Diversity + Proximity = War update (the hits (to the Narrative) just keep on coming!): Cities in the predominately White hold-out of the Midwest have the highest social capital scores. Diverse cities the lowest.
While entertainment, climate and recreation are no doubt important considerations for many people, there are many other location-related factors that influence quality of life. Social capital, for example, is rarely factored into the various indexes that rank and rate cities according to their quality of life.
As the World Bank defines it, “social capital refers to the institutions, relationships, and norms that shape the quality and quantity of a society’s social interactions.” In other words, social capital looks at community relationships and social cohesion. People living in places with high levels of social capital are likely to feel more connected to their local community and less isolated from their surroundings, while the opposite is true in places with low levels of social capital.
Generally, people build social capital through their participation in organizations and institutions. Examples may include attending religious services, volunteering at a special interest organization, joining a sports league or any other activity in which people can build a common bond or share a common goal. Social capital, therefore, is not necessarily a reflection of “quality of life” as many city planners understand the concept. While a community may have a high number of nice cafes and art galleries, they do not necessarily improve an individual’s quality of life if he or she holds no personal or emotional attachment to them.
Richard Florida BTFO.
According this index, the places with the highest social capital scores are mostly Midwestern cities where “quality of life” scores based on nightlife and natural amenities are lowest. These cities mostly have small, relatively homogenous populations. By contrast, many of the smaller, ethnically diverse cities in Texas, Arizona and California, as well as many cities in the smaller cities in the Southeast are at the bottom of the list in terms of social capital. Joining them near the bottom are large auto-dependent cities like Phoenix, Las Vegas, Los Angeles and Houston.
Diversity is our lonesomeness. Homogeneity is our tight communal bonds. But, hey, you can get a Korean taco in your favorite Diversitopia to eat your despair!
No one but a virtue sniveling White liberal would be surprised (or pretend to be surprised) to learn that ethnic and racial homogeneity — that is, genetic closeness — buttresses stronger, healthier communities because people feel more at ease with those who are similar to themselves. Diversity isn’t a strength at all, unless you’re a globosouled bugman whose religion is your Faceborg quest for Likes and whose patron saint is your iPhag.
The article notes that for those who want to strike a balance between consumerist amenities, natural beauty, and social connectedness, the Pacific Northwest is the place for you.
In addition, small- and medium-sized cities in the Pacific Northwest and the Intermountain West offer a good balance between social capital and quality of life concerns. These cities have both the physical and social infrastructure to help people enjoy their community while also building the sort of emotional attachment required for long-term civic health.
Unfortunately, the PNW is also loaded down with the worst shitlib Whites in the country, a veritable outpost of soylandia uptalkers and bluehair fatties. You have to get away from the coast before people start resembling normal, sexually dimorphic humans again.
PS I’ve added this research to the Diversity + Proximity = War Reference List on the front page of the blog, bringing the total number of linked, lib-triggering studies to forty-three.