Diversification

For the last sixty years, the West has been in the grip of a mania for diversity. This thread goes back centuries, but its most recent occurrence was in the French Revolution. There, the revolutionaries wanted “liberty, equality and fraternity,” but they also made another demand — for internationalism.

Internationalism is the idea that every individual is a worker, every worker has rights which come before all else, and only the oppression of kings, politics, business and religion holds them back. To be free, the individual needs to smash national borders, be atheistic, anarchistic and socialist or near-facsimiles.

These ideas were considered radical in 1789, although they’d been repeated centuries beyond that. To this day, the basic message is the same: the individual versus the state. Only no rules and no borders, no gods and no masters, will allow the individual to come into her full potential.

To achieve this end, the revolutionaries of today have a singular purpose. The majority and its values systems support things like religion and states, therefore the majority must be smashed. Tribal warfare demands ethnic cleansing and the best way to do this is to dilute and eventually outbreed the majority.

What’s left will be perfect blank slates. Raceless, cultureless, nationless, atheistic and truly international, these people will have allegiance to two things only: the orthodoxy of liberalism, and the consumer society that empowers them to be free.

Although the orthodoxy of liberalism includes socialism, that has never been a practical goal and the leaders have always known it. What it is however is a convenient thing to say at parties or bars that makes people think you’re a good guy, and perfect cover for the elites. “We are working for the Equality of the People!”

If you wonder why the modern mania for diversity is so manic, it is because it is a life-and-death struggle. It’s ideological warfare. Liberalism requires it to smash its only opposition, which is organic and traditional culture.

In fact, we fought two disastrous and fratricidal world wars over this. As liberalism spread through Europe, culture-based “nations” were replaced with political-orthodoxy-based “nation-states.” These were inherently internationalist, although they slowly geared up to this state.

Diversity is the means by which the liberal parties of the world hope to take over the world. It is part of their agenda of equalization, which requires smashing hierarchy and thus in turn smashing any culture or values system.

They are not nihilists. They are narcissists. Their goal is to make a society dedicated to the individual only. They are blaming their own problems on a lack of “freedom.” As history shows us, however, the more individualistic a society gets, the more it must because of the wide disparity in behavior treat individuals as generic in a utilitarian sense, and the more it needs a strong police force. For this reason, it quickly turns into the type of tyrannical government that is the norm in the third world.

When you see an Occupy Wall Street rally, a protest for Trayvon Martin or Troy Davis, or even a meeting of the Democratic party, you are seeing this narcissistic crowd that is hoping to transform our society into their liberal orthodoxy. They are doing this out of selfishness, because their demand for equality is a masked demand for no oversight. They want whatever they desire, any of their defects, weird behavior, etc. to be forced to be socially acceptable.

The essence of this desire is radical individualism. Its first demand is always equality, which is a way of achieving pluralism. Pluralism means that every viewpoint is equally valid and accepted. Once pluralism exists, it’s a logical step to diversity, which is simply another form of pluralism. A convenient form that smashes the non-pluralistic, e.g. those with standards or a goal.

Diversity, pluralism and equality create each other. If you achieve one, it will bring the other two in. It’s a matter of time and degree. If you bring in any philosophy or social system that supports them, like democracy or socialism, it’s only a matter of time before the parent ideal is on the table.

For this reason, the fight over diversity is more than about whether or not you like people of other races. It’s about what type of society you want. Do you want a first-world society, where culture and values make most decisions, and people are generally in agreement? Or do you want a third-world society, where no one is in agreement and freedom is high, but the society is totally disorganized, accomplishes nothing and is run by tyrants?

That’s not very PC to say. In our society already the narcissists have begun cutting away at the idea of hierarchy and standards. There are no winners and no losers. Everyone is equal. You can’t say that the third world is unhygienic, disorganized, violent, predatory, disease-ridden, etc. and you can’t imply it’s because their societies are dysfunctional. That’s hurtful.

Speech codes are one of the many ways they control your mind. Another is social pressure or peer pressure. All of your friends watch movies and TV, listen to music, read magazines, listen to comedians, etc. and all of these — every single one — is some flavor of liberal. A few are on the verge of being moderate conservatives, but even then, not quite.

It’s voluntary propaganda. You take it in to be socially equivalent to others, and it works slowly on your brain.

Yet you also have a logical brain, and it balks at much of what you take in. Like a student with a drunk teacher, you filter out everything but what you need to know, at least as best you can. You’re aware on a subconscious level that much of what you’re being told is completely incompatible with what you know of reality.

By reality, we’re not speaking of tangible objects. We’re speaking of process and design, like how if you put too many radically different numbers into an equation for an average, you get a number that doesn’t resemble any of them.

Your society is telling you that you’ll get a better number, but you know you’re going to get an unexceptional one.

Diversity is the same way. Much like two objects cannot occupy the same space, two cultures (which are essentially values systems) cannot occupy the same nation. Each culture has a choice: (a) assimilate, and be destroyed but be prosperous, or (b) resist, and be an outlier, and be less prosperous.

If they assimilate, the values of all these cultures are destroyed and replaced with a lowest common denominator. This is a kind of compromise, like you see happen at committee meetings. You don’t get any of the good stuff, but you get the least controversial remnants.

In fact, this gives rise to what we might call the Stevens Threshold:

Diversity (of any kind: racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, philosophical and class-based) cannot form a functional society because in the absence of a single order, a lowest common denominator is achieved, which falls below the levels of organization required for first-world civilization.

The opposite of diversity is not racism. Racial unity is important and no one sane will ever deny that. However, racial unity alone is not the solution. Instead, a cultural mandate is required which unites heritage, values, language, customs, philosophy and worldview into a single society.

You cannot achieve this mandate through negative (“Kick out the Green People!”) activity. You can only achieve it by building cultural unity, a strong sense of “Us” or who your cultural group is, and then by offering those who don’t fit a positive option for an exit, like reparations with repatriation.

As we watch this country tear itself up again over race, it’s important to step back and take a logical look at things. You do not need enmity for other races. What you do need is to state a clear and radical idea: diversity doesn’t work. It never has, and it never will, because it is fundamentally illogical. And it makes victims of us all.

36 Comments

  1. 1349 says:

    the more individualistic a society gets, the more it must because of the wide disparity in behavior treat individuals as generic in a utilitarian sense, and the more it needs a strong police force. For this reason, it quickly turns into the type of tyrannical government that is the norm in the third world.

    You don’t need a strong police force if everyone thinks he’s “equal” and “unique”.
    Information technology lets the modern-day tyrants easily convince their slaves that they’re “free”.
    …Oh just buy that new gadget.

  2. Curious Cat says:

    My car, cell phone, and computer can monitor my behavior. In 5-10 years it would be pretty easy to switch to a completely totalitarian state and yet maintain a basic illusion of choice (McDonalds or Burger King?) and freedom (Socialist vs Democrat?), carefully monitored.

    1. A. Realist says:

      We’ve already been there for several decades. In 1937, it was decided that an unmanaged economy was too much of a threat, and in 1945, it was decided that government needed to keep us in line with education and propaganda. Ever since then we’ve been at war with some ideological enemy or another. If not an external enemy, like the Soviets, it’s internal enemies like drugs and pedophiles. I’m not saying these aren’t real enemies because they are, but they’re one aspect of the control in this country. The other is that it costs a lot of money to stay alive and there’s no social welfare system. You depend on your job, and being in debt, and so if someone makes that one phone call that gets you fired, you’re in a lot of trouble. It’s total control.

      1. ferret says:

        True. Very true. So true that we are not talking, and even thinking about it. Slaves are better not to realize they are slaves.
        And it’s not cool saying “I’m slave”, so we refrain. And the masters approve it.

  3. Ryan says:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I

    (it’s a “semetic” term originally, i guess we all know what that means, DREYFUSS!)

  4. Sun says:

    You have a very narrow term of diversity as someone mentioned in the last previous article.

    What you’re talking about is diversity of large populations living permanently side by side, in a state sponsored forced integration method known as “Multiculturalism.”

    1. Mihai says:

      True, we shouldn’t fall into the trap of believing that unity=uniformity.

      Remember that there is “unity through diversity”, however, not in the subversive, perverted way in which this motto is understood since the American and French revolutions.

      1. Sun says:

        What Mr. Steven fails to realize is that there is a natural divergence that comes about in all societies, even societies that where once similar.

        The colonial British who would over generations diverge from their homeland would eventually become British.

        The point being that divergence is more then just race, or population groups.

        1. Sun says:

          Sorry can’t edit but the middle paragraph is supposed to read:

          “The colonial British, who would over generations diverge from their homeland, would eventually become Americans.”

          1. Esotericist says:

            There may be a natural divergence for some people, but the rest don’t feel that way, which is why in 1812 there was still an England in addition to an America. A lot of this divergence also is caused by overpopulation.

            1. Sun says:

              Not really understanding “in 1812 there was still an England in addition to an America.”

              But you really think there was no form of divergence that simply occurs before 1812?

              The Lutheran Church rise during Catholicism power in the Middle Ages, 1523.

              War of the Roses, Britain, 1455.

              Socrates, Plato, and other Athens philosophers giving rise to different schools of thought within Athens, Ancient Greece, starting 5th Century.

              The divergence of peoples of greece in varying greek city states, notably Sparta and Athens, 5th Century.

              The making of France in the treaty of Verden, 843 A.D.

              Warring States period of China, 426 B.C.

              I’ll stop here.

  5. zzy says:

    I am an ethnic Korean whose nationalist values mostly coincide with the views of this blog, which I have recently encountered.

    Korea is headed down the mistake-riddled past Europe and America have in the past: losing ethnic homogeneity, a fundamental ingredient of a stable society. The method by which the initial wave of liberal immigration has struck is also remarkably similar: importing foreigners whose reason for immigration is strictly about social ascension and making money.
    However, the nation also faces a low-birth rate problem; as a matter of fact, while the men come to make money, the women come to get married to men (usually 20 years their senior) that evolution would dictate as reproductive losers. This, combined with all the sense of entitlement that infests urbanized peasants (explaining the nation-wide obsession with Louis Vuitton, for starters) of my generation pose a real problem down the road.

    Of course, the root of the problem is the same. The manifestation is different. I have been thinking for days about the way out of this trap, but I seem to have no good answer. The economic stakes and the demographic circumstances have made the Korean elites stand together behind globalism as a (temporary) answer regardless of their political affiliation. The conservative political party has just appointed a non-ethnic Korean into its National Assembly for the first time in history. Already, there is a neighborhood that has become the Seoul-region equivalent of Mexican ghettos in California. I predict race riots in the imminent future.

    Globalism must be fed to ensure stability, it seems. So much has been said about America and Europe here, and rightfully so. I would like to know what everyone’s thoughts are on this issue.

    1. Sun says:

      Really?

      I was under the impression that (I’m assuming South Korea here) that there is no denigration of homogeneity.

      I thought there is a strong conservative backing in the Asian world (especially Japan). Populations decrease for sure but I have yet to hear of a situation where that is used as an excuse to provide an influx of foreigners.

      Can you talk a little more a the demographic changes? Are Han Chinese coming into S.K.? Another group?

      1. crow says:

        Have you never heard of the UK?
        A slowing native population growth was cited as the main reason for importing tens of millions of completely incompatible foreigners.
        That, and a puerile stab at the Conservatives, to “rub their noses in diversity”.

        1. Sun says:

          What does the UK have to do with my question about S.K.?

          1. crow says:

            “Populations decrease for sure but I have yet to hear of a situation where that is used as an excuse to provide an influx of foreigners.”
            That.

            1. Sun says:

              Yes…and you seem to have forgot:

              “I was under the impression that (I’m assuming South Korea here)…I thought there is a strong conservative backing in the Asian world (especially Japan). ”

              I’m well aware about the UK. But, I thought countries like S.K. and Japan, even with declining populations, didn’t have people actually trying to bring in foreigners.

              1. zzy says:

                Sun,

                Allow me to clarify and elaborate.

                It is the Conservative party in Korea that is pro-US and pro-immigration. The non-ethnic legislator is a member of the Conservative party. And as I’ve said before, most Korean elites are in favor of immigration, regardless of political affiliation.

                As for the demographic breakdown, here’s a very brief rundown.

                -Joseonjok: these are Chinese who have ethnically Korean genes (not always fully, however). Most Koreans can tell within 5 seconds of meeting someone if they are a Joseonjok or not; the method by which is hard to explain in words to what I presume is a primarily Western audience here. Anyways, these people left Korea starting in the late 1800s, culminating in the very early 1900s when Japanese imperialism descended on the nation. Another big exodus afterwards was during the 1997 financial crisis. Upon Korea’s remarkable recovery and growth thereafter, they have started to return to Korea in the mid-2000s, the reason being $$.

                -Southeast Asian workers: they come in search of $$. They are to Korea what Mexicans are to America.

                -Vietnamese/Filipina/Southeast Asian women: these women are the ones marrying single Korean men in the 40s who reside in the rural areas. Like in Japan a few decades earlier, the youth are departing for the cities at an unprecedented rate. From the Korean perspective, these women are here to fill the sexual and reproductive needs of Korean men. From their perspective, they are here in search of a comparatively better life than their homeland, not just because Korea is more “advanced and modern,” but also because they in and of themselves are from a low socioeconomic class. The marriage is transactional rather than ideological.

                -Westerners: can be subdivided into 3 categories: US army, English teachers, and anyone who doesn’t fall into either.

                The problem will significantly worsen when the foreigner population balloons due to reproduction. Not only because there will be greater number of minorities but also because the kids themselves will be of a different mold than their parents, without having attained the “in-status” given to Koreans as a birth right. It will produce a generation of children who will reject their parents’ culture as being anachronistic and unfitting, while despising the Korean culture for not giving them “equality” and “opportunity.”

        2. Avery says:

          The official line in East Asia since World War II has been equality and multiculturalism, the same as the United States.

          The difference is that the concept of equality is foreign and ridiculous to Japanese and Koreans. In official policy they are forced to follow government outlines (public=公 in Japan), but when that turns into actual relations to other people they remain differentiated and are entitled to their conservative personal (private=個) opinions.

          In Korea, I imagine, the dissolution of these traditions is more advanced than Japan due to their widescale conversion to Christianity.

          1. Avery says:

            An interesting side cause of this, keeping to the Japanese side that I know, is that the government can officially say it is protecting diversity by allowing people their private opinions, whereas in reality these private opinions are often skeptical of the entire globalist doctrine that pervades Japan’s public image. I have met dozens of Japanese people who express support for the status quo of peace and democracy in their public communications to the world, while at the same time privately wishing that Japan would take back its right to form an army. The word “diversity” itself would seem to mean a different thing in this framework.

            1. Sun says:

              Well that is the thing…

              I’m not well versed in Asian politics but I thought that the “right (hate our binary political spectrum but sorry stuck with it here)” in Japan was growing due to a) decrease in US sphere of influence which makes Japanese feel uncomfortable with the ever looming China b) Regret of owning a true military c) A rise against Han Chinese peoples within Japan due to the rivalry.

              I thought there was a wary eye against the foreigner in Japan–the “genjin.” There are even said to be “no foreigners allowed” signs in stores or restaurant. If there was a true egalitarian and multicultural society wouldn’t those signs not exist and the people crucified. Or, are these just rumors and not actually true?

              1. zzy says:

                “I thought there was a wary eye against the foreigner in Japan–the “genjin.” There are even said to be “no foreigners allowed” signs in stores or restaurant. If there was a true egalitarian and multicultural society wouldn’t those signs not exist and the people crucified. Or, are these just rumors and not actually true?”

                Most likely 98% hot air blown by (white) English teachers in Japan, who for the first time in their lives, are getting to know what life as a minority is like.

                1. Avery says:

                  Quite. Once in a blue moon you’ll meet someone who genuinely dislikes foreigners, but that’s usually just a rude and unlikable person. More often there’s a simple language barrier at work, which may lead to an innocent fear of speaking to foreigners, and a European guy who finds himself unable to boss the other guy around for once starts flailing.

                2. Sun says:

                  A perfect example of totally evading the question at hand.

                  1. Eric says:

                    Really? I thought the point was well made. At the end of the day, Japan for the Japanese, so I don’t really care what they do.

                  2. Avery says:

                    If you want a straight answer, I got one a little while after reading your dissatisfied reply.

                    I went drinking with a Japanese friend (guy speaks no English and doesn’t read anything about politics) and the subject turned to China. I told him about how Americans are always criticizing China for their human rights record.

                    He smiles and says, “But isn’t human rights just a bullshit phrase anyway?”

                    This is true diversity of opinion, right here… and it has nothing to do with his own mixed feelings towards China, a country which he does a lot of business with but instinctively is wary of.

                    1. Avery says:

                      Uh, to be clear, I then asked him about that private-public distinction, and he agreed that Japan has to pretend to care about human rights and give a voice to activists for the sake of public image, but many people have a sense of realpolitik in private.

                      I don’t consider his opinion extremist, since he’s a businessman who personally manages exports to China and tries to avoid political confrontation.

                    2. Sun says:

                      I wasn’t asking about the opinion of diversity being a public mouthpiece while people in private disapproved of it.

                      I was asking about the state politics with China being a cause for rising Japanese nationalism, and also about the truth if the genjin/no foreigner signs existing on doorstops within a so called “multicultural” Japan.

          2. zzy says:

            The landscape is changing in Korea, because it has “made it” as a nation. It went from a nation poorer than sub-Saharan Africa (did you know Ethiopia at one point gave aid to Korea?) to the 12th largest economy in the world in 60 years, a process that took others much, much longer.

            There’s a good reason for that.

    2. crow says:

      Welcome, ‘zzy’. Whatever that means :)
      We are a band of people with widely differing backgrounds, but all having in common a respect for reality.
      Along with a few wreckers, here and there, like in any community.
      Great post, and informative.

  6. Brian says:

    While I would urge Koreans to recognize the rights of non-ethnic Koreans who live and work in their country; I respect the right of Koreans to build a society centered on Korean cultural values, to discourage mass immigration of non-ethnic Koreans, and to encourages a healthy fertility rate and family formation for ethnic Koreans so that Korea is always a Korean-majority country.

  7. Brian says:

    By the way, thanks for this post. I disagree on some points, but I think it’s important to have a serious discussion of diversity that breaks free of the politically-correct tropes and examines it through a traditionalist lens. You’ve done that, and I’m grateful for that.

    Finding ways to knit together society, again, however, may not require traumatic change. You suggest ‘offering those who don’t fit a positive option for an exit, like reparations with repatriation.’

    But I think if we just let people be themselves, associate with whom the wish, and live in the ways they like, that — absent active and aggressive pressure from the state and the monolithic multicultural programming pumped out by Hollywood — people will find ways to knit themselves back into cohesive and coherent societies.

    Human nature is on our side.

    1. crow says:

      Nature, sans humans, is on our side, too.
      Whether we realize that, or not.

  8. ferret says:

    “Diversity (of any kind: racial, religious, ethnic, cultural, philosophical and class-based) cannot form a functional society”

    There are two classes exist in a capitalist society. Does it mean such a society is not functional?

  9. [...] Stevens – “Doubt“, “Walking Corpse“, “Race Riots“, “Diversification”Brian Jefferson – “Democracy and Conspiracy Theories”Schopenbecq – [...]

Leave a Reply

41 queries. 1.051 seconds