Diversity destroys Society.

According to the mantra of the politicians, the liberals and the Labour Party, diversity is something that is good for society.

According to those that study the actual impact of diversity on society, it is in fact destructive of society and communities.

Now even newspapers like The Telegraph are picking up on this as a reality.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/06/19/nrace119.xml

In the article entitied 'People in Mixed Race Areas feel Isolated ' the article explains the devastating effect that diversity has on traditional communities.

"People in ethnically mixed areas are less trusting of their neighbours and live a more isolated existence, research from a New Labour "guru" has found.

The greater the diversity, the looser the community bonds and the more withdrawn local residents become, says Robert Putnam, an American academic based at Harvard.
Prof Putnam's research shows that people who live in such areas retreat into their shells. They spend more time watching television, volunteer less and take little part in community activity.

"Diversity does not produce bad race relations or ethnically defined group hostility," Prof Putnam says in an article setting out his findings. "Rather, inhabitants of diverse communities tend to withdraw from collective life, to distrust their neighbours regardless of the colour of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more, but have less faith that they can make a difference."

He added: "The impact of diversity is definitely greater among whites, but is visible as well among non-whites."

This is not some radical or even new idea - the pernicious effect of multi-cultural and multi-racial communities on indigenous societies and social cohesion were recognised centuries ago ;

http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/society.html

Sociologically, the first theorist to identify this change was the Arab scholar Ibn Khaldun (1332-1406), who emphasized the tendency for mass urban societies to break down when the social solidarity characteristic of tribal and national societies disappeared. Ibn Khaldun saw dramatically the contrast between the morality of the nationalistic and ethnically unified Berbers of North Africa and the motley collation of peoples who called themselves Arabs under Arabic leadership, but did not possess the unity and sense of identity that had made the relatively small population of true Arabs who had built a widespread and Arabic-speaking Empire.

Later it was Ferdinand Tonnies (1855-1936) who introduced this thought to modern sociology. He did so in his theory of gemeinschaft and gesellschaft (Gemeinschaft und Gesellschaft, 1887). This theory revealed how early tribal or national (gemeinschaft) societies achieved harmonious collaboration and cooperation more or less automatically due to the common culture and sense of common genetic and cultural identity in which all members were raised. This avoided major conflicts concerning basic values since all shared a common set of mores and a common sense of destiny.

However, as history progressed, larger multi-ethnic and multi-cultural societies began to develop, and these Tonnies described as being united by gesellschaft ties. These were not united by any common set of values or historical identity, and collaboration was only maintained due to the need to exchange goods and services. In short, their existence came to depend on economic relations, and as a result of the diversity of cultural values, the lack of any "family feeling," and the emphasis on economic exchange and economic wealth, conflict over wealth and basic values was likely to disrupt the harmony of such societies at any time. In political terms, liberalism developed to eulogize the freedom of individuals from claims to national loyalty and support for national destiny, while Marxism grew out of the dissatisfaction felt by those who were less successful in achieving wealth and power, which now came to represent the primary goals of the individuals who were left at the mercy of the modern mass gesellschaft society. Nationalism and any sense of loyalty to the nation as a distinct ethnic, kinship unit came to be anathematized by both liberals and Marxists.

New Labours ideological guru is Robert Putnam of Harvard University, the man who invented the phrase Social Capital. Yet Robert Putnam has created his own nemesis as a result of his research. A liberal by nature, his research to support the foundation of multi-racial and multi-cultural societies as functional models for liberal societies has in fact revealed the devastating effect that multi-culturalism and multi-racialism have had on traditional communities.

As stated in the following article, (1) " The Harvard Professor was making a point about “social capital”, the commodity he drew to global attention in “Bowling Alone”. In the book, he argued 20th century trends such as working women, the growth of television and urban sprawl meant people were more disconnected from families, friends and civic society than ever before. Instead of church on Sunday or the monthly bridge club, they stayed home or even went bowling - alone.

Now, after several years of further research, Putnam has come up with a more disturbing picture of contemporary American life: the more people of diverse ethnic backgrounds live in a community, the lower the level of trust among the community’s citizens.

This is, as he knows, an extremely contentious finding in a climate of growing concern about immigration in the US. It is potentially more controversial in Europe, which is struggling to cope with Islamic communities that can be actively hostile to Western democracy at their most extreme, and even in more moderate forms often prefer to live apart rather than integrate.

Putnam makes an important distinction between two different types of social capital: Bridging, in which an individual from one religious, ethnic, or class group, does something for someone in another group for an expected return, and bonding, when people who are “like us” – white Irish Catholic police officers, say, or black Alabama Baptist labourers – act in the expectation of a return.

The second kind, says Putnam, can “lead to Bosnia or Beirut” at most, and ever-wider social distance in wealthier societies.

It makes for close and warm relations among the “in” group but can freeze out or even make enemies of those considered “out”.

His diversity research reveals not just that bonding capital is strong and bridging capital weak in ethnically diverse communities, but also that both are weak in such societies: distrust permeates all relationships and people try to “minimise the hits on them from the society around them” by withdrawing into private space, often in front of a television ".

Yet even though Putnams finding destroy the entire liberal ideology which he supports, he then says that in order to solve the paradox at the heart of Liberalism, that traditional societies must surrender their entire culture, language, history, traditions and entire way of life, as he says here (2)

" In an oblique criticism of Jack Straw, leader of the House of Commons, who revealed last week he prefers Muslim women not to wear a full veil, Prof Putnam said: "What we shouldn't do is to say that they [immigrants] should be more like us. We should construct a new us."

This is crypto-Marxist, revolutionary social engineering at its most extreme. It is the start of the journey that Stalin took to the Gulags, the first step on the path that Pol Pot took to the Killing Fields, the highway to hell of Mao to the Lagaoi. It is the same sort of utopian nonsense that led to the crimes of Communism as detailed in the Black Book of Communism.

http://www.amazon.com/Black-Book-Communism-Crimes-Repression/dp/0674076087

The introduction, by editor Stéphane Courtois, maintains that "...Communist regimes...turned mass crime into a full-blown system of government". Using unofficial estimates he cites a death toll which totals 94 million. The breakdown of the number of deaths given by Courtois is as follows: 20 million in the Soviet Union, 65 million in the China, 1 million in Vietnam, 2 million in North Korea, 2 million in Cambodia, 1 million in the Communist states of Eastern Europe, 150,000 in Latin America, 1.7 million in Africa, 1.5 million in Afghanistan and 10,000 deaths "resulting from actions of the international communist movement and communist parties not in power." It explicitly claims that Communist regimes are responsible for a greater number of deaths than any other political ideal or movement, including fascism. The statistics of victims includes executions, intentional destruction of population by starvation, and deaths resulting from deportations, physical confinement, or through forvced labour. It does not include "excess deaths" due to lower or higher than expected mortality or birth rates of the population.

A more detailed history of repressions described in the book includes:

Soviet Union: executions of hostages, prisoners, rebellious workers and peasants from 1918 to 1922; the famine of 1922; the deportation of the Don Cossacks in 1920; the use of the Gulag system in the period between 1918 and 1930; the Great Purge; the deportation of kulaks from 1930 to 1932; the deaths of 4 million Ukrainians (Holodomor) and 2 million others during the famine of 1932 and 1933; the deportations of Poles, Ukrainians, Balts, Moldavians and Bessarabians from 1939 to 1941 and from 1944 to 1945; the deportation of the Volga Germans in 1941; the deportation of the Crimean Tatars on 18 May 1944; the deportation of the Chechens in 1944; the deportation of the Ingush in 1944.
Cambodia: deportation and extermination of the urban population of Cambodia.
China: the destruction of Tibetan culture.

In other words Putnams solution to the crisis in liberalism is to embrace the same revolutionary communist social engineering that led to the communist barbarism of the 20th Century and create a New Model British Society, either that or Britain will end up as Bosnia with its own inevitable civil war.

Putnam states that in order to prevent multi-cultural and multi-racial countries ending up with civil wars then the Importing countries ( Britain in this case that is importing in millions of immigrants ) must surrender the British way of life IN ITS ENTIRETY in order to accomodate the incoming immigrants who will also be expected to surrender their ancestral culture in its entirety.

In other words according to Putnam the end result of Liberalism IS THE DESTRUCTION OF BRITAIN AND THE BRITISH WAY OF LIFE either through civil war or by the deconstruction of British society itself.

As part of Putnams Plan to ensure that multi-racialism and multi-culturalism do not lead to civil war, then the leaders of Multi-Cultural societies must force the indigenous people to surrender their entire culture and heritage and create Politically Correct versions of Britishness that fit into the New Model British Society plan. At the same time all immigrants into the country must also be forced either to surrender their ancestral traditions or embrace Politically Correct versions of their religions and cultures that can fit into the New Model British Society. This is to create a new form of Britishness that is neither British, nor recognisable as anything like Britain. All this in order to satisfy the delusions of Mr.Putnam and the multi-culturalists.

One can now see why Gordon Brown is so keen on creating a new form of Britishness that 'celebrates diversity'.

Add to this the other loopy idea of Mr.Putnam, so beloved of the propagandists of the Liberal Fascists regarding the so called ' benefits of immigration for Britain', that Exporting societies ( The Third World ) benefit from losing their doctors, nurses, engineers, scientists, teachers and their entire intellectual elite to the West in the midst of the present AID's, literacy, disease, war and food crises, then one can see that Putnam really has no moral centre.

He regards the systematic extermination and eradication of the indigenous culture and way of life of Britain ( and the world ) against the express wishes of the British people as a price worth paying to satisfy his own desire to prove himself and his innane theories right. This is Fascism at its most extreme. The fact he is the guru of the New labour Party reveals both the disturbing psychology of those that rule this country, but also their fascist plans for the future of this country.

Multi-Culturalism is, as Putnam says, the path towards a Beirut or a Bosnia in Britain.

The next time that Gordon Brown, or his foppish doppleganger'Call me Dave' Cameron, starts to tell the media that they want to create a new version of Britishness be prepared.

First the Liberals came for the BNP and the so called 'racists' - and you cheered them on.

Then they came for the Nationalists, the Patriots and the Constitutionalists - and you kept silent.

Then they came for anyone who dared protest - and you were taken too.

Dont say you werent warned.


(1) http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10007552.shtml

(2) http://www.ft.com/cms/s/7e668728-5732-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2584c7b6-56ea-11db-9110-0000779e2340.html