Posted on October 28, 2011

Diversity Destroys Trust

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, September 2007

Multiracial Students

Not a recipe for success.

Robert Putnam of Harvard became an academic celebrity in 2000 with his book, Bowling Alone, which argued that society is in dire straits because so many community attachments are breaking down. Americans are increasingly mobile and isolated, with few group affiliations. Prof. Putnam wants to bring back what he calls “social networks,” because he says they make people happy, contribute to democracy, help rear children, and make the economy run better.

He later analyzed census and survey data to find out what role racial diversity plays in all this — whether it deepens attachment to community or further atomizes people. To his dismay, he found that racial and ethnic diversity destroys trust in neighbors and institutions.

Prof. Putnam did not like these findings, and was in no hurry to publish them, but a reporter for the Financial Times may have forced his hand. In an article that appeared on October 9, 2006, John Lloyd quoted Prof. Putnam as saying that he was studying ways to compensate for the bad effects of diversity and that it “would have been irresponsible to publish without that.”

Prof. Putnam deeply regrets his words. No one likes to admit so openly that he is going to bathe, barber and perfume the findings before he lets the public see them. In an interview several weeks later with the Harvard Crimson, Prof. Putnam implied that Mr. Lloyd quoted him dishonestly, and called it “almost criminal” that the Financial Times had not emphasized his belief that in the mid- to long-run, people learn to like diversity and that society is stronger for it. His unhappiness was compounded by hundreds of e-mail messages from what he called “racists and anti-immigration activists” congratulating him on discovering the obvious.

Robert Putnam

Professor Robert Putnam

Professor Putnam has now published his study in the latest issue of Scandinavian Political Studies (Vol. 30, No. 2, 2007, pp. 137-174.) He does his best to give the article a happy ending, but his findings are hard to sugarcoat.

Whom Do You Trust?

This study is a survey of people living in 41 different American communities that run from racially homogeneous rural South Dakota to San Francisco, which is one of the most racially mixed places on earth. The clearest finding was that the more diverse the area, the less people trusted each other. The graph on page three represents this by showing the 41 areas on a plot, with trust of other races on the vertical axis and an index of homogeneity on the horizontal axis.


(Prof. Putnam measured homogeneity with what is called a Herfindahl index, which is the likelihood that two randomly selected people in a given area — in this case a census tract — will be of the same race. A value of 1.00 means there is a 100 percent chance they will be the same, and a value of 0.50 means only a 50 percent chance.)

The study divided people into four groups — white, black, Hispanic, Asian — and asked whether they trusted the other groups. The percentage that said they trusted the other three groups “a lot” is on the vertical axis. Rural South Dakota and Lewiston, Maine, over to the right, were about as pure white as it was possible to be (this was in 2000, before Somalis converged on Lewiston because of its generous welfare) and had some of the highest levels of trust in “other races.” As diversity increases towards the left, trust in other races decreases.


The second graph, on page four, is a similar plot, except that the question was whether respondents trusted their neighbors “a lot.” Prof. Putnam recognizes that people usually have neighbors like themselves, so this question can be seen as an indication of trust not only in neighbors but in people like oneself. As the graph shows, people in virtually all areas are more likely to say they trust their neighbors “a lot” than to say they trust people of other races “a lot,” but again, the more diversity, the less trust.


The third graph, on page five, shows the results of asking whether people trust members of their own race “a lot.” Prof. Putnam points out that if diversity makes people distrust people of other races, it might be expected to increase their trust in people of their own race — and here is the surprise: Diversity reduces trust in everyone, even in people of one’s own race. This is what leads to Prof. Putnam’s widely quoted conclusion that diversity makes people behave like turtles — they pull into their shells. On the basis of other survey data, he lists other unhappy consequences for people who must live with diversity:

  • Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
  • Lower political efficacy — that is, confidence in their own influence.
  • Lower frequency of registering to vote, but more interest and knowledge about politics and more participation in protest marches and social reform groups.
  • Less expectation that others will cooperate to solve dilemmas of collective action (e.g., voluntary conservation to ease a water or energy shortage).
  • Less likelihood of working on a community project.
  • Lower likelihood of giving to charity or volunteering.
  • Fewer close friends and confidants.
  • Less happiness and lower perceived quality of life.
  • More time spent watching television and more agreement that “television is my most important form of entertainment.”

This is a convincing set of reasons to oppose the sort of diversity we are always told to celebrate. Indeed, it confirms what immigration activists and race realists have been saying for decades. These findings alone, and the publicity they have received, are worthy of, well, celebration.

Prof. Putnam admits he did not like the results, and carefully sifted and diced the data to find something other than diversity — poverty, age, crime, population density, education, commuting time, home ownership rates, anything — that seemed to be destroying trust. He did learn some useful things: Young people are less trusting than old people, blacks and Hispanics are less trusting than whites and Asians, people who live in high crime areas are not very trusting, nor are the poor and uneducated. Still, the master variable was diversity. “Diversity per se has a major effect,” he writes.

However, let us return to the three tables, which hint at interesting information Prof. Putnam did not include in his report. The most homogeneous neighborhoods he investigated are overwhelmingly white. There are census tracts that are overwhelmingly Hispanic or black — and therefore homogeneous — but he did not report results for them. This research therefore should more properly be thought of as a study of the effects of diversity on whites. It would be interesting to know its effect on blacks or Hispanics.

If homogeneity is an advantage, blacks who live in the ghetto should benefit from it just as whites do. Compared to blacks who live in mixed neighborhoods, do they trust white people more, do a lot of volunteer work, spend less time watching television, and have more confidence in local government? Probably not.

It may very well be that homogeneity does not affect non-whites the same way it affects whites. It has been known for years that whites in racial isolation have a higher opinion of blacks than do whites who live close to them. During Jesse Jackson’s campaigns for US president in 1984 and 1988, his percentage of the white vote was highest in areas with the fewest blacks. This is probably because whites whose knowledge of blacks comes only from the media have a better opinion of them than whites who have direct contact with them. This alone could explain why people in homogeneous white areas think highly of people of other races.

Would the same be true for blacks and Hispanics? Perhaps not. The media routinely blame whites for racial tension in America, so blacks and Hispanics who have the least contact with them may have the most reason to distrust them. On the other hand, heavily black and Hispanic neighborhoods are not usually nice places. People who live in them may think white people are not so bad after all.

There is another problem with these graphs of trust. For the overwhelmingly white areas, we know that the respondents to the surveys are overwhelmingly white — the results reflect white attitudes. For the other areas, because Prof. Putnam lumps respondents of all races together, we do not know if there are racial differences in attitudes. He says blacks and Hispanics are generally less trusting than whites. This means white expressions of lack of trust probably do not drop as steeply with diversity as these graphs suggest because they show overall responses rather than responses by race. It may be that in the diverse locations, the white response — Prof. Putnam says it is more trusting — is being overwhelmed by untrusting blacks and Hispanics.

There are hints that this might be so. North Minneapolis shows up on these graphs as one of the most diverse places in America, but it is known as the blackest, poorest, most crime-ridden place in Minnesota. This is probably the closest thing the study offers to a genuinely black response, but it is blurred because the ethnic homogeneity index tells us there are many non-black people who live there, too — probably Hispanics.

However, we find some intriguing results Prof. Putnam ignores. The people of virtually every other location trust their neighbors considerably more than they trust people of other races. Not the people of North Minneapolis. A comparison of the first two graphs shows that slightly fewer trust their neighbors “a lot” than trust people of other races. And, in fact, a comparison with the third chart shows they trust people of their own race least of all! Surely, these interesting data deserve disaggregation. Do people of all races in North Minneapolis trust their own race least of all? Only blacks? Only Hispanics? Blacks who live in high-crime ghettos may have good reason to distrust blacks more than whites.

Boston gives queer results, too. People trust their neighbors only slightly more than they trust people of other races and, again, appear to trust people of their own race least of all. This sort of thing cries out for explanation but Prof. Putnam offers none.

Something else that stands out on the first chart is that every single one of the Southern study areas — Charlotte, Atlanta, Baton Rouge, Greensboro, Winston-Salem, Birmingham, East Tennessee — is below the trend line. This means that without regard to diversity or homogeneity, people living in the South are less likely than people of other regions to trust people of other races. This is probably because the most common racial division in the South is still black/white, and suggests that this is the color line that still causes the most distrust.

There is sure to be other interesting information in this study that did not make it into print. Whom do blacks distrust more: whites or Hispanics? Whom do Asians distrust? Does increased diversity increase distrust of all other races or just some? The data probably could have been given a more fine-grained analysis, but Prof. Putnam does not provide it.

A Dizzying Spin

Now that Prof. Putnam has found that diversity makes people watch more TV, distrust local government, stop voting, suspect the local media, give less to charity, and makes them just plain unhappy, how does he defend it? He spins his story two different ways, first by arguing that people eventually learn to like it. His proof? That WASP-run, WASP-founded America managed to absorb the European ethnics who swarmed in at the turn of the 20th century. This lesson in happy history ignores blacks and Indians, who have been here a lot longer than the white ethnics but are still not absorbed. Prof. Putnam does mention in passing “the possibly more visible distinctiveness of contemporary migrants,” but doesn’t seem to think this will make any difference.

He also ignores the fact that European ethnics were absorbed because they learned English and became largely indistinguishable from WASPS by such measures as income, education, crime rates, etc. It was a one-way street: They became Americans. People didn’t learn to like diversity; the newcomers became more like the old-timers, and the diversity went away.

Prof. Putnam’s second assertion is that diversity is inherently good. Once we have overcome our dislike for it, as we surely will, Prof. Putnam’s big argument in its favor is that it stimulates creativity. He tells us immigrants have been four times more likely than the American-born to win the following honors: Nobel Prizes, Academy Awards for film directing, Kennedy Center awards in the performing arts, and membership in the National Academy of Science.

Assuming this is true, it is one of the silliest arguments for “diversity” anyone ever tried. We keep hearing “diversity” is good for us. If Prof. Putnam were somehow able to show that immigration so stimulated native-born Americans that they won Nobel Prizes at four times the rate they would have without immigration he would be on to something. His figures show only that we have had some smart immigrants. Did they become smarter or more creative because they met WASPS? Very unlikely — though they probably had better opportunities. Virtually all these paragons were certainly white, many were probably Jews, and most would undoubtedly have had distinguished records wherever they lived. The idea that “diversity” had something to do with what they achieved is nonsense.

There is another way to show the absurdity of Prof. Putnam’s argument. Let us imagine the United States had never had mass immigration, never pretended diversity was a strength, but had let in only white people with IQs over 140. Immigrants might then be 100 or even 1,000 times more likely than natives to win Nobel prizes. Would Prof. Putnam call that an even stronger argument for “diversity?”

Finally, Prof. Putnam implies that Mexicans will be joining the National Academy of Sciences at four times the white rate. Not likely. They are in prison at four times the white rate.

The whistling-past-the-graveyard tone to this study is even more noticeable because Prof. Putnam cites many other studies that confirm his basic (and obvious) finding: Diversity decreases trust. He reports that people in “diverse” workgroups — not only of race but also age and professional background — are less loyal to the group, more likely to resign, and generally less satisfied than people who work with people like themselves. Prof. Putnam even cites a study that found carpooling is less common in mixed neighborhoods. Carpooling means counting on your neighbors to get you to work, and people tend not to trust neighbors who don’t look like them.

Prof. Putnam cites half a dozen studies from places as varied as Australia, Sweden, and Canada showing that ethnic diversity lowers levels of trust and, in some cases, lowers investment in public goods. It is well known, for example, that welfare systems are usually more generous in homogeneous countries because people are more willing to pay taxes to support beneficiaries who look like they might be cousins.

It is the same everywhere. In Peru, there are what are called micro-credit cooperatives that make small loans to members. Apparently, when there is diversity among co-op members, default rates are higher. Likewise, in Kenyan school districts, fundraising is easier in more tribally and ethnically homogenous areas.

Prof. Putnam even offers an interesting historical example. In the Union Army during the Civil War, casualty rates were high and the chances of being caught for desertion were low. Aside from patriotism, it was loyalty to their messmates that kept soldiers in the fight. Not surprisingly, desertion rates were higher in units with the greatest diversity, not just of ethnicity but even of age, hometown, occupation, etc.

The preference for one’s own kind is deeply rooted in human — even animal — nature. There is nothing surprising about Prof. Putnam’s findings or the other research he cites. What is surprising is his desperate faith in the eventual benefits of something that clearly does not work anywhere.

Prof. Putnam concludes his study with the usual bromides: “[W]e need more opportunities for meaningful interaction across ethnic lines.” “[L]ocally based programs to reach out to new immigrant communities are a powerful tool for mutual learning.” Note the words “interaction” and “mutual learning.” The purpose of all this is not to turn immigrants into Americans the way we used to: “[M]y hunch is that at the end we shall see that the challenge is best met not by making ‘them’ like ‘us,’ but rather by creating a new, more capacious sense of ‘we,’ . . .” All of us, in other words, should become a little bit Haitian, a little bit Chinese, and quite substantially black and Mexican. We should probably get into practice right now for becoming a little bit Iraqi, in preparation for the “allies” who will surely follow our troops home.

E Pluribus Unum

In his final sentence Prof. Putnam tells us that even the motto on the Great Seal of the United States, e pluribus unum (out of many, one), is a celebration of diversity. Either Harvard is not what it used to be or Prof Putnam is trying to pull a fast one on the readers of Scandinavian Political Studies. The motto, of course, refers to the 13 colonies uniting as one nation, not to ethnic mixing.

17 responses to “Diversity Destroys Trust”

  1. Mr Stricter says:

    My gut on this issues tells me the actual diversity proponents (as vs the come along college kids) have trouble understanding the rest of us because their brains are wired differently.

    The seek novelty, thrive on social chaos and are in fact the opposite of regular folks. Naturally they’ll assume other are like them when they are not much the way a sociopath can’t understand why regular people have a conscience.

    Normal people are socially conservative, not fond of a lot of outsiders and not interested in novelty. This is healthy as it makes for a stronger community with less exposure to risk and disease. The diversity people have some upsides, they often get access to broader resources and tend to run smart but these are minor advantages and these days, the policies they prefer are destructive enough to be called evil.

    The money men go along with this sickness it because they like cheap labor, think more immigrants will make up economic shifts (they won’t) and being more able to treat people as slaves.

    This gets us what we have.

    The solution is well, thats another matter. Basically we need to emulate what the rich are able to do and have closed communities for ourselves. This means keeping working on closed borders, deportation and destroying the political strength of our opposition through our own efforts. Its a fight we can win.

    And note even in victory, there will be mixed communities, a small number of diverse communities and assimilated communities along with segregated ones. This is perfectly OK.

  2. Bill R says:

    That picture of Putnam is telling. He LOOKS like the sort that would (1) give a hoot about who trusts whom (2) spend a lot of time writing a book on what everybody already knows is obvious (3) be disappointed at the obvious results (4) then out of “intellectual integrity” decide to NOT publish results that go against his pre-conceived desires. In short, he LOOKS like what one might expect of your typical academic looney tunes.

  3. madison grant says:

    A perfect complement to todays article about Mexicans vs Jews in Orange County. In that piece a rabbi pointed out that OC has gone from homogenous to one the most diverse areas in the US.

    Correct, and when it was all white it was one of the best places to live and raise a family. And you would NEVER have seen ethnic turmoil like you see there today.

  4. BEBE says:

    In his final sentence Prof. Putnam tells us that even the motto on the Great Seal of the United States, e pluribus unum (out of many, one), is a celebration of diversity. Either Harvard is not what it used to be or Prof Putnam is trying to pull a fast one on the readers of Scandinavian Political Studies. The motto, of course, refers to the 13 colonies uniting as one nation, not to ethnic mixing.


    Those 13 colonies were also of the White race, which people try to ignore. Try to tell this to all these talking heads who insist that it means all races/religion becoming one. They know the truth so why do you think they are NOT telling us the truth?

    It means and only means, WHITE nationalities/nations from our motherland, Europe becoming one.

  5. Say It! says:

    Profs have to be apologetic about any research showing a negative side to racial diversity, especially black and non-black. Otherwise they’ll likely be angry blacks on campus calling for his firing for being racist while he gets no support from his fearful colleagues, the media or any place else.

    It’s so bad that their apologetic behavior is often simply the Stockholm Syndrome making them say that their results can’t be that bad even when they are clearly that bad and everyone know it from experience – but it’s safer not to admit it, especially if one is a politician. The cowardice of whites makes this situation possible, which is why there is no real progress on halting destructive illegal & unnecessary legal immigration from the 3ird world.

  6. Anonymous says:

    And note even in victory, there will be mixed communities, a small number of diverse communities and assimilated communities along with segregated ones. This is perfectly OK.


    No, it isn’t OK poster #1.

    How can we ever run a nation (and have to pay taxes) with those “diverse” communities you speak of? You are talking about a balkanized nation. Why should we even think of giving up any part of our COUNTRY to any of these mixed “communities”? Isn’t that what we have now? We already have the rich Whites who have the privilege of living in a segregated community, don’t we?

  7. Puggg says:

    Say it at 5 said,

    Profs have to be apologetic about any research showing a negative side to racial diversity, especially black and non-black. Otherwise they’ll likely be angry blacks on campus calling for his firing for being racist while he gets no support from his fearful colleagues, the media or any place else.

    Those angry blacks on campus calling for his head don’t do this on they’re own, they are provoked by a leftist professor on the same campus. This might be one crucial reason why leftist profs defend affirmative action to the last, because they need black students to use as shock troops to intimidate the few white conservatives.

  8. Anonymous says:

    “Prof. Putnam admits he did not like the results.”

    No more be said. This man is failing to live by the “scientific method”, with its dispassionate inquiry into truth, and its duty to inform the world about reality. (Or so the Left normally argues.)

  9. Wicksteed says:

    The part of this article that mentions Civil War stats on desertion is a breathtaking insight and demonstrates one reason why racial diversity is a threat to national security.

    It may seem like a stretch to say this but it’s not. In war, in cases where one side has overwhelming power than it is a stretch to say that but examine for instance the Battle of Singapore. Britain’s worst defeat in the whole history of that country, a humiliating strategic catastrophe. The British forces outnumbered the Japanese but the Japanese won and proceeded to treat the defeated Brits and Australians in the most brutal, sadistic way possible.

    One of the main factors that is often given to explain this defeat is, in fact, that large number of Indians, who had sworn allegiance to the British side and were supposed to be fighting alongside them in defense of South Asia suddenly switched sides at the moment of truth or deserted, causing mayhem and confusion and loss of morale.

    If America finds itself matched with an opponent of anywhere near equal strength this is a deep strategic chink in nation’s armor. One can imagine a future enemy making certain territorial promises to America’s hispanics in return for their loyalty. One day once again there’ll be a war where it’s ‘for keeps’ like it was in WW2 with the defeated suffering extreme oppression.

  10. JMB says:

    Readers may be interested in my 5-paragraph summary of Putnam’s work for the article I did on immigration for the Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies

    Harvard Professor Putnam surveyed 41 selected communities in the United States to determine what factors influence social capital (Putnam, 2007). Social capital is defined as “social networks and the associated norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness.” His basic finding is that trust, altruism, and community cooperation is lower in ethnically diverse neighborhoods. Where social capital is higher, children grow up healthier, safer and better educated; people live longer, healthier lives; and democracy and the economy work better. Diversity, on the other hand, can lead to more creativity (for example, more Nobel laureates, National Academy of Science memberships, and academy awards). In support of his findings, Putnam cited a study performed at the county level that found counties with greater ethnic diversity were less socially connected (Rupasingha, 2006).

    Putnam’s “Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey,” conducted in 2000, surveyed nearly 30,000 respondents representative of the 41 communities and contained a sample of 3,000 representatives of the nation as a whole (Putnam, 2007). Los Angeles and San Francisco were among the most ethnically diverse “human habitations in history,” but had interracial trust measures that were relatively low, only half those found in New Hampshire and Montana. People in areas of greater diversity have lower confidence in local government and the news media, vote less often, are less likely to work on community projects, give to charity and volunteer less often, have fewer friends, have less perceived happiness and quality of life, and spend more time watching television. In short, members of diverse communities tend to withdraw more. The educated, well-off homeowners tended to be more trusting and young people, Blacks, and Hispanics, less so. Fundamental to this review, a high level of “immigration seems to have a somewhat more consistent and powerful effect” in terms of the negative influence on social capital than does ethnic diversity even after correcting for confounders.

    Putnam found that social capital did not improve in communities that had diverse populations in 1980 and 1990 compared with communities that became diverse more recently in 2000 (Putnam, 2007). He speculated that social capital would increase over long time periods based partly on the immigration experience in the early 1900s. Putnam recommends that communities with high rates of immigration should reconstruct social identities (both immigrants and native-born) by assimilation and hyphenated identities that help ethnic groups see themselves as “members of a shared group with a shared identity.”

    In 2007, New America Media conducted a telephone poll of 1,105 African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic adults. The poll supported Putnam’s findings. The sample was designed to be representative of the adult population of the three major racial and ethnic minorities in the United States. The poll was conducted in areas of the country that have significant (10 percent or more) African-American, Asian-American and Hispanic populations. The three groups seem more trusting of whites than of each other. The poll found that 61 percent of Hispanics, 54 percent of Asians and 47 percent of African-Americans would rather do business with whites than with members of the other two groups.

    In addition, 44 percent of Hispanics and 47 percent of Asians are “generally afraid of African-Americans because they are responsible for most of the crime.” Meanwhile, 46 percent of Hispanics and 52 percent of African-Americans believe “most Asian business owners do not treat them with respect.” And half of African Americans feel threatened by Latin American immigrants because “they are taking jobs, housing and political power away from the Black community.” The margin of error for the Asian-American sample (400 interviews), the Hispanic sample (355 interviews) and the African-American sample (350 interviews) is approximately 5 percentage points.

  11. WASPISH says:

    New motto: Out with one, many!

    What’s that in Spanish, Hindi, Mandarin, Tagalog?

  12. Anonymous says:

    If a picture is worth a thousand words then that photo speaks volumes about the professor. Doesn’t he just look like a naive clown who just fell off the turnip truck? Just the sort of guy who would love diversity and trust anybody. Then when he finds out the truth doesn’t match his pre-conceived notions, he decides he doesn’t want to publish them. He’s taking his ball and going home.

  13. Ciccio says:

    The best example of the wonderful way multiculturalism and diversity create one happy family all singing kumbaya by the fireside is the now defunct USSR and its satellites. From the October revolution, which happened in November until its downfall more than 60 years later the brotherhood of man was all they preached and the only alternate offered was the silence of the grave, yet the smallest rip in this fabric of lies tore it all to shreds and brought the whole edifice tumbling down. The Hungarian wanted nothing to do with Pole, the Czech hated the Slovak, even the Georgians, with their hero Stalin, pissed on his grave and wanted all Russians out of what was the heart of Russia. There were no more communists, peasants and workers united, there were what there always was, Latvians and Estonians and Ukrainians and Kyrgyz and Tartars and a myriad of others that had forcibly been thrown into one pot, even after generations they knew who they were and they wanted out. The Kommisars of today may be different, they may not hold a gun but a cheque book, a promise of this or that or a threat but their means and motives are the same and they too are doomed. Since man started walking upright he has been a social animal and has formed societies, societies whose survival depended on xenophobia, to protect the group from outsiders who only come because they want what you have. The Romans did not conquer most of the then known world because they wanted to export democracy and culture, they came to loot and loot they did until they grew so rich and lazy that the looters employed the looted to do their looting for them, surprise surprise, the first ones they looted were the Romans themselves. Throughout history there has been a migration from the poorer regions to the richer ones, it is human nature to want more and a better life. Those who did not resist were conquered. There is no need to look back for 100,s of years, this is happening today. The best example may well be the Ivory coast. Wealthy and prosperous, biggest cocoa producer in the world. Cocoa is labour intensive, when you are wealthy, you do not need to do your own dirty work and there were all those poor starving Muslims in the neighbouring countries who were only to happy to come and do the work. Come they did and they did more than work, they bred, bred like flies and suddenly comes the cry ” we are from the Ivory coast, we want our rights” and their rights are suddenly the entire country. Just think of that the next time you hire a Mexican to do your own dirty work.

    With all this diversity it is well to remember that xenophobia is so ingrained in human nature because it is the only thing that gave our society the breathing space to develop to the stage it has reached.

  14. Anonymous says:

    “His proof? That WASP-run, WASP-founded America managed to absorb the European ethnics who swarmed in at the turn of the 20th century. This lesson in happy history ignores blacks and Indians, who have been here a lot longer than the white ethnics but are still not absorbed. Prof. Putnam does mention in passing “the possibly more visible distinctiveness of contemporary migrants,” but doesn’t seem to think this will make any difference.”

    The WASP-run, WASP-founded America didnt manage to absorb the European ethnics. The WASPs were replaced in media, academia, finance and eventually the very helms of society by the chosen ones without doing much to defend themselves.

    Those euro ethnics fragmented the white american stock something disastrously. What does an irish-german-greek american have in common with a norwegian-scot-russian american? No common history, no common blood, no common culture (compare the south with the northeast) nothing at all besides a white identity. And that white identity is very very weak.

    This is very visible when you compare american white nationalists with european nationalists, the latter are bound by common blood, common history and a common culture, and on top of that they are all white as well. American whites are much more diverse and atomized than european whites. It doesnt look good.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Poster #14 says,

    Those euro ethnics fragmented the white american stock something disastrously. What does an irish-german-greek american have in common with a norwegian-scot-russian american? No common history, no common blood, no common culture (compare the south with the northeast) nothing at all besides a white identity. And that white identity is very very weak.


    I am a mixture of German, Norwegian and English stock. Are you saying that mixed European Whites have no common blood? I beg to differ. You say we of different “mixed” WHITE blood nationalities are not of the White race? Of course we are.

  16. Tired of Posting says:

    Quite apropos; I forget which NPR (APM?) show it was but, it was about how little we trust … anything, anymore. I wish they’d interviewed someone who laid out the diversity angle.

    War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Diversity is Strength.

    (They leave themselves open with that flavor of slogan.)


    “Either Harvard is not what it used to be”,,, Harvard indeed is certainly not what it used to be < Cornell West, anyone? )