Furthest Right

Diversity Destroys Social Cohesion

Slowly it has dawned on the Western world that diversity was a mistake because like many Leftist policies, it is dysfunctional, and erodes whatever shared standards of behavior existed in a society while creating ethnic conflict.

As other research has pointed out repeatedly and firmly, diversity removes “social trust” or a sense of a bond between citizens, creating an “every many for himself” dystopia.

In that environment, it turns out that the loss of social cohesion creates a death spiral where people expect less, and therefore act less to hold society together, including resistance to crime:

It is argued that the common responses of fearfulness, suspicion and social withdrawal (as well as defensive aggression in some instances) are counter-productive to attempts to build pro-social organization. Consequently a rather intractable circular relationship may ensue in which the conditions that enable criminality are not challenged because indirect and direct exposure to violation, alongside perceived and actual deficits in formal state interventions, have eroded the motivation and capacity of citizens to tackle such conditions, leaving spaces open for violation to continue unchecked.

Without social cohesion, people withdraw and go into denial, allowing the problem to expand and become even more destructive. That in turn causes even more of the same behavior.

Diversity resembles the loose end of a ball of yarn. Yank on it, and the unraveling starts, and over time the usual pressures will continue that like a form of inertia — the “arc of history” — until all has fallen apart.

This explains the behavior that seems to baffle those who argue in favor of multiculturalism, who insist that we can make it work if we treat everyone equally and adopt the same standards.

Their approach assumes social cohesion which in fact does not exist under diversity except as a rationalization; that is, each group appeals to values that are presumed to be shared when they are to its advantage.

In a multicultural society, each group has a choice to be conquered or a conqueror. If they remain an ineffectual minority, their fate lies in the hands of other groups, who they trust to act in their own interest by oppressing that minority.

On the other hand, if they seize power and use it against other groups, they can achieve dominance and oppress the other groups, removing the threat of being conquered by them. Diversity brings international politics into a domestic race war.

For this reason, the usual conservative admonitions which encourage minorities to adopt the behavior of the host culture fall on deaf ears. To behave that way is to endorse the domination of whoever founded the society, and therefore is rejected.

That means that appeals to common standards go nowhere:

To review this list, one must immediately ask why these characteristics (arrogance, defensiveness, apathy) are particularly “white.” One might also wonder why this list of behaviors to be cut out wouldn’t be something everyone should adopt. Finally, it raises the question, shall nonwhites be oppressive, arrogant, certain, defensive, ignorant, and so on?

Consider the movement towards “math equity” in America’s public schools and universities. In this convoluted but very sophisticated con, teachers and administrators are encouraged to deny the validity of fundamental concepts in math. If you read their material, they don’t always come right out and say that. It would almost be better if they did.

Instead, imagine being an elementary school teacher required to fill out this 82-page “Pathway to Equitable Math Instruction.” What about just teaching kids in primary school to memorize multiplication tables?

These multiculturalists miss the point: each group wants to maintain its own standards, behaviors, values, aesthetics, and customs, so that it can win the racial cold war that diversity introduces.

They do not want “White” behaviors, since to adopt those is to accept being conquered. They want to assert their own, however arbitrary, in order to build up their own brand and project their own power, in order to win the conflict.

Consequently, we see a condition where there is no solution: whether “racist” or “anti-racist,” our diversity policies end up at the same place, which is a divided population warring against itself for ethnic dominance.

No wonder conservatives who try to accept that “racism” is bad find themselves in a state of paradox as they notice that post-racist society has made the problem worse and not better:

If we assume our own viewpoint on race is so vastly superior to that of the late 20th century, then why do we also think race relations are in such a horrible state, as many who support the retirement of artworks, presumably including Bump, believe?

Diversity offers us no solutions except self-destruction or ending diversity. It does not work and cannot be made to work. It serves as an epitaph for empires, not a new beginning; our hopes for it are simply denial rebranding with a positive spin.

Tags: , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn