Thursday, September 15, 2016

"Diversity" vs Human Development


What was the justification when immigration policy preferences of less than 10% of the electorate dominated 90% of the electorate for decades from the early 1960s to the late 1990s, and even today, dominates with more than 75% opposing increased immigration?



It must have been an overwhelmingly obvious justification for that 10% -- so obvious that the 90% could be discounted as ignorant if not xenophobic rubes, unworthy of anything remotely resembling consent of the governed, normally considered the overriding human right in any significant dispute.  That human right was tossed out the window for some reason.

What was that reason?

The reason most frequently trotted out during this era was that "diversity is our greatest strength" and that the "greatness" attributed to the United States was "diverse" because it was a "nation of immigrants".


OK, that sounds good, but what was the support for this assertion -- support that must have been so overwhelmingly intense and urgent, even if obvious to only an "educated" elite, as to justify throwing out the most fundamental of all human rights for decades in, not just the US, but in all of European derived governments -- in a policy that most believe to cause irreversible changes?

Whatever that support might have been, the most comprehensive academic study of the actual results of that massive violation of human rights supported the opposite conclusion:

For the vast majority of people social capital is their primary form of wealth.  For these people, already deprived of financial capital diversity is also socially impoverishing even though it is financially enriching for the top echelons of society for whom social capital is of little interest.  After all, the wealthy can afford private social goods like private schools, gated communities with guards, etc.  However, this elite will become very interested in social capital when their attack on the foundation of civilization -- implied by massive violation of human rights, not to mention victimization of the less fortunate 90% of society by this violation -- comes home to roost.  This is now happening with the derisively-termed "populist" movements.

The author of that academic study, Robert Putnam of Harvard University,  delayed its publication despite the urgent relevance of his discovery to public policy.  It was urgent as, at that time during the 1990s and 2000s, immigration volume and diversity was undergoing catastrophic increases.  These increases were so great as to alter the electorate hence decrease the majority opposition to immigration increase from more than 90% to between 75% and 80%.  The reason he delayed publication is that he feared it would be "misunderstood" as providing arguments against this massive violation of the primary human right -- violation that required arguments for this massive and irreversible gambit -- a gambit that put civilization itself at risk.  And that is if any amount of theoretic support, no matter how empirically justified, can then justify non-consensual treatment of human subjects.  In all scientific disciplines, apparently except the social sciences, even if a treatment has gone through double-blind control studies to establish safety and efficacy, it is still unethical to subject humans to those treatments without their fully informed consent.

Putnam wanted time to come up with justifications for the "short term" (already decades long) human suffering imposed by "diversity" with its social impoverishment of the vast majority of the electorate.  Ultimately, Putnam offered little beyond the tradition of anecdotal polemics that so-characterized 1960s discourse about "the nation of immigrants" used to radically alter and socially impoverish the electorate in the first place.

The essence of Putnam's polemic was that "in the long term" society would benefit.

OK.

Fine.

So let's look at the long term.

Let's look at the long term, not in terms of anecdotal polemics, but in terms of statistics:  A large number of operationally defined data points comparing "diversity" and "human development" in the world maps (see below), of these.  Superficially, what we see is that in areas with the highest "diversity" we find the lowest "human development".  At the other extreme, such as Scandinavia with its very low "diversity", we see the highest "human development" (Norway was ranked #1 in "human development" by the UN).

But this is a relatively superficial view of these maps.  With a closer reading for what might be called "long term" effects, we see that in the places with the longest history of "diversity", such as sub-Saharan Africa, there is not only the highest "diversity" but the lowest "human development".  Moreover, the apparent exceptions in places like the US and Canada were, until recently, so lacking in "diversity" that the attitudes of men in those prior eras, by today's standards, are considered "white nationalist" if not "white supremacist" or even "Nazi".

Such maps have little effect when reality is twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools but is of great value for the "deplorable" rest of us who demand self-determination.  They help expose the moral, ethical, scientific and political bankruptcy of even the strongest argument yet set forth by those who claim their attack on civilization's foundation -- the consent of the governed -- is justified.

The top map is "human development" measured by the United Nations.
The middle map is "ethnic diversity" measured by the Harvard Institute for Economic Research.
The bottom map is "cultural diversity" measured by the University of Bremen Center for Transnational Studies.

Spin these however you like, massive violation of the most fundamental human right has attacked the foundation of civilization for speculative long term gains for the vast majority, a risk imposed by an elite with a clear conflict of interest in short term centralization of wealth and power by immigration.