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, gentlemen.

Good morning, lad.

Or, evening.

As applicable. 😀

How is everyone doing?

Great. Having a ball. You?

Doing just fine.

Read and be mad tbh.

lol

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!

Yeah it was kind of a nothing burger argument.

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

@HonorVirtutisPraemium What was that debate about, regarding Greek population

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.

It's obvious

Not only is selection for weakness combined with servility emphasized, but strong and autonomous carry an increasing burden

As for ancient Greeks, I certainly believe, unlike 99% of racial anthropologists (well, every true anthropology is raciaL) that ancient greek statues WERE NOT the accurate representation of overall greek populace

Even though they were certainly inspired by individuals of such constitution who lived among greeks

The busts of real personalities in Greece, like Aristotle or Plato, show persons with less emphasized nordic characteristics

While in Rome, a more realistic, mixed appearances are shown

Sulla with a more northern appearance, Trajan with less northern appearance etc

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.

I believe from today's nationalist perspective (levelling of population according to linguistic/political loyalties) that people don't really understand the old Hellenic spirit

Yes, Hellenes too, identified themselves according to language, but no ONLY language

Otherwise they would not consider Macedons to be foreigners

To Spartans for example, mere demagogy meant little

For example, today's Italy can consider Rome it's predecessor, but that is quite conditional - Rome is something to look up to, not something to consider your "national" heritage per se, since every nation is made up from multiple social layers

If you don't uphold values or spirit of Rome, then in what can one find your "allegiance" to Rome? You mere bourgeoisie fascination with Roman art, or intrigues?

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.

No civilization resurfaces in same way or same time

The torch is always carried by the other, which takes the path of emergence, strenghtening