Should the GREAT RESET be a simple amicable divorce?

[SHARK]

Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.

And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Dance, Monkey, Dance!

More leftist tactics from a jello-filled moron. SHARK is such a monster!!!!

I'm a patriot, and stand against Marxism. All true Americans should oppose Marxism, and Marxists.

I have been a member here on these boards for years now. Everyone that knows me--that isn't a Leftist shill like you--knows that you are lying and mischaracterizing me entirely. Now you are accusing me of that dreaded "HU-WHITE SUPREMACIES!"

YOU, HappyDaze, are a fucking CARTOON. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[HappyDaze]

Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.

And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Dance, Monkey, Dance!

More leftist tactics from a jello-filled moron. SHARK is such a monster!!!!

I'm a patriot, and stand against Marxism. All true Americans should oppose Marxism, and Marxists.

I have been a member here on these boards for years now. Everyone that knows me--that isn't a Leftist shill like you--knows that you are lying and mischaracterizing me entirely. Now you are accusing me of that dreaded "HU-WHITE SUPREMACIES!"

YOU, HappyDaze, are a fucking CARTOON. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Keep telling yourself that, fool. You're the one drinking the jello, and it's a flavor most people would find rather disgusting. I'm so happy more and more people here can see you for the monster you are. You can't even keep your "truths" straight anymore. Pathetic boy.

[SHARK]

Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.

And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

Greetings!

Really, HappyDaze? Are you such a disingenuous, petty fucking moron?

I certainly did not "reveal my true longing" jackass, I simply described how much of America viewed the Native, tribal populations at the time of the Westward Expansion period in America, from the 1700's through the 19th century. That is a historical fact. My describing such and relating that historical fact does not make me "disgusting" in any way, let alone "reveal" anything. It figures though that a Leftist, jello-filled moron like you would hate historical facts and truth and seek to demonize me for simply discussing historical facts.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

Greetings!

*LAUGHING* Dance, Monkey, Dance!

More leftist tactics from a jello-filled moron. SHARK is such a monster!!!!

I'm a patriot, and stand against Marxism. All true Americans should oppose Marxism, and Marxists.

I have been a member here on these boards for years now. Everyone that knows me--that isn't a Leftist shill like you--knows that you are lying and mischaracterizing me entirely. Now you are accusing me of that dreaded "HU-WHITE SUPREMACIES!"

YOU, HappyDaze, are a fucking CARTOON. *Laughing*

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Keep telling yourself that, fool. You're the one drinking the jello, and it's a flavor most people would find rather disgusting. I'm so happy more and more people here can see you for the monster you are. You can't even keep your "truths" straight anymore. Pathetic boy.

Greetings!

Nah, I'll let you suck down the delusional, Marxist jello, HappyDaze. I, on the other hand, choose to drink Patriot flavoured coffee. I keep all of my truths straight. And well, I have lots of friends here. There is only a few people, like you, that somehow think I'm a monster. That's ok, though. I am a Conservative, patriotic American, a veteran, and a Christian. You can think I am a monster all you want. Too fucking bad. I make no apologies. It certainly isn't the first time that weak-minded, shrill, jello-filled Marxist bitches like you have called me a monster. You will have to get in line behind the other Libtards, Marxists, feminists, anti-gun nuts, God-hating fucktards and evil, globalist tyrants and race-baiting demagogues.

REEEE!!!

Such an evil MONSTER!!!!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[moonsweeper]

SHARK wants to go back to when the white, Christian Americans were united in exterminating the natives, enslaving the blacks, persecuting the gays, and pretty much doing those parts of our history that we now accept as being shameful. But as long as he can claim everyone else is a Marxist, he can try to pretend to be the good guy and the fools here will support his extremism.

The fact that you think there was a time when the white, Christian Americans were 'united' in pursuing those agendas shows your ignorance of actual history...

[jhkim]

SHARK - I don't want to assume anything about your intent. I did ask earlier, and your answer wasn't clear to me.

deathknight4044 complained that the U.S. was no longer unified in demographics, religion, or morals -- hence there should be a "divorce" as implied in the title. You said that the U.S. has always been unified as white and Christian, and still is. But what does that mean for what you want done about non-white and/or non-Christian Americans?

I didn't bring up this stuff about demographics and religion -- that was you and deathknight4044. So how is whiteness and Christianity relevant?

[deathknight4044]

SHARK - I don't want to assume anything about your intent. I did ask earlier, and your answer wasn't clear to me.

deathknight4044 complained that the U.S. was no longer unified in demographics, religion, or morals -- hence there should be a "divorce" as implied in the title. You said that the U.S. has always been unified as white and Christian, and still is. But what does that mean for what you want done about non-white and/or non-Christian Americans?

I didn't bring up this stuff about demographics and religion -- that was you and deathknight4044. So how is whiteness and Christianity relevant?

If you're asking why a homogeneous country is generally socially stronger and more unified than a multicultural one there is a plethora of data that shows this isn't a matter of opinion. I see this whole conversation akin to Japan going through 60 years of mass immigration from south east asia and then forbidding Japanese people from speaking out about the social dysfunction that follows, under the threat of being called xenophobic. I simply do not believe people are replaceable like that, and dont hold these things to be taboo in talking about demographic shift.

[deathknight4044]

Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.

And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

That's quite an assumption. Maybe hes simply talking about America's general viewpoint towards the natives sometime after the Jamestown massacre.

[deathknight4044]

The nation will be minority white in about 15 years or so.

Yes and it will look like brazil because people are not replaceable. This is already true in expanding portions of the country.

[SHARK]

SHARK - I don't want to assume anything about your intent. I did ask earlier, and your answer wasn't clear to me.

deathknight4044 complained that the U.S. was no longer unified in demographics, religion, or morals -- hence there should be a "divorce" as implied in the title. You said that the U.S. has always been unified as white and Christian, and still is. But what does that mean for what you want done about non-white and/or non-Christian Americans?

I didn't bring up this stuff about demographics and religion -- that was you and deathknight4044. So how is whiteness and Christianity relevant?

Greetings!

Well, I simply clarified that historically, America has been founded by white Europeans, and has been unified as a Christian nation, and has also generally embraced a common cultural base of moral principles, and Western Civilization in general. America was, and remains, a majority white European nation as to demographics, and is also a Christian nation. These things are true, in the same ways that Saudi Arabia is founded by Arabians, and is a Muslim country in religion, or like India is unified with a demographic majority of Indians, who embrace Hinduism as their national religion.

I simply disagreed with your initial assertion that America has never been unified demographically, religiously, or holding onto common moral principles.

As for currently, well, non-Christian religions have increased in their influence throughout America, much more so than in the past, though the majority of Americans remain Christians still. Politically, and ideologically, in particular, have created a new and growing division throughout America. The Marxist indoctrination and influence has poisoned so many Americans that have then become poisoned and corrosive against the larger, traditional America. This schism has grown to encompass a different and hostile culture that is in opposition to traditional, loyal, patriotic America.

So, now, yeah, we are divided, and increasingly so, as the streams of politics and ideology saturate and brainwash people to hate America, and urges them to embrace Marxism and globalism. This influence is corrosive and poisonous to the rest of traditional America, and is simply incompatible with traditional America. Hence, we are increasingly seeing flashpoints of growing resistance  against Marxists and traitors throughout this country. Leftists entire world view, on so many issues, is diametrically opposite of what the rest of America wants and is committed to. Traditional, patriotic Americans want to preserve our Constitution, preserve our Republic, and preserve our freedoms and our ancient heritage. The Marxists want to destroy America, and make everyone bow down to their globalist, Marxist tyranny. So, yeah, we are definitely going to have conflict. The problems are partially political, but the deeper issue transcends politics. It is about how people experience and preserve culture, identity, and freedom. There are patriotic Americans that love America and want to preserve our freedoms and our heritage, and there are brainwashed traitors that want to burn the country down and subjugate America to globalist Marxism, and enforce changes culturally, economically, socially, and politically, to remake America into a nation of disarmed, helpless, jello-filled sheep that quietly submit to tyranny and conform to their Marxist, Leftist Utopia.

Thus, there is severe division now. It is like a previously strong house that has been invaded in the basement with nests of filthy, diseased rats that whisper and conspire together, and chew, eating away at the foundations of the Republic, and seek to bring chaos, and soul-crushing tyranny to the whole nation.

As for non-white Americans, or non-Christians? What *I* want done about them? I didn't say I wanted anything *done about them*. They are not the problem, facing America, per se. Americans of any colour are fine. I think that the nation needs to maintain a strong immigration policy to protect and preserve the culture and way of life that America enjoys, and is our heritage. Just like preserving Western Civilization, yes, Christianity is of primary importance. I don't have anything against people of non-Christian religions, as a minority, but this nation's greatness and freedom is predicated on our strong Christian religion and customs. It would certainly not be America if we became a dominant Buddhist country or Muslim country, for example. None the less, other religions and various races are not the threat to America. The poisonous ideology of Marxist Leftism and globalism is the genuine threat and problem to the continued survival of America as a free and prosperous Republic. America needs to preserve our culture, our history, and our Republic.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[SHARK]

Back then, Natives were not viewed as *citizens*--but as alien, hostile, Pagan savages. Within American society, Americans were generally quite united in purpose in how the Native tribes must be dealt with.

And there SHARK reveals his true longing--to get back to a white America that is unified in declaring outside groups as the other and ruthlessly oppressing or destroying them. Because that's what he sees as the American way. Disgusting.

That's quite an assumption. Maybe hes simply talking about America's general viewpoint towards the natives sometime after the Jamestown massacre.

Greetings!

Hey there, Deathknight! Yes, exactly. Somehow though, relating actual historical attitudes held by America in general at the time...is so terrible and disgusting by me? *laughing*

Geesus, don't ever read a history book, you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[jhkim]

Even as recently as 1990 around half of Americans had ancestry of the founding stock. Studies show that homogeneous societies have more public participation, less crime, civil war, and more stability*.
*http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608

If you're asking why a homogeneous country is generally socially stronger and more unified than a multicultural one there is a plethora of data that shows this isn't a matter of opinion. I see this whole conversation akin to Japan going through 60 years of mass immigration from south east asia and then forbidding Japanese people from speaking out about the social dysfunction that follows, under the threat of being called xenophobic. I simply do not believe people are replaceable like that, and dont hold these things to be taboo in talking about demographic shift.

Your link is broken, but I've seen some studies like this before. The problem is that you can't just compare countries by averages like this -- because there are no controlled conditions in the world, and correlation isn't causation. The most ethnically divided countries are in Africa, with colonially-based national boundaries. But the trends within Africa don't necessarily apply in the same way to other countries. Conversely, the most ethnically homogenous countries are Korea and Japan - but again, what works there doesn't necessarily apply to other countries.

And even if you could compare countries objectively like this -- would you really advocate that we just go with whatever the more successful countries do? Would you advocate for parliamentary government, or universal healthcare, if they were shown to correlate to more successful countries, for example?

The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

So what does this mean?

1) The period of 1860 to 1920 was a long and sustained period of history that saw the U.S. grow into a world superpower. It's not clear to me that the period was any less successful or less American than any other period in U.S. history.

2) Mass immigration and changing demographics has been a key part of U.S. history. I accept that you are arguing that lower immigration is better, but what I don't accept is that immigration is un-American or cheating.

3) The primary ethnic conflict within the U.S. isn't with immigrants - it's between the two founding ethnicities, namely African-Americans and whites.

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Immigration policy in America needs to be returned to what it was in the 1960's, where we had strict quotas for different countries from around the world, establishing the particular numbers of such immigrants that could be permitted to immigrate into America within each year's quota.

That way we ensure our demographics are preserved and protected, and allows immigrant populations that are very different in culture from America sufficient time to be adequately acculturated within the American culture.

As for ethnic conflict between Africans and Whites in America, well, I'm not convinced that a majority of African Americans are racist against White Americans, and are committed to rebellion and racial conflict and animosity. I think that there is a minority of African Americans that are racist and brainwashed by Marxism and indoctrinated by self-loathing, White Marxists that seek to promote racial strife and division, to better escalate their own accession to power, as they view themselves as the properly educated, frosting elite that is entitled to lead the unwashed masses into the new Marxist Utopia.

Oh, and America was *founded* by White Europeans. Black Africans were brought over years later. The American Colonies were already established, in which for Africans to be brought here. That is the facts. Later on, you have Black Africans, as well as Native American Indians, and out west, you actually had Hispanics that established much of the scattered societies. While not part of the actual foundational period of the American Colonies, Asians certainly also contributed to building the country beginning in the 19th century, especially contributing to the West Coast, the railroads, and society in general, west of the Mississippi River.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[deathknight4044]

Your link is broken, but I've seen some studies like this before. The problem is that you can't just compare countries by averages like this -- because there are no controlled conditions in the world, and correlation isn't causation. The most ethnically divided countries are in Africa, with colonially-based national boundaries. But the trends within Africa don't necessarily apply in the same way to other countries. Conversely, the most ethnically homogenous countries are Korea and Japan - but again, what works there doesn't necessarily apply to other countries.

For the sake of clarity here

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Etc etc.

You can say it's not apples to apples because trends can vary between nations but I believe that's wishful thinking in the face of what study after study says on the matter.

And even if you could compare countries objectively like this -- would you really advocate that we just go with whatever the more successful countries do? Would you advocate for parliamentary government, or universal healthcare, if they were shown to correlate to more successful countries, for example?

Sure. I'm a paleocon not a neocon. I will say these systems with large social safety nets are wonderful when they work but will crash and burn faster when flooded with mass amounts of people who dont pay into the system. Sweden is going to look real interesting in 25 years, and not in a good way.

The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

The immigrants you're describing are under the umbrella of "free white men of good moral character" and are perfectly in line with the founding fathers vision for the nation though. This isn't some radical change, as the nation was enshrined to Europeans and not just WASPs.

1) The period of 1860 to 1920 was a long and sustained period of history that saw the U.S. grow into a world superpower. It's not clear to me that the period was any less successful or less American than any other period in U.S. history.

Yeah and then in 1924 a quota system was implemented as to not change the nations demographics. 2% of the total number of people from each nationality on the 1890 census were permitted, and this was done for a reason. This was obviously important to people.

2) Mass immigration and changing demographics has been a key part of U.S. history. I accept that you are arguing that lower immigration is better, but what I don't accept is that immigration is un-American or cheating.

If you asked your average american in 1960 "is America a white nation" we both know almost everyone would say yes. America was created a pan European project that vetted for European immigrants throughout its history, up until the 1965 hart celler act where the flood gates were opened. This is a change that is undeniable.

3) The primary ethnic conflict within the U.S. isn't with immigrants - it's between the two founding ethnicities, namely African-Americans and whites

.

Agreed. Its been 400 years and we still have seperate and in some ways polar opposite cultures with no real hope of assimilating or moving beyond the conflict. A post racial society isnt possible of even desired at this point, as tribalism is big and here to stay. Why would adding in more ethnic groups, of which some are in conflict with one another, and then expect to see a more cohesive nation?

The radical demographic shift isnt good for black americans either. Why should they have to compete with unlimited cheap labor from south america in construction fields or unlimited mass immigration from india in the tech fields in order to get ahead? I think a nation should care for it's own people first and foremost, and not sell them out for unlimited labor from foreign countries.

[SHARK]

Your link is broken, but I've seen some studies like this before. The problem is that you can't just compare countries by averages like this -- because there are no controlled conditions in the world, and correlation isn't causation. The most ethnically divided countries are in Africa, with colonially-based national boundaries. But the trends within Africa don't necessarily apply in the same way to other countries. Conversely, the most ethnically homogenous countries are Korea and Japan - but again, what works there doesn't necessarily apply to other countries.

For the sake of clarity here

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Etc etc.

You can say it's not apples to apples because trends can vary between nations but I believe that's wishful thinking in the face of what study after study says on the matter.

And even if you could compare countries objectively like this -- would you really advocate that we just go with whatever the more successful countries do? Would you advocate for parliamentary government, or universal healthcare, if they were shown to correlate to more successful countries, for example?

Sure. I'm a paleocon not a neocon. I will say these systems with large social safety nets are wonderful when they work but will crash and burn faster when flooded with mass amounts of people who dont pay into the system. Sweden is going to look real interesting in 25 years, and not in a good way.

The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

The immigrants you're describing are under the umbrella of "free white men of good moral character" and are perfectly in line with the founding fathers vision for the nation though. This isn't some radical change, as the nation was enshrined to Europeans and not just WASPs.

1) The period of 1860 to 1920 was a long and sustained period of history that saw the U.S. grow into a world superpower. It's not clear to me that the period was any less successful or less American than any other period in U.S. history.

Yeah and then in 1924 a quota system was implemented as to not change the nations demographics. 2% of the total number of people from each nationality on the 1890 census were permitted, and this was done for a reason. This was obviously important to people.

2) Mass immigration and changing demographics has been a key part of U.S. history. I accept that you are arguing that lower immigration is better, but what I don't accept is that immigration is un-American or cheating.

If you asked your average american in 1960 "is America a white nation" we both know almost everyone would say yes. America was created a pan European project that vetted for European immigrants throughout its history, up until the 1965 hart celler act where the flood gates were opened. This is a change that is undeniable.

3) The primary ethnic conflict within the U.S. isn't with immigrants - it's between the two founding ethnicities, namely African-Americans and whites

.

Agreed. Its been 400 years and we still have seperate and in some ways polar opposite cultures with no real hope of assimilating or moving beyond the conflict. A post racial society isnt possible of even desired at this point, as tribalism is big and here to stay. Why would adding in more ethnic groups, of which some are in conflict with one another, and then expect to see a more cohesive nation?

The radical demographic shift isnt good for black americans either. Why should they have to compete with unlimited cheap labor from south america in construction fields or unlimited mass immigration from india in the tech fields in order to get ahead? I think a nation should care for it's own people first and foremost, and not sell them out for unlimited labor from foreign countries.

Greetings!

BOOM! *laughing* Bring that Paleocon TRUTH, Deathknight!

Excellent commentary, Deathknight.

Racial diversity is like using salt with cooking. A little diversity is always good--too much salt though, and the food is ruined. Distinct societies around the world are no different. You can also see such priniples at work in many nations, many of which restrict and calibrate immigration into their country for the express purpose of maintaining their culture. Japanese people don't want lots of French people immigrating into Japan, because allowing such would change Japan forever, which would cease being a traditional Japan. Likewise, they are cautious on whoever immirates into Japan, whether they are from France, America, Brazil, or likewise from Indonesia, China, or the Philipines. It's a simple policy, and just opening up the gates and letting anyone and everyone flood into the country is fucking stupid and cultural suicide.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[Pat]

For the sake of clarity here

Diversity increases social adversity. Source: http://bjp.rcpsych.org/content/201/4/282.full

Diversity reduces voter registration, political efficacy, charity, and number of friendships. Source: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract

Homogeneous polities have less crime, less civil war, and more altruism. Source: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10464-013-9608-0

Genetic diversity causes societal conflict. Source: https://www.nber.org/papers/w21079

Ethnic diversity causally decreases social cohesion. Source: http://esr.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/08/20/esr.jcv081.full

Etc etc.

That's true, but I'd say the US has been an extraordinary counter-example. The US was primarily founded by English Puritans, but managed to successfully integrate diverse European nationalities, like the Irish, Italians, and so forth. The same is true with the Chinese, and more recently groups like the Koreans, Vietnamese, and Indians. Even former slaves had a century of roaring success, from the end of the Civil War until roughly the 1960s, when gains in things like education and wealth stopped their upward curve, and plateaued.

The key here is "integrate". It's based on the idea of American exceptionalism, tangentially related to concepts like Manifest Destiny and birthright citizenship, and most perfectly expressed as the Melting Pot. The idea that once you're here, you're an American. You can still be proud of your Italian or Vietnamese ancestry, but it's secondary. First and foremost, once you pass through Ellis Island under the shadow of the Statue of Liberty, or throw off your shackles after a horrendous war, you're an American. And it's not just what you are, it's what you strive for. You learn the language, adopt the values, and are proud when your kids seamlessly fit in. You believe in equal opportunity for all, that everyone is equal in status and inalienable rights, that working hard leads to success, in giving others a hand up, in civic duty whether it comes to voting or public service, in freely speaking your mind, and in all the other things that made America the first vibrant democracy in the modern era. You have a visceral revulsion of cheating and corruption. You don't lose your old culture, but you adopt a new one wholeheartedly, and make it part of you; and you in turn become part of it. That ideal is race-blind, and doesn't care whether you're rich or poor, educated or not. It leads to generational success stories, where immigrants work hard, put their kids through school, and they go on to become doctors and lawyers. It's the American Dream.

Sure, it's imperfect as hell and violated as often as it's followed. There was slavery, Jim Crow laws, the Exclusion Act, Tammany Hall, organized crime, the Pinkertons, and more. But it's still a consistent strain, a cultural universal or at least a universal aspiration. An ideal to aim at, and more often than anywhere else, achieve. That is what made America America. The problem is, we're starting to lose that. Instead of celebrating everyone being American and the universals that bind us, we're starting to highlight the differences. That draws barriers between groups, instead of shattering them. Instead of integrating children, inviting them to become Americans by immersing them in the culture, we're starting to insist in teaching them in Spanish or their native tongue, linguistically ghettoizing them. The very words describing the ideas, like the Melting Pot or the American Dream, are being demonized.

The U.S. started out with a mix of English (~80%) and West African (~20%) people. But we kept getting more and more immigrants - and more and more diverse immigrants. We started pulling from Germany, Italy, Ireland, Poland, and other ranges of countries. In the West, we drew more immigrants from China - until that was blocked by the Chinese Exclusion Act (1882). Immigration came to a peak and stayed at fairly steady rates from 1860 to 1920 or so - when about 14% of the U.S. was foreign-born. Immigration then dropped precipitously from 1920 to 1970 - with immigrant population going down to only 5% foreign born. It then started steadily rising again after 1970 to present. Today, we are still below the rates seen from 1860 to 1920 period, but we're coming close with around 13% foreign-born.

The immigrants you're describing are under the umbrella of "free white men of good moral character" and are perfectly in line with the founding fathers vision for the nation though. This isn't some radical change, as the nation was enshrined to Europeans and not just WASPs.

I've been reading de Toqueville's Democracy in America. It's a long, rambly, repetitive, and has a lot of irrelevancies, but it's a good window into how democracy ended up flourishing for the first time since the Roman Republic, in the New World. One thing the wandering Frenchman emphasizes is that the Colonies were rooted not in being white, or even in being English, but specifically in Puritanism. Rigid moral character, civic duty, strong education, and a lack of class differences. Democracy started in the New England town halls, and that was the template for its spread.

This is reinforced in other works. Thomas Sowell, for instance, often brings up how free black Americans who were taught by New England missionaries, whether in isolated pockets in the South or in the Northern cities, were very successful and integrated successfully with the majority white populations after and even during the Civil War. Barriers, both legal and social, were collapsing, until a huge influx of blacks from the Southern states overwhelmed their culture, and racial animus rose again. Those are the "black rednecks" in the title of one his books. Their culture did not come from the English Puritans, and did not share their values, and thus wasn't as successful. A bit of an aside, but Sowell traces that culture back to poor white culture in the South, which in turn came from poor, marginal cultures in Europe. It's not racial, it's culture.

Democracy, especially the American variety, survives and thrives when those values are adopted. Certain cultures are better or more poorly suited; the Irish and Italians, for instance were a rough fit, at least initially. While the Scandinavians that settled much of the Midwest were highly compatible. The same is true for peoples from highly divergent cultural backgrounds -- immigrants from Vietnam, Korean, the Caribbean, Nigeria, and so on have all been exceptionally successful in more recent years. But as long as there was a uniform, shared culture of ideals, even the rougher groups integrate over time. The little signs excluding the Irish have all vanished, for instance. The old ethnic insults aimed at Italians have lost almost all their weight, and are almost never used anymore.