I love how the very researcher you invoke in support of your argument basically disses the hell out of your position:
"Curbing the demographic trend" is truly the only final feasible solution to the problem, indeed.
That's just his opinion, he doesn't even decribe social solidarity by diversity even would work.
Well, the problem is, your opinion is also an opinion (one which, incidentally, seems to be rooted in an incredibly poor understanding of history and philosophical principles that have been universally viewed as preposterous in academical circles for centuries). While a general sentiment of anti-intellectualism seems to be on the rise, I, for one, would rather trust the word of a guy who's been studying the subject most of his life over some rando on the internet.
The study says otherwise, feel free to provide a study or an argument that says that demographic diversification/heterogeneity is an advantage for social cohesion for a nation, and how, anytime you want. Besides, why should I or anyone else here care on whose opinion you trust more?
Interesting how you skipped point 1 and 3 as they build up to the whole picture of the decline.
You're putting words in my mouth. I never claimed heterogeneity is advantageous for social cohesion. I pointed out that the very researcher you cite to support your idiocy believes that the answer doesn't lie in embracing "ahistorical and ethnocentric conservatism".
As for skipping points, I think it's probably for the better if we don't touch your rant on how Hillary "has no signs of strength, vitality and lucidity", as it is exactly the kind of "feelz before realz" thinking you're keen to decry as irrational when it suits you. There is a reason the halo effect (and its inverse, charmingly named "the horns effect", as I've learned recently) is acknowledged as a form of cognitive bias, not "a reliable method by which we should be selecting our leaders". The part where you ruminate on how "leadership reflects the currents of the masses", while at the same time managing to paint "virtuous" leaders as exemplars without whom society inevitably falls into decline is just utterly incoherent, which is kind of an impressive feat, given that you're practically ripping off Plato and Confucius here, who might have had terrible ideas, but at least managed to phrase those in a not completely self-contradictory fashion.
Your third point has a glimmer of rational thought in it (TPP is bad news), but then once again you descend into howling insanity with "certain groups climb the ladder faster due to having better inner cohesion" (gee whiz, and here I thought having wealth and connections was the fast-track to the top, but no, apparently any group with any socio-economic background can just saunter right there if they just have enough inner cohesion!), and then you top it off with...whatever you're trying to get at with the bit about armed uprisings of people who feel the system is rigged against them. At this point, I can't even follow.
Oh, you just quoted him without phrasing something of your own? Fair enough. Suffice to say, i am right in my opinion and he is wrong in his opinion and his study ractifies that.
You misinterpret what i said about Clinton, it's a symbiotic relationship between leaders and the people who follow them. If society is heading towards further degeneracy and the leaders are, willfully or not, nurturing those bad impulses, it will spiral down and the examples i mentioned manifest in those. Empty platitudes, feel goods, insincerity is not something only observed because of a certain cognitive bias, unless of you think of course that there's no objective values, then we will just end the discussion here. The same way, a society with strong sense of virtues and to uphold them will increase the probability of the next Aurelius to step up, but first it requires someone to change the pendelum into the right direction, and that's where Trump comes into the picture. He is but a mere echo of anything truly great or of any higher principle, but his strength is in his being, which will hopefully pull down the curtain and make sure that apathy will not be the guiding principle of the following generation. There is simply no one else at the moment.
As for the last point, different groups of people have strong inner cohesion compared to others and such will help each other accelerate in society through different degrees of nepotism was just one of the manys symptoms from capital being global and labour local. The bolded part is what is important as the ability for companies to have more power than the citizenry in a country was omitted as that goes without saying and i wanted to highlight other issues that goes with it.
Pro-tip: if you're failing to understand the point someone is making in the future, you can always ask to clarify.
Curious, but what changes are you for that you see coming from Trump? And his strength is inciting enemies to action?
