When I first explored extreme politics, it became clear that most people were not thinking structurally about the issue. They encountered some black crime, Asian tax evasion, or Hispanic ghettos and decided that those groups were the problem.
Having had some experience with multiculturalism in an academic setting (satirized in The Hessian Studies Center) I looked at this as simply a policy question. Does having different groups with different needs and wants make a more stable society?
To anyone who thinks about the question critically, or in terms of causes and effects, it becomes clear that unity works and disunity does not. Diversity — of any form: religious, ethnic, cultural, racial, political — divides a nation and sets it at war against itself.
Not surprisingly, the last century of American politics shows us a lot of bickering, with the two sides having reached an equilibrium where the Right handles foreign policy and the Left focuses on redistributing money and socially engineering a fundamental transformation through wealth transfer.
The two sides have “captured” each other by needing to work together, and so they have effectively endorsed each other, with the Left only recently coming to full strength due to demographic replacement and therefore, feeling confident about removing Republicans.
As far as I can tell, I was the first to point out that diversity does not work because it cannot work, no matter which groups are involved. Even “nice” groups, if different enough, cause a struggle for power because groups have different customs, beliefs, aesthetics, and desires for their future direction.
This means that even having different Southern, Eastern, and Western European groups here will divide the country and make it dysfunctional, although it often takes decades or centuries to see when such a fatal error has been made.
Consider the Irish. They were originally brought here as a labor force because Irish labor was both low-value and disposable:
Because of the relatively high cost of purchasing these slaves, planters and developers often employed Irish immigrants for building canals and roads: grueling work that left many of them dead from disease or accident.
As McGrath tells us:
Frederick Law Olmstead, the architect of New York’s Central Park, traveled throughout the South on the eve of the Civil War and was surprised to find, again and again, that Irishmen were used instead of slaves for the work of draining swampland, felling trees, digging ditches, quarrying rock, and clearing forests because “it was much better to have Irish do it, who cost nothing to the planter if they died, than to use up good field-hands in such severe employment.”
A sane society would have repatriated them after this labor. Rather, it would have removed them by some means; we often see outer-space aliens portrayed in our fiction as ruthless beings, but in my view, the smartest creatures would choose the lowest impact solution that maintained the strongest need — avoid diversity — and would have simply repatriated them.
Perhaps a saner society would not bother with needing disposable labor at all, but accept the higher cost, although that is hard to do in a pioneer society like the USA during its formative years. Thus we got this horrid compromise, which brought the Irish to us, and they stayed and then more came.
This created our first taste of diversity during the early days of the 1800s, and this persists to this day with the presence of The Irish as an identity politics group, something even mainstream conservatives are starting to acknowledge:
Democratic politicians who engage in identity politics often mean something like “ethnic politics,” by which members of a community organize in their collective interest. Conservatives sometimes use “identity politics” to describe simple ethnic politics, but only when it’s ethnic politics they don’t like. What they leave out is that this form of political engagement is as old as the country itself, because it’s as old as politics itself. From the Pennsylvania Dutch (who were actually Germans) to the Irish of Boston and New York, to the Scandinavians of the Midwest, various European ethnic groups engaged in politics in much the same way later waves of Vietnamese, Chinese, Hmong, Arabs and Hispanics have, never mind the most obvious example of African Americans.
After the Irish experiment, the new nation sought even more wealth and required cheaper labor, so it imported waves of people who were incompatible with its social order. Instead of taking on higher labor costs, it externalized diversity costs to future generations.
As Europe became infected and seduced with the idea of equality, the ability to import fellow Europeans fell, and America looked outward to minority labor. The Irish diversity policy led directly to the idea of importing people from third world countries to use as labor.
None of this history matters now, of course. We know that diversity is doom, and so we either end it or we self-destruct.