Daily Stormer The Most Censored Publication in History
Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
May 28, 2016
American Renaissance has a great article up by Linda Preston, detailing the events of an anti-racist meeting she attended in Washington, D.C.
The whole thing is well worth your time, but the best part is a quote from the SPLC’s Heidi Beirich:
What we know from sociological research is that when a neighborhood diversifies people retreat to their homes, they hunker down. You have to really take serious positive work in rapidly changing demographic areas, to not result in either social breakdown or other problems. It’s a big issue for the United States. On its own, it’s not gonna happen.
As Preston notes, she is apparently referring to the work of Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam. Putnam used the term “hunkering down” in reference to the deleterious social consequences of ethnic diversity.
In recent years, Putnam has been engaged in a comprehensive study of the relationship between trust within communities and their ethnic diversity. His conclusion based on over 40 cases and 30,000 people within the United States is that, other things being equal, more diversity in a community is associated with less trust both between and within ethnic groups. Although limited to American data, it puts into question both the contact hypothesis and conflict theory in inter-ethnic relations. According to conflict theory, distrust between the ethnic groups will rise with diversity, but not within a group. In contrast, contact theory proposes that distrust will decline as members of different ethnic groups get to know and interact with each other. Putnam describes people of all races, sex, socioeconomic statuses, and ages as “hunkering down,” avoiding engagement with their local community—both among different ethnic groups and within their own ethnic group. Even when controlling for income inequality and crime rates, two factors which conflict theory states should be the prime causal factors in declining inter-ethnic group trust, more diversity is still associated with less communal trust.
Lowered trust in areas with high diversity is also associated with:
- Lower confidence in local government, local leaders and the local news media.
- Lower political efficacy – that is, confidence in one’s 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.
- Higher political advocacy, but lower expectations that it will bring about a desirable result.
- 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.
- Less 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”.
The fact that a key figure in the aggressive movement for forcing diversity down the throats of Americans would admit that all of the known consequences of diversity are negative is incredibly funny. And scary.
There’s only one possible final outcome of diversity. It doesn’t matter how anyone feels about it. It’s a matter of science.
One would have almost hoped that a pro-diversity change agent would be unaware of Putnam’s research into the disastrous consequences of this trend. Or at least claim that the research is invalid for whatever reason.
But no. She is saying “we know this causes society to collapse, so we really have to force it if we want to make it happen.”
If we know something is negative, why would we want to force it on the people?
Why is this never explained or even discussed?
What is the purpose of diversity?
Diversity in Action: The Islamic Colony of Calais, France
Ostensibly, the goal of diversity is to alleviate third world poverty, something which White people are collectively blamed for. However, even if we accept that Whites are responsible for third world poverty and are thus morally obligated to pay for the lives of all the world’s brown people, there are several glaring problems with the idea that mass immigration is the way to deal with this moral responsibility.
There are 3 billion non-Whites living in poverty in the third world. You couldn’t possibly bring all of these people into White countries.
At the rate we are importing these people now – a rate which is higher than any other point in history – we aren’t even making a dent in their population growth. That is, even with the massive numbers of people we are allowing into our countries, these people are breeding so quickly that the numbers of those living in poverty in the third world are expanding rapidly. It is not physically possible for us to end third world poverty through mass immigration.
Roy Beck of the anti-immigration group Numbers USA explained this situation with gumballs better than I ever could with words.
Clearly, the well-being of poor brown people would be better served through financial aid programs to their countries.
However, then it becomes an issue of managing the distribution of the wealth we are transferring to them, as well as ensuring that it is allocated to infrastructure, education and so on.
Right now, most of the aid money sent to third world is stolen and squandered by the political ruling class in these countries. So you would have to send in White people to oversee these projects.
The perhaps difficult – but nonetheless glaring – conclusion is that if our goal is to help third world non-Whites, the most logical thing would be to reinstate colonialism.
The neo-liberal United Nations system is really just a broken form of colonialism anyway. We are dictating policy to these countries through these various organizations, but the policy simply isn’t carried out or is carried out inefficiently.
They never had it better.
So: if the goal is to allocate White resources into ensuring that brown people are not poor, you can work it all through logically, based on the data. And everyone would come to the same conclusion, which is that colonialism is the best solution.
And yet, this is not discussed. None of it is ever discussed. It is just “yes, diversity is destroying you, and it isn’t doing anything to alleviate third world poverty, but you have to have it or we will call you mean names.”
As such, one can only come to the conclusion that the goal of diversity has nothing to do with helping brown people. The goal is to destroy White societies, and ultimately to exterminate the White race.
If we are honest with ourselves, and honest with the data, there is no other conclusion we can come to.
