My belief about diversity and tolerance is that it is shaped like a Laffer Curve, so that as a homogenous society sees more newcomers it becomes progressively more tolerant until a point is reached at which this process goes into reverse, partly because there are just too many political and social incentives for division. Britain probably went past that optimum around the millennium, and France is therefore even further ahead.
Here‘s the anti-Tay.
One way or another, robotically-enhanced coercive enstupidation is coming. (At least the machines will only be pretending to be sunk in idiocy.)
This is also relevant.
Khan (who has a way with words):
For various ideological reasons there is an idea in some parts of the academy that Asian Americans are not a “model minority.”
(They vote funny, but that should be stopped for other reasons.)
John Podesta (!) [Ummm, no], link:
What makes for successful immigration? […] It’s no brain surgery, but the media have long failed to provide a clear credible answer. They are unable to come up with an answer or don’t like the answer that’s staring them in the face. The main reason behind successful immigration should be painfully obvious to even the most dimwitted of observers: Some groups of people are almost always highly successful given only half a chance (Jews*, Hindus/Sikhs and Chinese people, for example), while others (Muslims, blacks** and Roma***, for instance) fare badly almost irrespective of circumstances. The biggest group of humanity can be found somewhere between those two extremes – the perennial overachievers and the professional never-do-wells.