Ethnic diversity can harm social trust and economic well-being of societies, studies have found.
"Diversity" Tricks Westerners Out of Their Birthright
THIS EXCELLENT OP-ED in the Vancouver Sun on how "Ethnic diversity harms a country's social trust and economic well-being," based on scientific studies, was scrubbed from the internet in less than 24 hours. Yet 63% of Canadians want to limit immigration. They have already been disenfranchised by media and politicians who serve the Cabalist central bank cartel. Their "Diversity" excludes genuine diversity i.e. opinion. "Multiculturalism" is a pretext to not have any national culture.
from The Vancouver Sun
"Mark Hecht: Ethnic diversity harms a country's social trust, economic well-being, argues instructor
OPINION: Canada should say goodbye to diversity, tolerance, and inclusion to rebuild trust in one another and start accepting a new norm for immigration policy -- compatibility, cohesion, and social trust."
"Instead of diversity being a blessing, many found that they've ended up with a lot of arrogant people living in their countries with no intention of letting go of their previous cultures, animosities, preferences, and pretensions."
By Mark Hecht (Source)
Sometimes they get too much publicity, but can you blame them? The Danes just seem to get things right. But even the Danes can make mistakes. A decade ago the fundamental belief among Danes toward Muslim immigrants was that these newcomers would see how wonderful Denmark was and naturally want to become Danish as quickly as possible.
This turned out to be naively wrong. At least half of all Muslims polled across various western European countries believe today that their Shariah law is more important than national law, according to the Gatestone Institute.
In other words, a not insignificant proportion of Muslim immigrants have no intention of assimilating into any western society, including Denmark.
Danes have pushed back. Losing the integrity of their society -- one of the best in the world by all measures -- was on the line. Requirements to obtain citizenship increased. A new insistence that immigrant children go to Danish public schools instead of religious schools was implemented. Social benefits were rescinded for those who didn't comply.
This was only the beginning. But the Danes are not alone. Many western nations assumed that increasing ethnic and cultural diversity through immigration would be beneficial. The dogma of diversity, tolerance, and inclusion assumed that all members of the society wanted to be included as equal citizens. Yet, instead of diversity being a blessing, many found that they've ended up with a lot of arrogant people living in their countries with no intention of letting go of their previous cultures, animosities, preferences, and pretensions.
Let's give the devil his due. Diversity, tolerance and inclusion was actually a commendable perspective. It assumed the dominant society was leaving people out of full participation. It was a valid critique. In response to inequalities, real or otherwise, measures were taken that would include everyone. Affirmative action, political correctness and anti-bias training became the tools for inculcating tolerance and inclusion.
Helpful? Somewhat. Yet, the most important question was overlooked: What if some did not actually want to be included? Denmark recognized this problem long ago and is now finding practical solutions. It knows what it was -- a country that worked very well when it was homogeneous, where everyone wanted to be and was a part of society. They spoke the same language, understood the same customs and traditions, and held the same beliefs. The result was that people trusted each other and the economy flourished.
In fact, social trust corresponds more closely than any other factor to predicting economic prosperity. Harvard economists Alberto Alesina and co-authors from a paper titled, Fractionalization, argued that greater diversity leads to stunted economic growth. In other words, diversity is a weakness as far as the economy is concerned.
In 1981 The World Values Survey began an investigation into cross-cultural beliefs, values, and motivations, and has since shown that societies with high social trust are not only more economically productive but also happier. The most successful are homogeneous countries, not the diverse ones. Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia is always at the top of those rankings. They, shine a beacon on the fact that trust is what makes society great. Interestingly, Scandinavian countries are becoming even more trusting. Canada, Great Britain, the U.S. and Australia are all going in the opposite direction.
In Canada, we are becoming less trusting of one other. If a society wants high social trust and the benefits of stability, productivity, and happiness, there are apparently two factors that stand out.
According to macro sociology researcher, Jan Delhey at Otto von Geuricke University in Magdeburg, Germany -- Protestantism and low ethnic diversity -- are the top two criteria. Setting aside the part about Protestantism, low ethnic diversity as a single factor fits Denmark, Japan and Hungary quite well. Social trust is, unsurprisingly, relatively high in all.
But not all those countries are Protestant. There are other factors at work. So is it possible for a country to have diversity and social trust at the same time? Studies by researchers Hooghe, Reeskens and Stolle in a 2008 paper indicate that ethnic diversity in and of itself is not inherently destabilizing, at a national level. A country can indeed have multiple ethnicities and still have high social trust. But there is a catch. It is at the neighborhood scale where high ethnic diversity erodes trust, according to researchers Peter Thisted Dinesson and Kim Mannemar Sønderskov from 2015. The more direct the interaction with diversity, the more social trust drops.
This accounts for why people segregate themselves into ethnic enclaves. People like to be around others who are the same as them. Those overwhelmed by newcomers that are not like themselves, lose trust and soon move out. This is quite a paradox. Diversity at a national level does not necessarily erode trust but at the neighborhood level it does.
How can this be? Switzerland is a good example of this paradox in action. With four recognized ethnicities -- German, French, Italian and Romansh -- they also have high levels of social trust. How? It's simple. Each ethnicity has its own geography and government. It does not mix ethnicities, nor does one try to control the others. If a country wants diversity, expect enclaves to form. This may work out fine in the long run, as it has in Switzerland.
Or it may turn into a bloody mess, as it repeatedly does in the Balkans. The other option is low diversity. Denmark had the latter. It worked well. Now, it wants it back again and that will require its immigrants to integrate. Those who don't will have to leave. So, is excluding certain people from one's society a requirement?
The short answer is absolutely. The long and more reasonable answer is if you do let people into your country then make sure they hold similar values -- compatibility. Make sure they want to fit into your society fully and completely -- cohesion. With these two requirements satisfied, and with a sprinkle of Protestantism, the country will be well on its way to generating high levels of social trust.
Can Canada learn from Denmark? The jury is out. But the minimum requirement is that we say goodbye to diversity, tolerance, and inclusion if we wish to be a society that can rebuild the trust we used to have in one another and start accepting a new norm for immigration policy -- compatibility, cohesion and social trust.
Mark Hecht teaches human, political, and conservation geography at Mount Royal University in Calgary and has written extensively on issues of national identity and resource conflict.---Related - Faculty at Mark's College Triggered by Original Thought ------------Makow Explains His White "Ethnocentricism"
First Comment from Lynda-
Psychological warfare is an important component of hybrid warfare and COIN. In the Long March of the Communist Revolution through all post-Christian 'Western' institutions, Diversity is tactical ground. Because demographics is destiny, this is the tactical ground that should be in the forefront of all considerations. And it must absolutely be denied to ZOG and cut away from the Judaic Supremacy. Diversity is both a tool of subversion against the European ethnos [and only the European ethnos] and it is Marxist social engineering guaranteed by an entire swag of policies enforced by ZOG against this ethnos - frankly the only ethnos capable of envisioning and building the kind of society where there is both rule of law and liberty. The kind of societies we like and the kind of societies others like - and are welcome to join in terms of going along to get along.
Take, for example, that monstrous threat to world peace in the 1970s - the 'White settler' racist, republic of Rhodesia. Facing three Communist guerrilla armies - all financed by the central banking cartel and supplied/trained in the Soviet Union and Red China - Rhodesia actually won their war of independence against the Communist Revolution in Africa. Militarily they won the war. They might have capitulated to the Revolution through ZOG perfidy, but that is another story. They won their war. Why? Censored factoid of the century: the Black Rhodesian population, fully two thirds of the nation , was fighting with the Rhodesian Front security forces and not against. These were tribal peoples, in the majority, living on lands guaranteed to them by the government and ruled by their chiefs - which is the traditional common law and self-government. As in Great Britain - the chiefs sat in the Rhodesian equivalent of the House of Lords. The Zimbabwean Communists who wanted the one man = one vote of the UN Charter (that organization being the world's largest Communist presidium) were the ones who were training to commit farm murders and atrocities on the tribal trust lands with a view to the subversion of the tribal population and regime change in Salisbury. Rhodesia was a not a perfect society, but apart from the flame lily, it boasted that most rare of all African rarities - an upwardly mobile Black population acquiring skillsets that would enable their communities to prosper IN THEIR OWN WAYS and progress in the management of larger affairs. And in their war of independence against the Communist Revolution in Africa, 90% of the military age, non-conscripted Black Rhodesians put boots on the ground to fight with the Rhodesian Front against the Zimbabwean Communist fronts. And they won. Militarily they won. I am sure ZOG is still thinking about that one.
The UN, of course, does not count this as one man = one vote. They count man = one vote after the population transfers and the ethnic cleansing of the rival tribe in the Communist purge. Another totally censored factoid in the Western media.
A good government based upon Western fundamentals of Nova Roma from the time of Constantine can certainly co-ordinate ethnic diversity within any demographic. If the Church is the basis of the social order and the majority of the population is baptized - they can not fail - but even the post-Christian remains can still put supply the foundations of good government and commonweal.
In the Western, post Christian ZOGs , Freemasonry is the basis of the social order and there is no separation between synagogue and state in the Apex. In this model, Diversity is a Marxist policy which serves the Protocols of Zion 16.4 - " We will destroy every collective force except our own."