Now that I have argued for almost thirty years against diversity,* it is gratifying to see others figuring out that our problem is not specific groups (Jews, Negroes, Belgians) but diversity itself. Understanding this requires a parallax shift of background to an argument that apparently baffles most people, but once seen, cannot be unseen.
Normally, people focus on what is in the foreground. This includes highly noticeable problems and those presumed to be responsible. And so when the West began its grand diversity experiment in 1865 and accelerated it eighty years later, those who were not fully Soviet-style brainwashed began to notice black crime.
This prompted them to begin what was basically a campaign against blacks, or at least against the presence of blacks among whites, without realizing that a broader principle was in play: no two cultures or ethnic groups can coexist in the same area. Diversity destroys social order.
Although crime and violence are problems arising from diversity, the bigger problem is like that of democracy. Diversity drives a civilization insane because it eliminates the ability to have social standards, ideals, directions, and aesthetics. Only what can be shared — the lowest common denominator — persists.
Even more, diversity erases the genetic consistency of a population — we call this “ethnicity” — and replaces it with a generic group that lacks all of the specialized adaptations of the original population. This is why empires die and are replaced by aimless, disorganized, and ambitionless third world ruins.
A few years later, Robert Putnam released his research showing that diversity destroys trust, social capital, and social order, confirming what I had written over a decade before. It was gratifying to see this as well.
Two years after that, Ann Coulter proved herself among the finest of conservative columnists by pointing out that diversity itself is a threat to our existence, doing it as gently as possible:
Never in recorded history has diversity been anything but a problem. Look at Ireland with its Protestant and Catholic populations, Canada with its French and English populations, Israel with its Jewish and Palestinian populations.
Or consider the warring factions in India, Sri Lanka, China, Iraq, Czechoslovakia (until it happily split up), the Balkans and Chechnya. Also look at the festering hotbeds of tribal warfare — I mean the “beautiful mosaic” — in Third World hellholes like Afghanistan, Rwanda and South Central, L.A.
“Diversity” is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought. True, America does a better job than most at accommodating a diverse population. We also do a better job at curing cancer and containing pollution. But no one goes around mindlessly exclaiming: “Cancer is a strength!” “Pollution is our greatest asset!”
In 1997, I had a chance to present this argument to William Pierce, the head of the National Alliance and one of the founding writers of the racially aware Right. He did not disagree with me, but expressed the thought that more people would connect to the problems of other races, a tangible thing, than the problems of diversity, an abstraction. Clearly he was correct as seen by the number of people still reading and listening to his words.
However, my line of thinking had stumbled upon something far larger, which is a hole in our modern thinking itself. People think backwards, or rationalize, because they view life as arbitrary and out of their control, and they realize that their civilization is failing, so they adapt to its failed state. My thinking instead had me looking forward: instead of rationalizing, we should irrationally choose what is beautiful and great, and work toward it.
As part of this, we would have to appreciate the aesthetics and logic of having homogeneity not just of race, but of ethnic group, so that we could clear out the dead weight and promote the good, bolstering the strength of our tribe. In my view, this approach combined Darwinism and morality, both selecting for superior adaptations and uniting us in pursuit of transcendentals, or ongoing abstract goals, like “the good, the beautiful, and the true.”
In the meantime, the great diversity bonanza continued making people rich and so it was popular, although other critics like Thomas Sowell pointed out that the aims did not match the results, suggesting not just a failed program but a toxic one:
If there is any place in the Guinness Book of World Records for words repeated the most often, over the most years, without one speck of evidence, “diversity” should be a prime candidate.
Is diversity our strength? Or anybody’s strength, anywhere in the world? Does Japan’s homogeneous population cause the Japanese to suffer? Have the Balkans been blessed by their heterogeneity — or does the very word “Balkanization” remind us of centuries of strife, bloodshed and unspeakable atrocities, extending into our own times?
Has Europe become a safer place after importing vast numbers of people from the Middle East, with cultures hostile to the fundamental values of Western civilization?
During these years, I was deconstructing the reasons why people liked diversity. In my view, there are two reasons: disguise and narrative.
People like diversity (formerly called multiculturalism and before that, internationalism) as camouflage because it destroys social standards. This allows their individualism to roam freely, unconstrained by social mores or values systems. They can do whatever they want, as long as they can pay for it and avoid a few basic no-nos like murder.
People also like diversity because it is consistent with the narrative that they used to overthrow the kings, ushering in the final age of European decline. If you want to get rid of hierarchy, you must claim that all people are equal, and there is no better way to do that than to smash differences between different groups, and eventually breed them into ethnographic mush so that none can rise above others.
Now, even the far edge of mainstream conservatism is starting to accept that diversity itself is the problem. This means they are focused less on Black Lives Matter, and more on removing affirmative action, the welfare state, and finally, these silly notions of equality:
Countries are happiest when they have one national culture, or at least one dominant culture to which all must perforce conform. We see this in countries like Japan and Korea, homogeneous societies which, because homogeneous, have no race riots or religious wars. It was largely true in, for example, Sweden and France until they began admitting immigrants from incompatible cultures. Today, most of the news from such countries deals with the consequences.
Diversity, never a good idea. is in fact the cause of most of the world’s conflicts: Shia and Sunni, Jew and Arab, Hutu and Tutsi, Tamil and Sinhalese, Hindu and Muslim and, in America, black, white, and brown. Diversityis the cause of the dissolution of American society.
Until roughly the Sixties, America was homogeneous enough, overwhelmingly white, European, Anglophone, and Christian. This provided sufficient commonalty that people all regarded themselves as Americans.
“Diversity is the cause of the dissolution of American society.” Considering that racial diversity was one of the issues behind the civil war, the role of ethnic diversity in shifting politics Leftward, and the manic introspection and guilt in the postwar years, followed by a breakdown of social order, he makes a good point.
After all what was sexual liberation but the first world adopting third world sexual standards? What is the breakdown of schools, the inner city, and loss of cultural height but adapting to the lowest common denominator norm created by diversity? Our law, military, government, and culture have been broken to fit this unnatural addition.
And for what? Again, diversity is part of the great egalitarian project started by the Left. They must destroy any majority and hierarchy in order to have their dream of collectivized individualism. And so, like so many civilizations before us, we chased an illusion right over a cliff, and now we lie in ruins at its base.
* — Early writings were on USENET or are previous versions of the early 2000s era texts posted on this site. In addition, many were expressed on the old Nihilist BBS.