How We Know That Diversity Cannot Work

Another day, and the news is dominated again by headlines of race, as it has been in America since its founding — when diversity meant Indians, African slaves and Irish day laborers — and in Europe since the continent shifted Leftward in the 1960s.

We have become accustomed to the ongoing failure of diversity around us in the West, and in fact, in giving our lives for our. We are surrounded by Civil War dead and those who died in two World Wars to try to force ethno-pluralistic liberal democracy on a highly nationalistic Europe. Well, the bad guys won in both cases — not that any side is ever angelic and pure — and now we have liberal democracy and diversity.

To someone who is not a minority, the following is infuriating; it is an article in which a Leftist expresses a binary opinion that is exactly the opposite of what a non-Leftist would perceive:

See Jordon, Tesfaye, Brittany and Tanishia. See the crime they committed. See how swift justice is dispensed when the perpetrators, rather than the victims, are black.

…One, while it’s clearly reprehensible, the unrelenting media focus on this random incident, is, to my mind, unbalanced and unwarranted.

…But I wonder: How many fellow citizens who can’t stop their social media commentary about this sick incident have been just as outraged and outspoken about the regular harassment and abuse that black teenagers and other black fellow citizens endure daily at the hands of white cops?

Equality always inverts reality, because if non-equality is the natural state of things, then it must be “corrected” by lifting up the lower and — because life is in some ways a zero-sum game after all — necessarily pushing down the higher. This is the crab bucket of modernity in which people attempt to rise by pulling others down, and it is an inevitable consequence of “equality.”

However, this inversion strikes us as galling: Jordon, Tesfaye, Brittany and Tanishia tortured a white guy and, until there was internet outrage, the media was going to sweep this one to page 69 of local newspapers and ignore it. But, after eight years of the Obama regime making diversity worse by trying to make it better, people realize there is no solution, so they spoke out.

And to any sane person, it is clear that diversity is over. It has failed, like many other aspects of our 1945-2016 political system.

Let us look at another point of view, this time from the man some call a race-baiter and others a black nationalist, Al Sharpton, who joined with other minority rights advocates to condemn Jeff Sessions for being a majority advocate:

Sharpton said civil rights activists must remind senators that the nation is “watching” how they vote on Sessions’ nomination. He pondered how the government could justify having Sessions follow Eric Holder, the nation’s first African-American attorney general, and Loretta Lynch, the nation’s first African-American female attorney general.

…Murguia cited Sessions’ opposition to moving 2,000 minors, who crossed the U.S.-Mexico border illegally, into the state of Alabama.

“Remember these are frightened children who fled hellish conditions and trekked across several countries by themselves in hopes of finding refuge in this country, yet Senator Sessions could not muster any sense of compassion or understanding of their plight,” Murguia said.

This is also infuriating. The “frightened children” have like cowards abandoned their homeland to its problems, and sought to externalize their misfortune by coming here for the free benefits, welfare, healthcare and other signs of a dying franchise turned into a cash cow. But, these two people are merely advocating for their ethnic groups, acting in self-interest.

The majority wants to have its own society, with its own standards, control of its future, and an ability to regulate itself by something more important than money, namely culture and its seed, genetics/biology. The minority group wants the same for itself, but finds itself in a multicultural or “diverse” society where it cannot have that.

What if all the sides had legitimate points of view?

The problem we face here is not that certain groups — whites, blacks or other — are bad, but that diversity is bad. In fact, like most bad things, it is error: a stupid idea, based in our arrogant pretense, designed to make us feel like we control the world with our intent. It is a stupid idea more than anything else since its fatal flaw is immediately visible.

Every group has its own self-interest. It works for itself. Part of this self-interest consists of asserting its own language, customs, values, calendar, philosophy, ethnic/racial biology/genetics, identity, standards, image and self-determination. It needs control over itself and its future, and a reason to feel pride in itself, which only comes from being in a civilization of its own creation and in control.

For this reason, we can see that contrary to the media narrative, no one is wrong here. Sharpton has a point; Sessions has a point. The kids who tortured the mentally disabled guy have a point. That point is: diversity works for no one, which means it is a terrible policy, advanced only for our ideological symbolism and destructive to normal lives. Ergo, end diversity, like we would any other policy that fails this hard.

Tags: , , ,

7 Responses to “How We Know That Diversity Cannot Work”

  1. james wilson says:

    The worst possible outcome for minority populations who are dependent upon a majority population for quality of life is for the majority to lose it’s confidence. If the minorities knew to a certainty what it is that actually awaits them in that state even this would not deter gratification for the moment. But a ruling white minority population has by necessity very different characteristics, as we see in Mexico, and the other races, ironically, do not in fact resent them for it because the differences appear as natural as they are obvious.

    The religion of equality is unnaturally elevated in full on democratic states.

  2. Avraham Rosenblum says:

    Ship them back to where they came from.

  3. McGarrett says:

    I had a moment of clarity at lunch today. Bar had tvs tuned to ESPN and they were doing the Clemson/Alabama pre-game countdown. The black sportcasters Michael and Jemele are set to takeover the 6pm slot on sportscenter in a few weeks. Big Disney move to promote diversity, no less.

    At the desk were those two and Cedric the Entertainer. Dressed up and in cushy jobs. They split the screen and you see a large crowd of white people with several white men in their 30s shirtless, hooting and hollering for the “big game” tonight. This is where we are: whites have made pagan gods out of young, black athletes who just want to bang their white daughters–getting paid millions on top of it. Cut to commercial and I see Frank Thomas selling testosterone pills to a sweaty, geeky white man…yep.

  4. Asian Reactionary says:

    Equality always inverts reality, because if non-equality is the natural state of things, then it must be “corrected” by lifting up the lower and — because life is in some ways a zero-sum game after all — necessarily pushing down the higher.

    This has been a central argument of the blog, but I’ve been pondering about this lately. So, yes, on a reality-based level, this is obviously true. But are reality-based things necessarily beneficial?

    Take, for example, the notion of an ever-present God. There may not be one at all, making it not reality-based, but there’s some studies with evidence that communities that believe in an ever-present God nonetheless performed better in terms of cooperation. It could very well be the existence of a lie that unifies such individuals.

    I wonder if the ideology of equality could be similar, because its such a powerful meme for a reason. There must be some part of us that seems to see people as somehow equal – thus the power of conformity studies. If a thousand common people tell the naked emperor that he is in fact wearing gilt and brocade, would he disbelieve them? What if it was of something less obviously dismissable: that they would curse him with magic if he acted too imperiously or that they might rebel in ways that would make his life less easy.

    If the emperor dismisses the commoners as being mere rabble enough to not relate to them, then it undermines that he may not consider them much in common with him and will not do much to provide for them. If the emperor does relate to them, then he is subject to their influence. The emperor would have to relate to them, as a patriarch as to a child, loving but firm – but that’s asking for a lot sometimes.

    So ultimately, how do we know that a false ideology isn’t actually better than reality, as a governing tool?

    • EX says:

      Fear is usually a pretty strong incentive for obedience and order. If that is the only goal then we should all hope to be ruled by tyrants.

      • Asian Reactionary says:

        Fear works poorly. Fear can be used to motivate inaction, such as an unwillingness to rebel, but fear has a terrible track record to motivate to action. The Soviet gulags and North Korean camps probably have employed fear as well as anyone could imagine, but they are not known for their ability to produce results.

        • Fear can be used to motivate inaction, such as an unwillingness to rebel, but fear has a terrible track record to motivate to action.

          Same is true of cruelty. You can force people to do things, but they are not working with you, and so will do the minimum and pay zero attention to results.

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>