'Allo, lads.

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-1-4939-1705-1_12

(2015) Rutherford et al. analyse the geography of ethnic violence.

They state: "We model cultural differentiation as a separation of groups whose members prefer similar neighbors with a characteristic group size at which violence occurs. Application of this model to the area of the former Yugoslavia and to India accurately predicts the locations of reported conflict."

Ethnic, linguistic, religious, and other cultural differences can only be solved by separation. Mixing them into an area created conflict.

Oftentimes deniers of the deleterious effects of diversity will point to the long-standing and very likely to continue-standing nation of Switzerland. Contrary to the idea that Switzerland is an exemplar for multiculturalism, the argument falls apart under scrutiny because; A) Switzerland is still largely racially continuous, and; B) Switzerland has rigid ethno-linguistic and cultural boundaries internally due, in large part, to conflicts arising from diversity (see: Neuchâtel Crisis).

The authors even analysed this and found that: "Switzerland is recognized as a country of peace, stability, and prosperity. This is surprising because of its linguistic and religious diversity that in other parts of the world lead to conflict and violence. Here we analyze how peaceful stability is maintained. Our analysis shows that peace does not depend on integrated coexistence, but rather on well-defined topographical and political boundaries separating linguistic and religious groups, respectively. In exactly one region, a porous mountain range does not adequately separate linguistic groups and violent conflict has led to the recent creation of the canton of Jura."

And finally the authors state that "Our analysis supports the hypothesis that violence between groups can be inhibited by both physical and political boundaries. A similar analysis of the area of the former Yugoslavia shows that during widespread ethnic violence existing political boundaries did not coincide with the boundaries of distinct groups, but peace prevailed in specific areas where they did coincide."

The old adage rings true: "Good fences make good neighbours."

Hello, laddies.

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/3/4/435

(2007) Dudley & File display kin recognition in an annual plant.

They state: "Kin recognition is important in animal social systems. However, though plants often compete with kin, there has been as yet no direct evidence that plants recognize kin in competitive interactions. Here we show in the annual plant Cakile edentula, allocation to roots increased when groups of strangers shared a common pot, but not when groups of siblings shared a pot. Our results demonstrate that plants can discriminate kin in competitive interactions and indicate that the root interactions may provide the cue for kin recognition. Because greater root allocation is argued to increase below-ground competitive ability, the results are consistent with kin selection."

Thus, when foreign plants are in the same pot they are likely to compete with one another whereas related plants are less likely to compete and more likely to attempt what amounts to sharing the pot.

Plants are fucking sexist racist homophobes

Reminder that African-Americans don't cluster with Africans on PCAs.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2003.00850.x/abstract

(2003) Wickrama & Bryant analyze the community context of social resources and adolescent mental health.

They find that higher ethnic heterogeneity is associated with a greater risk of depression.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953606003510

(2006) Matheson et al. analyze the relationships between urban neighbourhoods, chronic stress, gender, and depression.

They find that higher ethnic heterogeneity is associated with greater depression and stress.

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/632/

(2003) Neumayer finds that higher ethnic heterogeneity in a country is associated with a higher frequency of suicides.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1070496509355274

(2009) Das Cassandra & Di Rienzo find that higher ethnic diversity is associated with worsening environmental performance, greater pollution.

http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/pramprapa/25598.htm

(2010) Dronkers finds that ethnic diversity is associated with decreases in PISA scores.

https://ideas.repec.org/p/hhs/gunwpe/0386.html

(2010) Ahlerup shows that higher ethnic diversity results in increased corruption, reduced growth, reduced economic development, worsened provisioning of public goods, and reduced income levels.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268106000941

(2005) Lassen shows that higher ethnic diversity is associated with a larger informal, underground, hidden ("black market") economy.

http://econpapers.repec.org/article/saepubfin/v_3a38_3ay_3a2010_3ai_3a2_3ap_3a146-177.htm

(2010) Li shows that higher ethnic diversity is associated with less tax morale, i.e., a reduced likelihood or motivation to pay taxes.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/01924036.2007.9678758

(2011) Altheimer shows that higher levels of ethnic heterogeneity are associated with greater homicide rates.

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0306624X11414813

(2011) Chon shows that while income inequality is not related to national homicide rates, but it is related to ethnic heterogeneity which is highly related to national homicide rates.

https://ecpr.eu/Events/PaperDetails.aspx?PaperID=12451&EventID=52

(2007) Newton discusses what he calls "The New Liberal Dilemma" of social trust in heterogeneous or otherwise mixed societies.

Newton states that this dilemma arises from the preponderance of evidence regarding heterogeneity indicating that ethnically, linguistically, religiously, or otherwise culturally mixed societies tend to be characterised by a wide range of social, economic, and political disadvantages and ails.

In the face of the overwhelming evidence against societal diversity, Liberals must choose whether they want a strong society that deviates from their egalitarian values or a fractured and dying one that - at the least - doesn't offend anyone too much.

Some of this evidence is presented below:

(Easterly & Levine, 1998; Knack & Keefer, 1997; Alesina et al., 2003) show that heterogeneous societies have poorer economic performance.

(Goldin & Katz, 1999; Alesina, Baqir & Easterly, 1999; Alesina & Glaeser, 2004; Benerjee, Iyer & Somanathan, 2005) show that heterogeneous societies spend less on public goods and (Mauro, 1995; La Porta et al., 1998) show that they deliver these goods less efficiently, less fairly, and to a lower standing.

(Easterly, 2000; Svennson, 1998; Alesina, Baqir & Easterly, 1999; Annett, 1999) show that heterogeneous societies are more corrupt and have larger black markets.

(Hero & Tolbert, 1996; Plotnick & Winters, 1985; Lind, 2003; Luttmer, 2001) show that heterogeneous societies have more uneven wealth distributions.

(Alesina, Baqir & Hoxby, 2004) show that heterogeneous societies are less likely to benefit from economies of scale.

(Mauro, 1995; Annett, 1999) show that diverse societies are less politically stable.

(Adelman & Morris, 1967) show that nation and state building is more difficult in diverse societies.

(Paxton, 2002: 266) shows that diverse societies tend to be less capable of democracy.

(Leigh, 2006a, 2006b; Eisenberg, 2006; Coffe & Geys, 2006; Glaeser et al., 2000; Helliwell, 1996; Knack & Keefer, 1997; Putnam, 2003; Alesina & La Ferarra, 1999; Zak & Knack, 2001; La Porta et al., 1997; Hero, 1998, 2003; Costa & Kahn, 2003) all show that mixed societies have reduced levels of social trust, civic cooperation, and social capital.

(Alesina & La Ferrarra, 1999; Costa & Kahn, 2003a, 2003b; Lassen, 2003) show that heterogeneous societies have lower rates of volunteering and participation in voluntary associations.

(Rice & Sumberg, 1997) show that heterogeneous societies have lower levels of civic culture and cultural development. Cultural homogeneity is also stayed by heterogeneity.

With all of this in mind, and no ostensible benefits to diversity, it cannot be said that a position of endorsement is tenable without resorting sheerly to ideology or an argument to faith in egalitarianism in lieu of data.

Good morning, lad.

Or, evening.

How is everyone doing?

Doing just fine.

Read and be mad tbh.

One of the funnier parts is that he knows of dysgenics and acknowledges it for other countries but *not* Greece. He said Greece was dumber due to leading less but when the news showed they read more than previous generations he just denied the news was right.

wew Greece!

http://www.pnas.org/content/113/28/7774.short

(2016) Beauchamp finds evidence for contemporary genetic selection in the United States.

The majority of this natural selection is negative: IQ is decreasing, health is worsening, diseases are becoming more pronounced and pervasive, stature is falling, menarche is ocurring earlier, and predispositions to obesity are growing.

RIP

That it has undergone selection just as every other population.

I was saying that there is not perfect continuity between the ancient and modern Greeks because of a variety of mechanisms including genetic drift, population admixture, fertility differentials (included in g-drift), mutation, copy-number variation, and more. There's no possibility that they're the same or - at that - better.

The outright denial of any sort of genetic shift in Greece over time is outrageous. I can't stand typical Greek nationalists for this reason. This person I was """debating""" earlier refused to acknowledge the validity of sources and similarly refused to supply rebuttals, instead stating that I didn't know anything, used strawmen, or used ad hominem even when I didn't. It was too much, too ignorant!

It's almost laughable how they fucked up.

Agreed. It is absolutely fine to consider themselves admirers of antiquity, but the moment they begin to identify as the descendants and necessary posterity of those times they begin to break down their legitimacy. At that point where they assume the *racial* mantles of age-old empires they've lost it.

We have so much evidence for population admixture, selection, dysgenics, mutation, and so on that they're just deluding themselves and wasting everyone's times.

That whole region is degenerated.

She's the reason

Nazi was a term made by a kike journalist and then Goebbels decided to appropriate it on his own in the Nazi-Sozi

Konrad Heiden

He was a Jew.

"Nazi," was already in used prior to Hitler as an insulting term based on Igna(tius) or silly and stupid Italians that acted like peasants.

Sozi was a mocking term for socialists.

Hitler didn't fix Keynesianism. For one, the plans preempted Keynes whereupon Keynes remarked on them in his *General Theory*.

The immense debt taken on by the National Socialist state was overbearing to the point where it would have been eventually forced to take drastic action, and very well may have been. Look up their system of promissory notes -MEFO bills - and see how such a system would necessitate failure unless met with miracle.

And: they were not "Socialists," in the literal sense. The name "National Socialist" was a suggestion from Rudolf Jung, whom also wrote the goals and ideas of National Socialism in his *Der Nazionale Sozialismus* some years earlier. Hitler wished to call the party the Revolution Party or somesuch.

They were more akin to Fascists, but at the same time not explicitly so. A good source on this is Evola's "Notes on the Third Reich."

Everyone here types in such an odd manner.

Hohenzollerns believed in eugenics, so there's an obvious point for them.

What were they to do? Not honour an alliance? They did not know of the existence of enemy alliances.

The secret alliance system was responsible for their downfall in the war, but their inevitable downfall really came at the hands of the Jews in our revolution.

Nearly every leader that moved us to the Republican regime was a Jew.

The redistribution of income through make-work programs at a minimum.

The difference from socialism being that ends were not acquired by happenstance according to illusory circumstance but instead through means, means of work.

The Nazis picked Socialism as part of their name at the behest of Rudolf Jung, who knew it to be of propagandist use in attracting voters among other things.

Taking control of the economic life was not intended to enrich the people, it was intended to subjugate them to the state after which point they could be re-modeled into a blooded-ideal.

National Socialism is only 'Socialism' in the Austrian sense.

The idea was never to empower the workers.

The goal was to take their livelihoods - their work and the only form of life in Liberalism - and use that as a means to reform them into whatever was pleased.

If Liberalism has made the economic all that matters in life then subjugating the economic allows you to put life under your control.

National Socialism/Fascism, I'm saying.

I am not discussing Socialism.

Facsism is not Socialism 😐

Mate.

It's really not.

There are huge differences.

You're under the fallacy they viewed Liberals under: all things are economic.

Very few? Are you serious?

Define that or at least justify it.

This does not justify your statement and it again falls into the economics-only trap.

What same shit?

What collapse?

Did *any* Fascist economy collapse, or did the state itself?

Mate, you are not justifying your points.

You said Communism and Fascism have very few differences. How?

And, I oblige you to not act a Liberal in defining your reasoning.

@-A The end goal was the creation of the Organic, not the Totalitarian. National Socialism was a scheme to remodel the nation, not a goal in and of itself.

Again, I oblige reading more.

....

Oh, really? The goal of Communism was to create an Organic state a la idealised-Rome?

Well! I wonder why Marx never wrote that.

I wonder why Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, and numerous others never wrote as much either.

@-A They did not use Socialist mechanisms unless you are using the Austrian definition of Socialism (cf. Hayek; Mises; Friedman; Rothbard)

@Death Strike's Bat Hence what I said.

Unfalsifiable claims.

I am saying that Socialism differs from the solely economic and degenerate definitions of the Austrian school.

Relegating life to the economic sphere is a result of degeneration.

What? @-A

Society is far more than the economic.

Saying "tell that to Diocletian," because it was an issue doesn't mean anything.

@Death Strike's Bat And what do you think Lebensraum was based on?

It was not economic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_theory_of_the_state

You, lad, are not.

@The Enlightened Shepherd post it then

@Death Strike's Bat Ideology is not always economic. How is this difficult to comprehend?

@Death Strike's Bat >life is economic

Who let the enlightenment man in here?

Aristocrats coalesce around states.

"L'etat c'est moi."

Ha

Yes. It is the King's Second Body.

This is widely understood in political theory. Obviously one person is not a government.

loooool

What an argument :^)

Oh, you think one person will be a government for a state :^)?

Much more, a nation, mayhaps?

It has been done, eh?