Robert Putnam

Ora, thanks to the suggestion of a keen reader, I'll come back to the topic to say: this “idea” has been proven false. Proven false with all the trappings of scientificity by a great sociological study completed by the greatest living political sociologist: Robert Putnam, Harvard luminary (Kennedy School), known as the inventor, so to speak, of the concept of “social capital”: that is, the set of unexpressed shared civic norms, and spontaneously obey, formal and informal fiduciary ties, that allow individuals in a society to “trust each other” – which helps and facilitates, Obviously, economic development.
Putnam's first fundamental work concerns us and our shortcomings very closely: Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, (Making democracy work: civic traditions in modern Italy), where he demonstrates that the prosperity of the regions of Northern Italy depends on their history of associations, guild, shared common goals, reciprocal horizontal ties, which led to greater civic involvement and collective problem solving. While the agrarian society of the South dominated by large estates is less developed - not only in terms of economy, but in terms of democratic liveliness - because it has less "social capital", precisely understood as that "network of norms and civic commitment that induces members of a community to trust each other, to generally count on not being screwed over by your neighbor.

Ethnic diversity leads to closure
Well: his most recent sociological research done on 41 American sites including 30 thousand people, Putnam started it by sharing the progressive utopia “diversity brings enrichment”, and with the aim of confirming it "scientifically".
What he discovered, it's the opposite. That immigration and cultural diversity not only reduce the "social capital" between different ethnic groups, but also within the same “homogeneous” groups: not only do they not trust foreigners of different colors and religions, they no longer even trust their own kind. Consequentially, Trust towards neighbors of one's own color is also reduced, acts of altruism and community cooperation become rarer and so do friendships. From the neighborhoods of Chicago to Los Angeles to peasant South Dakota, must recognize Putnam, “People who live in ethnically diverse environments become withdrawn (hunkerdown) like turtles do” that retract into the carapace. And that's not enough: “They also withdraw from close friends, they also tend to expect the worst from their own community and its leaders, they tend to collaborate less, to do less volunteering"; even, they care less about public goods, like not wasting water or maintaining a garden, or take care of road maintenance, because he thinks that, both, the others waste and don't care; he does not expect that others will spontaneously cooperate in solving the neighborhood's problems.
And it's still not enough: “They register less to vote and vote less, they are more agitated to "change society" but with less confidence that they can really change things, and they end up agglomerating, unhappy, in front of the TV".
Remember something?

He discovered hot water? But scientifically
Without surprise, we thus discover that the idea "diversity = enrichment" that is imposed on us by all the left is "ideology", in the inferior sense: an anti-scientific rationalization of feelings and impulses that it deems "moral" precisely because they deny concrete reality, for the left "low" and selfish.
We can also evaluate the umpteenth social disaster that the umpteenth ideology adopted by the prevailing totalitarian progressivism is producing on a society, the Italian one, where "social capital" is already tragically scarce . Governments, globalizing supranational entities, and now El Papa is imposing a "diversity", "welcome" and "reduction of homogeneity" on us which can only aggravate the general "hunkering down", retreat like a turtle, political non-participation, fear and distrust of neighbors, the rarefied nature of spontaneous collaboration, and mistrust (helpless) in rulers and rulers at every level.
Conclusions should be drawn on the evident essential social danger of being "left-wing": as soon as an ideology appears, the left adopts it and imposes it on others with the moralistic superiority that makes it inflexible: he did it with Marx-Leninism, now it does it with gender, with “gay rights”, with the reception of immigrants, with “let's break down every border”, with the adhesion to the globalism desired by large financial capital - always without recognizing the human disasters that ideologies produce in the concrete social structure, actually exists.
This danger is demonstrated by Putnam himself, who is obviously a progressive (and he also converted to his wife's Judaism): come to scientific proof (according to Popperian criteria), that is, having “falsified” the theory he believed in, he delayed years in publishing the study demonstrating the effects (for him) surprisingly negative about “diversity”, because he "feared" (his words) that could bring grist to the mill of those against in the "public debate on immigration". In short, he had removed elements of truth from the public debate. In the face of protests from sociological colleagues, who asked him if he thought it was ethical, as a teacher and scientist, suppress data that was unpleasant to him, told the Financial Times that he had delayed publishing his findings until he had developed “proposals to offset the negative effects of diversity”, that is, to cook up some cosmetic ideological justification. Indeed, having to eventually publish (the research had cost Harvard University an arm and a leg) added an ending to the publication which he titled “Becoming Comfortable with Diversity”, i.e. “feeling comfortable in diversity”. Unforgivable, admits in a note that "the real effects of diversity on social withdrawal may have been underestimated". In Nota.
(see here: https://www.ft.com/content/c4ac4a74-570f-11db-9110-0000779e2340#axzz24HMFQrIc
(For Putnnam's study finally published: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1467-9477.2007.00176.x/abstract;jsessionid=7EFB9384BA3
D4B2CDA2F95621443F976.f04t02
It is moral not to disseminate data that disproves the dominant ideology? For a scientist, no. But for an ideologue yes - and this demonstrates once again why the political-cultural domination of the left not only leads, but from the beginning it turns towards totalitarianism: the suppression of the truth is essential, he does not tolerate antagonisms to his ideology, the latest fashion he has adopted. The politically correct language it imposes is already a totalitarian tool, because it aims to prohibit the expression of ideas antagonistic to one's own.
If the totalitarian ideologue is also Pope (so to speak…n.d.r.)
On the contrary, They, the ideologists, they allow themselves any offense to the beliefs of others. Sutherland himself, in an interview with the UN press office, he mocked and mocked the very notion of national sovereignty. Governments must recognize that “sovereignty is an illusion, an absolute illusion that we must leave behind. The days of sheltering behind borders and fences are long gone.".
With a typical logical leap (Gad Lerner also used the same argument), Sutherland accused states in Europe that place caps on the number of immigrant admissions of "directly recalling the type of cap that the Third Reich placed on the Jewish population.". Hence the accusation that Orban was committing a Holocaust, one step missing. Which will surely be accomplished. Further demonstrating that “the Left always plays into the hands of big capital, sometimes even without knowing it" (Oswald Spengler).

Bergoglio with the banker of unlimited hospitality
The noisy and unprecedented appearance of an ideological Pope, of the libertarian left, applauded by the world, poses an order of problems even more serious than the pure and simple imposition of secularist totalitarianism. A reader and friend of mine explains why, Stefano, professor of Thomistic philosophy at a European university. Commenting on Bergoglio's rant "Europeans are not a race born here, they have migrant roots”
Stefano writes to me what is hidden, philosophically, in Francis' hatred for the culture of European peoples. I'll let him speak:

«Considering culture as a superstructure of natural homogeneity is a very serious blunder.

Not only does it demonstrate a lack of understanding of the natural process (history, guerre, joint ventures) that made that specific people such a people; but it destroys the Catholic harmony between grace and nature, considering nature an original block (racial?) where the development of a particular culture over which grace repairs and perfects is denied as properly human.

«Europe is a “place” where race has been called to give way to culture (Roman law) and where finally Christianity, without destroying the good that culture had achieved, he elevated it to the order of grace.

«The ancient Gnostic system is recognised: there cannot be a supernatural elevation of nature/culture (Europe in this case) because nature itself cannot produce anything good, therefore this must dissolve into an original monism, in a uniformity without contours, in which overcoming can finally occur through the return to the origin.

«At the basis of the discussion, behind the exaltation of natural indifference, there is enormous hatred for the divine grace that bends over man in his weakness and in his natural achievements. The word “culture” recalls the long work of cultivation, in which man places natural realities at his service, generating at the same time a symbolism and a distance from nature that can only be human, in which he manifests his transcendence with respect to the medium he works".

If you believe that this discussion remains theoretical and abstract, look around: the persecution of non-ideological people is already underway. And not just Christians in the East; Christians are also persecuted in Canada. Who knew about Mary Wagner?

“Mary Wagner, Canadian arrested for her defense of mothers and children (enters abortion clinics to offer women an alternative to abortion, breaking the law which does not even allow attempts to be made to help them find another way to murder their children), he also participated this year in the Christmas Mass celebrated in prison. And she did so even though it would have been enough to sign a declaration in which she promised to stay away from abortion clinics to be freed..

«Not only that, because in a letter written in prison Mary did not complain, but he made it clear that he was there for the love of Jesus, describing a nativity scene “awaiting the Christ Child – the symbol of the Word made flesh, who lives among us, in the Church and in the smallest of human beings". Therefore, he continued, “We pray that all of God's children will understand that their first duty is to our Master. We are his servants. Let us try not to be found negligent in our duty towards Him".
As Mary Wagner recalled in her cell: “I didn't think I could continue down this path and I don't know if I would ever have taken it, without the gift of faith and the grace that God, grace upon grace, that He gave me". To say that since that Child was born, poverty and defeat have only apparently become such, hiding the self a power over the world that no other creed knows.
Benedetta Frigerio, “The apparent contradiction of Christmas”, the New Daily Compass
http://www.lanuovabq.it/it/lapparente-contraddizione-del-natale