Diversity is genocide

150 years of well-intentioned government programs.

Several dozen serious riots.

Reams of paper for laws, regulations and opinions.

Trillions of dollars of lawsuits and resentful crime.

Why does the American race question persist? Is the answer that we will ultimately breed ourselves into a uniform brown, and finally be rid of the horrid dual curse of racism (against the minority) and racial resentment (against the majority)?

Up until the 1980s, race was really an American topic, but now in Europe we’re also seeing the same problems: crime, riots, hatred, violence, expensive welfare and re-education programs.

It’s as if we’re cramming a square peg in a round hole. Let’s first look at the pure logic of the situation:

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 mosaics — 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!” – Ann Coulter

Coulter specializes in simplifications of hot-button issues, which is why she’s a millionaire and you’re reading me on Amerika.org. But for the readers here, we need a clearer statement. Why is diversity such a problem?

If you exist in a diverse society, you have two options:

  • Assimilation. Forget your culture, your favorite foods, your values system, your language and heritage, and even your history. Become one of the people without any culture except what they see in the news-entertainment media. Give up what made your ancestors unique, get assimilated, and you’ll have fewer problems. You’ll also never know if people are merely “tolerating” you.
  • Preservation. Keep your culture, customs, language, values, heritage and history. However, now you’ll always be an outsider. All the other kids will be talking about what they saw on TV, or what typical activities they’re doing. You’ll have culture instead. You’ll also never know if people are discriminating against you for it.

Not a great set of choices there. Either you join the cultureless, or you stand out like a sore thumb. This is the essence of the crisis of diversity: it hands you a path of least resistance that leads to genocide, or puts you on a path of standing out that guarantees racial resentment both to and from the minority and majority.

As we’re fond of saying around here, the problem isn’t blacks, the problem isn’t whites, the problem isn’t Hispanics, the problem isn’t Asians; it’s diversity. Diversity is genocide. It replaces different unique populations with a cultureless, heritageless, valueless, lowest common denominator average. These people then have no binding consensus of values except what they see in the news-entertainment media and what their government says is good (freedom, capitalism, consumerism, democracy, welfare).

When you make a nation or continent “diverse,” you replace its indigenous values, heritage, culture and customs. You replace that unique and rare thing with a common thing, which is the mixed-race person. We already have a billion or more of those in places as “diverse” (heh) as Mexico, Brazil, Iraq and north Africa, where the mixing of the four basic races (African, Caucasian, Australid and Asian) has created remarkably similar looking people.

Something to think about: wouldn’t it be ironic if diversity actually created uniformity? But when you think about it, mixing all those different things together naturally results in a mix. You can’t take the ingredients out again. You’re stuck with the gray mush.

The first forests and terrestrial ecosystems appeared during this time; amphibians began to walk on land.

As sea levels rose and the continents closed in to form connected land masses, however, some species gained access to environments they hadn’t inhabited before.

The hardiest of these invasive species that could thrive on a variety of food sources and in new climates became dominant, wiping out more locally adapted species.

The invasive species were so prolific at this time that it became difficult for many new species to arise.

“The main mode of speciation that occurs in the geological record is shut down during the Devonian,” said Stigall. “It just stops in its tracks.”

Of the species Stigall studied, most lost substantial diversity during the Late Devonian, and one, Floweria, became extinct.

The entire marine ecosystem suffered a major collapse. Reef-forming corals were decimated and reefs did not appear on Earth again for 100 million years. – MedicalDaily

We can see this process in nature. When you introduce an invasive species, evolution stops dead in its tracks as organisms stop putting their effort into adapting to their environment as a whole, and put most of their energy into trying to survive the chaos unleashed by the newcomers.

It’s the same way in societies, when diversity strikes. Diversity is genocide. Once it hits, the possibility of a shared culture (outside of news-entertainment media and political loyalty) is gone. While the citizens now become easier to control, that does not last. Instead, they require more rules and more police, because they no longer have a values system that suggests they don’t engage in lowest common denominator, convenience-oriented behavior.

Mr Piening’s angst about integration comes as Germany is undergoing a period of deep introspection about its identity.

President Christian Wulff said recently: “Islam is part of Germany.”

That prompted Chancellor Angela Merkel to say that “multiculti” – she used the slightly disparaging term for multiculturalism – had “failed, utterly failed”.

On top of that, the best-selling non-fiction book in Germany since the war is a strong argument that Germany is destroying itself by immigration.

The book “Deutschland schafft sich ab” (Germany Does Itself In) is a rip-roaring success but it is hard to know how the complex idea of identity is playing out in German hearts. – BBC

The politically-conscious BBC does its best to downplay the fact that this issue is far from solved. In fact, it’s getting more contentious as Germans realize that Germany is going away, being dissolved, and will be replaced with a giant shopping mall culture like what we see in America. They will be Germans in law and language, but even those will then begin radical changes. Soon it will be Brazil or Mexico, in a land formerly German.

While the BBC attempts to cheerlead us into thinking that Germans are struggling to find their multicultural identity, and ultimately will triumph in accepting anyone and everyone to move into Germany, the reality is that blood is thicker than politics, and this issue will remain contentious. Didn’t we fight some wars over this? We’re still fighting them. One side demands its right to exist and not be assimilated, and the other insists that first side is “just ignorant and evil.”

When you tell someone there’s no possible legitimacy for their point of view, they stop expressing it. But they don’t stop thinking it. In fact, it’s more likely that they’ll simply polarize in the opposite direction, since you’ve told them that under no circumstances will you accept something they know to be true. The result is a further fragmentation of your society.

It’s not unthinkable then that diversity of any form — race/ethnicity, religion, philosophy, values, culture, language, customs, even social class or caste — creates a paranoid society: no one can talk about the elephant in the room. That surely spreads to other areas of discourse, and as Francis Fukuyama showed us in his groundbreaking The End of History and the Last Man, most of us in Western liberal democracies view ourselves as the ultimate evolution of society, which means that criticism of any of our founding myths becomes taboo.

But a massive new study, based on detailed interviews of nearly 30,000 people across America, has concluded just the opposite. Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings.

“The extent of the effect is shocking,” says Scott Page, a University of Michigan political scientist.

The study comes at a time when the future of the American melting pot is the focus of intense political debate, from immigration to race-based admissions to schools, and it poses challenges to advocates on all sides of the issues. The study is already being cited by some conservatives as proof of the harm large-scale immigration causes to the nation’s social fabric. But with demographic trends already pushing the nation inexorably toward greater diversity, the real question may yet lie ahead: how to handle the unsettling social changes that Putnam’s research predicts. – Boston Globe

We like to think that if we desire peace, we can just command it. But that’s not going to the source of a lack of peace: people have different opinions, and to compromise them destroys them. The same is true of ethnic groups. If you combine them all into one, you destroy the ingredients. While our modern world loves compromise because it preserves convenience for the individual, the evidence suggests that compromise simply avoids facing the underlying reasons for conflict. So we’ll fight all our wars and social battles ad infinitum.

But we’re not going to get any honesty on this issue, because it’s so powerful. It’s a hot button issue ten thousand times more radiant than abortion or gun control, or even drug legalization. You just say a few words and you’ve polarized a room, which is convenient for liberal politicians. Liberalism is defined as opposition to what exists, and desire to use unproven “new ideas” instead, and so it benefits from having a discontent, neurotic voting caste who think they’re victims and the solution is to destroy the strong or the majority.

From the beginning of the Tea Party movement, the Left, its aiders and abettors at MSNBC, the NY Times and other reliable left of center propaganda venues, raised race as the driving force behind the movement, even though the evidence was never there. MSNBC even egregiously cut off a black protester’s head in a photograph of a man carrying a gun to a rally in order to discuss that anti-black racism was rearing its head in America.

But it got even more blatant when Congressmen Andre Carson and John Lewis and other Congressional Black Caucus members staged a walk through the Tea Party crowd in front of the capitol the day before the health care vote. They claimed they were threatened by a violent mob and were subjected to the vile N word slur fifteen times. With the unpopularity of the toxic health care bill that the majority of Americans did not want, the Democrats needed a November strategy. Neutralizing the growing Tea Party movement with charges of racism was clearly its post-health care reform vote priority.

What they did not expect was that new media would successfully challenge the propaganda of the old media and the Congressmen’s racial smear.

First, my $100,000 video challenge for any evidence of racism was met with crickets. The CBC, looking for a fight, and taking to the airwaves to accuse the Tea Party of racism made a 180 degree turn and went into hiding when challenged on the truthfulness of the outrageous allegations. From camera hogs to ostriches in snap of a finger.

When the media chose to ignore that Representatives Lewis and Carson’s story was falling apart, we dug deeper. We found four videos from the moment Rep. Carson claimed the racist Tea Party incident occurred. The four videos, which include audio, show beyond a reasonable doubt that the incident was a manufactured lie. That lie that was supposed to be the centerpiece in the Democratic strategy to destroy the Tea Party. The videos had been available on YouTube almost immediately after the incident occurred and could have been found by any reporter interested in investigating the truthfulness of Rep. Carson’s claim.

While the media ignored these newsworthy revelations, the CBC remained in hiding and ignored a letter in good faith from the Tea Party Federation repudiating all forms of racism, but also asking for the CBC’s help in investigating the Capitol Hill incident. The silence from the CBC was deafening. – Andrew Breitbart

When you can win an argument by calling someone a racist, why would you try to fix the situation? You want the sore to stay open, the wound to keep bleeding.

It’s not much different than how in various totalitarian republics you could accuse someone of breaking a political taboo, and have them hauled off to the gulag. See, there’s an official opinion whose line you must tow now, and those who want control benefit from that official opinion being crazy-insane-talk. The crazier is is, the harder they force it on you, to break your spirit and make you bow.

In the meantime, they’re using fear of being called a racist to allow them to import voters:

Berman said he believes a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants is a path to creating Democratic voters.

“There’s 25 million in the United States – you can’t listen to the 8 million to 12 million numbers that come out of Washington every day – you’re going to create an instant 25 million Democrats,” Berman said. – The Houston Chronicle

So let’s clarify that: “diversity” is a good-sounding code word for importing enough voters to gain control. One side of the political process is using diversity as a path to power. In the name of treating people well, they’re manipulating them and using them to manipulate others. A more corrupt, dishonest and subversive process is hard to imagine.

You can see from here the problem created by diversity. It becomes too powerful for people to leave alone. It’s like a room with crooks at each wall and a shotgun in the middle. Instantly a mad dash to get the weapon occurs. In the meantime, the pleasant-sounding idea of “diversity” actually means the production of a gray, cultureless and valueless group of people dependent on the government and the news-entertainment media for their surrogate “culture” of Hollywood memes and political dogma.

Diversity is genocide. It happens slowly, so we don’t think about it. The problem is not blacks, or whites, or any other ethnic group. It is diversity because diversity is fundamentally paradoxical and hides its corrupt intent behind nice concepts of universal rights and brotherly love. Evil would be too easy to avoid if it announced what it really was when it appeared. Instead, it’s just another easy thing to ignore that leaves political minefields for future generations.

9 Comments

  1. Bob says:

    Well-written but misleading with too many unfounded premises, rhetorical tricks, faulty leaps in logic and ultimately specious conclusions. When was the originary moment when anybgroup of people was supposedly happily homogenous (as opposed to the media- fuelled consumerist monoculture of present day trending, something I agree with the writer in) but before the nasty “diversity” supposedly set in? Would the author have us return to s
    a set of small-scale tribal groups? No modern- day nation coming out of the collapse of empires or conversely pulling together a — yep– diverse set of disparate cultural and ethnic groups ever had such purity of character. This plea for conservatism seems a rather flimsy mask for intolerance and supposition of some mythical shared values (always unstated but presumed and implied) when really it is based entirely on antagonistic attitude (did I mention intolerance?)

    1. Well-written but misleading with too many unfounded premises, rhetorical tricks, faulty leaps in logic and ultimately specious conclusions.

      If you’re serious, you’ll name them and identify the fallacies therein.

  2. Higloo says:

    I think making your own culture through artwork, imagination, and personal experience lies between the options of assimilation and cultural preservation since most TRUE culture gets made when two people’s consciences interact with one another in real space time. Of course most individuals who do posses strong enough minds to invent new cultures are often more alienated than those who assimilate into what the masses today call culture and those who try to preserve their habitual customs.

  3. [...] Brett Stevens – “Diversity is Genocide” [...]

  4. Dr. Deezee says:

    Really excellent stuff, here – and it managed to avoid the inflammatory language you’ll find a lot on this subject. Bookmarked and saved for reference. Thanks!

  5. icr says:

    The “contradictions” should be “intensified” by exploiting the existing diversity.This makes escape into assimilationist fantasies less feasible for those so inclined.

    If i were a billionaire, I’d buy FOX NEWS and give Pat Buchanan-and maybe Ron Paul-responsibility for programming. Something more realistic might be low-threshold PR for state and local legislatures in some states with initiative and referendum. Many European countries have this system and it results in the election of right-wing populists and nationalists. These parties are subject to constant state persecution. This should be less of a problem in the US due to the current SCOTUS interpretations of the First Amendment.

  6. Philipp Olericht says:

    The premise of the article poses a valid argument, however, it would appear your solution to the “modern world” of globalization would be hundreds of thousands of homogenous societies with a sole religion, sexual preference, mental standard, class, political party, and one devoid of unemployment or natural disaster. For only in societies such as the aforementioned could a land without “crime, riots, hatred, [and] violence” be feasible; and even so there would still be a reason to fight. As for expensive welfare systems the countries with the most extensive and costly welfare systems are the most homogenous of them all (i.e. Norway). To think that diversity is the cause, or principal cause, for societies to be in utter disarray and chaos is an oversimplification of the matter. As a historian of the the “Atlantic World” I assure you that “third world hellholes” such as Rwanda and “North Africa?” are not simply violent states because of the coexistence of various ethnic groups. Furthermore it is puzzling you should mention Canada and “Les Quebecois,” for the French Canadians have had more than their fair share of opportunities to secede from Canada but voted it down, and not much “violence” has stemmed from their differences from anglophone Canadians – not to mention Canada being such a prosperous nation.

    I understand the concerns of someone who believes that the world is headed towards the elimination of culture. You specifically mention Brazil, and even make the bold claim that Brazilians all appear very similar and are “mixed race” peoples. I suppose all ethnic Germans all look drastically different from one another. To make sweeping generalizations of states such as Mexico and Brazil, both countries of powerful and unique CULTURE, does certainly tarnish your work a great deal. I’ve read many theories on why people go to war, and you seem to have deduced that diversity is the culprit. However, I allege that there will always be dissent and and rebellion regardless of the society, for even you categorize diversity in a myriad of categories and thus there will always be differences.

    Societies need scapegoats. In current times, immigrants are stemming from former colonies and thus have exposed new cultures to the US and many other countries as well. In your deduction this is creating a gray culture-less world and perhaps it may very well be. For in the US you see a clash of two major flaws: greed and xenophobia. Humans strive for a better a life and thus come to the US, and yet humans always seem to be threatened by those unlike themselves. Thus is the US’ dilemma. What would be a solution? Does the US have a culture so strong that it can be salvaged? or is the US a composite state of a myriad of nations (cultures) and thus your worst nightmare? If you truly believe that diversity can be any sort of difference, be it political, sexual, linguistic, religious, or racial, than their will always be diversity. However, if you care more about the racial aspect of diversity which is indisputably the major cause of such fuss in modern day US then you can eliminate diversity – many have tried.

  7. bgc says:

    “Diversity is genocide. It happens slowly, so we don’t think about it. ”

    Actually, it is happening very quickly indeed in the UK and very visibly – the cityscape has been completely transformed in just five years – and yet that doesn’t seem to make any difference.

    Since it isn”t mentioned in the media (and I mean not mentioned *at all*), and since the media fills our minds with stuff each day; then it isn’t really real to us – it is not a part of what fills our minds and grabs our attention.

    And it is, of course, unmentionable.

    Unless I was living through it, I would not believe this possible.

    All this depends on the media, and its hold on us. Never, anywhere, at any time, has there been anything aproaching this level of thought control.

    1. Never, anywhere, at any time, has there been anything approaching this level of thought control.

      This is very true, and I see it as a subset of the general denial of a civilization that believes it is dying and cannot stave off its end. In fact, we’re behaving a lot like terminal patients in denial, looking for “uplifting” and “inspiring” emotional actions in lieu of effective ones, since we do not believe effective ones exist. From my experience, diversity is one of several areas where we’re in huge denial:

      Ecocide. Around here at least, bird populations are dropping; ecosystems are sliced up by roads and fences, and other populations disappear as well.
      Misery. Our jobs are, with the exception of a lucky few, boring; socialization means tolerating boors and tepid topics; we do not connect to anything of real import that would make us feel alive; our cities are ugly; we don’t trust each other, starting from the sexual archetype of non-commitment, and so we “use” each other, which makes for an ugly bed of snakes in which to lie.
      Collapse. I don’t believe in radical collapse, but in radical evil: mundane commonly accepted actions that are nonetheless causes of evil effects. Our society doesn’t track cause/effect, so it’s oblivious to reality, and collapsing from within. First we become Russia, then Brazil, in terms of social archetypes. This is independent of immigration but that also damages us. That we can’t talk about this or face it openly is very troubling and reminds me of households in which sexual abuse is going on.

      Those are the biggies that I’ve identified so far. It all smacks of denial from great fear, from having lost anything worth fighting for. For my generation, who grew up in the old order yet saw enough of the new to understand what we’d have to witness in our lifetimes, it has been a spiritually crushing burden.

Leave a Reply

37 queries. 0.905 seconds