The attacks on September eleventh stand out in American history for two reasons: on the surface, where optics and politics rule, as an example of a devastatingly effective attack on our economy; below the surface, where intuition connects to nature, we know them as a screaming warning of imminent collapse.
Americans of the era grew up under the remnants of the functional WASP order, but after the Clinton years, the diversity order took over, and it brought with it massive internal division in the nation as well as a competence crisis among its leaders and workers.
Where Americans could expect competent, functional institutions back in the 1980s and early 1990s, the early 2000s made it clear that this was no longer the case. The intelligence communities, relaxing and downsized after the Cold War, had become Affirmative Action programs for careerists.
This meant that everyone was going through the motions and putting in the hours, but no one believed that what they did was of consequence. We had won the Cold War, so no one could touch us, and to believe that we had to be competent meant questioning the dogma of the time.
After all, since Dan Quayle, every American politician opened their speeches with some variant on “diversity is our strength.” 9/11 showed us that this was not the case, and in fact diversity is our crutch that we are relying on to hold us together but it is not working.
Even more, almost no one understands the argument against diversity. We are caught between “Blacks or Whites are bad” and “everyone is the same,” neither of which fully explains the situation or addresses the individual and group needs of different ethnic tribes.
For those with a greater historical perspective, Plato and Aristotle provide us the first anti-diversity argument, which is that diversity creates a special interest group aligned against the needs of the host group, which is why tyrants adore diversity, much as the Soviet Union did.
In recent times, Robert Putnam warned us that diversity kills any expectation of shared culture, therefore creating a group of atomized individuals who retreat from society and basically live in whatever fantasy world they can reach from their homes.
We have to ask whether the internet and social media boom created this, as the mainstream media alleges, or occurred because of this as people retreated into their little bunkers and reduced public life to commuting, shopping, restaurants, gym, and work.
The attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon showed us just how out of control America was, which meant that some of the beliefs it claimed to cherish were in fact not good for it at all, and its continued reliance on them was dooming it.
Those of us who are not necessarily “racist” but see the problem with diversity cannot be understood in this environment, which recognizes only pro-diversity viewpoints as good and demonizes everything else as “racism” or “fascism.”
Looking at the situation logically however, we see that when more than one identifiable group exists in a nation-state, each group becomes a special interest agitating for its power, wealth, and status against the host nation and whatever functional system it retains.
For a minority group, there is a binary solution set: either reject their origins and embrace the host culture, at which point they exist at its whim, or try to dominate the host culture so that they are in control of their own destiny. Only the latter makes sense, which is why diversity means infighting.
This means that diversity cannot work. It converts the population into special interests competing with each other for power, and the result is paranoia, resentment, and retaliation at every level of the system. On 9/11, we saw this play out in our disorganized government.
The terrorist attacks also showed how fragile our economy has become since it is based on government funding and speculators in private industry. One blow to the travel industry rippled outward, paralyzing the whole system as investors ran away in a panic.
With the death of our organic culture, originating from the WASP founding group, nothing held us together. This scared us more than the terrorist attacks themselves: we fell apart because nothing was holding us together.
There was a brief rally around patriotism that concealed a practical fear that there would be more attacks, but after that, the country lapsed into Leftism because it had become clear nothing was holding it together except momentary unity in warfare when a scapegoat briefly united us.