 10 point slide toward individualism, then Europeans would have their ability for collective action eliminated (they would now have a 20-45 range), while Jews and Asians, now in the 55-80 range, would still maintain the ability to act collectively.
Of course, these numbers are merely for the sake of illustration and are not meant to represent any objective, quantitative reality.  Nevertheless, the point is clear.  Given that it is the White world that is predominantly subjected to increasing diversity, and that is are Whites who are, generally speaking, skewed toward individualism, it is obvious that diversity is a potent memetic-biological weapon in the war to destroy the White world.
This is a large hurdle to overcome.  Enhancing inter-group trust through honorable and ethical behavior, should be a “must” for the “movement” – but I see little evidence of this actually occurring. This underscores why “free-riding” (from everything from politics to vaccination) is so deadly; if one sees others taking advantage of the group’s collective social goods while making no contribution to those goods themselves, this will further erode ingroup trust and make further collective action impossible.
We need to understand our place on the individualism-collectivism continuum, also understand the need for collective action, and further understand the pernicious effects of diversity. To not do so is folly and will lead inevitably to our final defeat.