You know that you finally understand an argument when it seems plain and simple to you and you cannot imagine having ever not known about it. Esotericists compare them to paths: once you are on a path, you cannot unsee it, but until you discover where it branches from the road or forest, it is invisible and might as well not exist for you.
In the same way, the anti-diversity argument baffles just about everyone. They assume that you detest one of the groups involved, therefore argue against diversity, but cannot see that diversity itself, in any form, is simply toxic to civilizations like socialism or militarism or theocracy. It is just a toxic pattern of human relationships.
America today has legally-mandated diversity after three-quarters of a century of civil rights law and social welfare state funding. The “deep state” runs on the diversity industry. Academia depends on it, and journalists would have little to write about without it. Business is banking on it saving us from demographic decline.
For those who look at actual patterns, instead of simply following procedure to immediate reward, the idea of diversity itself is ludicrous. Multiple ethnic groups means no one gets their culture except as a hobby. Clashing cultural mandates means no cultural agreement. Pluralism leads to simmering, longstanding hatred.
Even worse, from a Darwinian standpoint, diversity is genocide. You replace a population with something else, even if it includes some of the original population, but it never gets back the genetic frameworks that made it what it was. Ethnic groups are collections of inter-related and architectonically mutually supportive traits. Those go away.
Our centrally-commanded diversity came about through the Hart-Celler Act, an immigration and naturalization bill that replaced previous laws which favored Western Europeans, and replaced them with third world immigration, prompting collapse in wages and demographic decline:
The 1965 legislation was named the Hart-Celler Act for its principal sponsors in the Senate and House of Representatives. It abolished the quota system, which critics condemned as a racist contradiction of fundamental American values. By liberalizing the rules for immigration, especially by prioritizing family reunification, it also stimulated rapid growth of immigration numbers. Once immigrants had naturalized, they were able to sponsor relatives in their native lands in an ever-lengthening migratory process called chain migration. That unintended consequence is Hart-Celler’s enduring legacy.
“The 1965 immigration law quickly transformed the ethnic portrait of the United States,” scholars have noted. At first the new immigration came largely from southern Europe, especially Italy. But that stream played out in about a decade. Meanwhile, immigration from Eastern Europe was limited by repressive communist governments.
By 1980, most immigrants were coming from Latin America, Asia, and Africa — in numbers far greater than the annual average of 300,000 that had prevailed during the 1960s. Despite assurances by Hart-Celler advocates that the bill would add little to the immigrant stream, more than seven million newcomers entered the country legally during the 1980s. That trend has continued. Meanwhile, illegal immigration also began a decades-long surge.
This bill was the product of Irish resentment of the Anglo-Saxon founders of our civilization. Pushed heavily by Ted Kennedy, it was authored in part by Philip Aloysius Hart, a Donahue/Alda style soft friendly liberal bearded man:
Philip Aloysius Hart Jr. is the grandson of Irish immigrants and the son of a banker from Bryn Mawr, Pa. He grew up in middle‐class comfort and attended Roman Catholic schools in the Pennsylvania suburbs. Mr. Hart graduated from Georgetown University and then, with a law degree from the University of Michigan, settled into law and politics around Detroit. He became legal adviser to then‐Gov. G. Mennen Williams in 1953, and was elected Lieutenant Governor in 1954 and 1956.
His marriage to Jane Cameron Briggs, heiress to an automotive fortune, gave Mr. Hart financial independence but not complacency. Mrs. Hart, sometimes known as “the liberal Martha Mitchell,” was more outspoken and more radical than her husband, especially during the Vietnam war, when she was once arrested for sitting‐in and praying at the Pentagon.
…“In 15 years we have not made even a dent in the task of redistributing wealth in this nation,” he said. “Some 200 corporations still control most of the wealth. Until we do something about that appalling concentration of power—power that even overwhelms the Congress at times—we will be able to do little to improve matters for the poor.”
Equality is about vengeance. Those who pursue it feel that some people succeeded, and this is unfair, therefore we need to legitimize stealing from them and beating them down so that everyone who did not succeed feels better. Advocacy of these pathologies is typical of diversity groups like the Irish.
He was joined by Emanuel Celler, who was half German Catholic and half German-Jewish, leading him to pursue a type of Christ-like pathology of lifting up the underdog while tearing down the strong, something that manifested in a career of pity and neurotic desires for equality:
Celler’s determination to fight U. S. immigration quotas was particularly reinforced one Sunday during World War II when a bearded rabbi came to his home. Celler always left the door unlocked on Sundays so his constituents could enter without ringing or knocking. The rabbi in a black hat and long coat, clutching a cane, spoke forcefully to Celler. “Don’t you see, can’t you see?” the rabbi asked, “Won’t you see that there are millions — millions — being killed. Can’t we save some of them? Can’t you, Mr. Congressman, do something?” Celler equivocated, averring that President Roosevelt had told him that he sympathized with the Jewish plight but could not divert ships being used to transport war material and soldiers to bring in refugees. The rabbi’s reply moved Celler to tears: “If six million cattle had been slaughtered,” he observed, “there would have been greater interest.”
After the war, as chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Celler resolved to liberalize the immigration laws. In 1946, Congress so restricted the number of Displaced Persons who could enter the U.S. that, despite the starvation in Europe, fewer than 3,000 DPs actually emigrated here. Celler’s determined efforts led to the passage, in 1948, of a bill that allowed 339,000 DPs to enter the country, many of whom were Jewish. Finally, in 1965, President Lyndon Johnson signed into law an act that eliminated national origins as a consideration for immigration, culminating Celler’s 41-year fight to overcome discrimination against Eastern European Jews and Catholics. Today, nearly 75 percent of American Jews descend from immigrants from Eastern Europe.
Of the two, Hart may have been the greater fanatic, because where Celler had some restraint on diversity issues, Hart made it his lifelong hobby to find marginalized groups and lift them up at the expense of the successful majority, especially those who unlike him could succeed outside of government and soft hands work like the law:
Over the course of his 18-year Senate career, Hart distinguished himself as a man of deep personal conviction and integrity and a steadfast advocate for the common man. He was an ardent supporter of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and served as the floor manager of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. As the chairman of the Antitrust Subcommittee he took on big business even when it contradicted his own political interests. Senator Hart’s commitment to such causes earned him the moniker, “The Conscience of the Senate.”
Many Americans supported the bill because it was promoted by Ted Kennedy, a mostly-Irish alcoholic who ignored all issues except equality issues as if he had been raised Communist, which to be fair Irish Catholics who liked Abe Lincoln effectively had been:
Kennedy was something of a throwback. He was certainly patrician. He was from one of America’s wealthiest families. But Kennedy money wasn’t old Wasp money. Old Man Joe, whatever his faults, taught his nine kids to remember the penury from which the family had risen. And from the experience of being Catholic in early 20th-century America, they took the lesson that discrimination and exclusion had to be fought.
In 1958 and 1960, more men in the Mansfield-Hart mould were elected to the Senate. The trend culminated in Teddy’s own class, of 1962. Now, suddenly, the Senate wasn’t dominated by millionaires and racists. And now, the Senate could help remake America – and itself. It joined the side of progress and passed piles of legislation, starting of course with civil rights but hardly ending there, that changed the country.
As it turned out, the Hart-Celler Act brought unparalleled disaster by making a formerly thriving first world nation into a third world ruin as it filled with r-strategy low-IQ people adapted to tropical climates and therefore lacking the more complex genetic frameworks that allowed Western Europeans — including WASPs — to develop and maintain complex societies.
After World War II, opponents of the racially discriminatory national origins system spent twenty years working to dismantle the quotas, and the Hart-Celler Act was the product of these struggles. In doing away with national origins, and in replacing it with a system that was on its face race-neutral, the 1965 act can be seen as part of the civil rights moment in which it was passed, coming just one year after the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in the same year as the Voting Rights Act.
Although in signing the act into law, President LBJ stated that it was “not a revolutionary bill,” Hart-Celler opened the doors to immigrants from around the world, ending the heavy emphasis on European immigrants that marked the earlier immigration system. To give one example, the number of immigrants gaining permanent visas from Asia in the 1970s was ten times as many as those in the 1950s. This represented a really remarkable change: while we have always been a nation of immigrants, and a nation of immigrants from around the world, the act helped to make us a far more multicultural nation.
They originally pitched it not as the White Replacement that it would be, nor the White Genocide it would bring about, but as bringing other groups to the table where each had its own place and the Anglo-American society continued forward. This turned out of course to be a lie from a man whose habit of lying was only revealed much later:
“The bill will not flood our cities with immigrants,” lead supporter Sen. Edward “Ted” Kennedy (D-Mass.) told the Senate during debate. “It will not upset the ethnic mix of our society. It will not relax the standards of admission. It will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.”
But the act—also known as the Hart-Celler Act after its sponsors, Sen. Philip Hart (D-Mich.) and Rep. Emanuel Celler (D-N.Y.)—put an end to long-standing national-origin quotas that favored those from northern and western Europe and led to a significant immigration demographic shift in America. Since the act was passed, according to the Pew Research Center, immigrants living in America have more than quadrupled, now accounting for nearly 14 percent of the population.
The 1965 act has to be understood as a result of the civil rights movement, and the general effort to eliminate race discrimination from U.S. law, says Gabriel “Jack” Chin, immigration law professor at University of California, Davis and co-editor of The 1965 Immigration and Nationality Act: Legislating a New America.
In other words, this was a direct response to the Civil War and the anti-Hitler fanaticism of WW2. In order to avoid being Adolf Hitler or Jefferson Davis, we had to abolish ourselves like a mythical Christ sacrificing himself on a cross of common sense while the world around him burns from neglect:
Since 1790, when Congress passed the nation’s first immigration act, prevailing law had restricted naturalized citizenship to “free white persons.” What constituted a white person was by no means clear. While today it is intuitive to classify German-, Irish- or Italian-Americans as white, in the mid-19th century, many native-born Protestants regarded newcomers as unwhite and therefore singularly unfit for citizenship. In establishment outlets like Harper’s Magazine, editorialists lampooned Irish immigrants as drunken, lazy and idle, while cartoonists portrayed immigrants as possessing ape-like, subhuman physical attributes.
Although many Americans in the 1920s regarded eugenics and other forms of racial engineering as simply good science and solid public policy, revelations of Germany’s euthanasia program targeting mentally and physically handicapped children inspired a scientific repudiation of eugenics in the United States. More generally, Nazi race policy and anti-Semitism delegitimized racialist thinking in nearly all of its popular incarnations, influencing works like Ashley Montagu’s Man’s Most Dangerous Myth: The Fallacy of Race, a celebrated volume that argued race was a scientifically “artificial” and “meaningless” invention.
The statute that put this demographic transformation in motion arrived closely on the heels of a parallel, related development. Writing in 1965, shortly before LBJ signed the immigration act into law, Theodore White, the noted journalist and chronicler of American presidential campaigns, marveled at the striking realignment of black voters. For approximately 75 years following the Civil War, African-Americans had fallen squarely into the Republican camp. Notwithstanding the powerful draw of FDR’s New Deal coalition, even as late as 1960, one-third of “non-white” voters (the vast majority of them, black) supported Richard Nixon, the GOP candidate.
They pitched it to the population with egalitarianism. They did not want a third world invasion, no, only the “skilled” immigrants, a term that as usual was defined on a piece of paper and interpreted on other pieces of paper with only fragments of the original meaning remaining.
High on the egalitarian doctrine that, started in the French Revolution, had conquered Europe through the World Wars, the American voter favored White Genocide in a victory for symbolism disguised as pragmatism:
Gallup conducted a nationwide survey in June 1965 that found a slim majority of those interviewed (51%) favored skills-based admissions over the national origins quota system. Gallup had performed special breakdowns of their data for the Johnson administration that revealed that the responses to the questions were correlated. According to the internal analysis, Gallup found that 71% of those surveyed listed occupational skills as the most important criteria for admitting immigrants. Gallup analysts concluded that the results indicated “a clear mandate for a policy based upon occupational skills.” Johnson’s messaging strategy of emphasizing merit over national origins appeared to have been a wise one.
Like many societies, the West had given up on doing things the right way and aimed for a consolation prize, finding in egalitarianism a substitute for culture and purpose:
The post-war period gave rise to an era that cultivated many thoughts and ideas about how societies should be structured. Theorist John Rawls may not have been the first to ever write on philosophical matters such as equality, egalitarianism, utilitarianism or humanitarianism, but he laid the foundation for these matters to be discussed in a far more serious manner. Indeed, it is in this time frame around the mid-20th century that the Hart-Celler Act came into existence. Many legislators contended that the laws should be changed because racial and national distinctions were bad in principle (Chin 1996, 115).
The roots of this, like the roots of Irish power, came from democracy, where the vote of an insane criminal retard is equal to that of a wise moral genius. The lower orders of society voting hard for ethnic equality and in doing so kicked open the door to racial equality:
The process of accommodation worked both ways. For instance, the Roosevelt coalition of ethnic groups, labor, the intellectuals and the South paid political dividends. The etlmic groups in turn found an active and honorable role in American politics and society. Take one example. There were very few foreign names in the Fifty-second Congress which was elected at the end of the frontier period. There were in fact only a few Irish-Americans and Anthony Caminetti, a native-born Californian. But the roster of the Ninety-first Congress reads like a gazetteer: Addabbo, Conti, Derwinski, Galifianakis, O’Konski, Zablocki, and of course Mrs. Patsy Mink from Hawaii. The House of Representatives is now clearly representative of the American pluralistic society. The Senate has its Fong and Pastore, and if the names remain overwhelmingly Anglo-American it is because the Senate represents states and the demographic mix is not evenly spread frorn sea to shining sea. The dominance of the WASPs in the White House was broken by President John F. Kennedy. Mr. Spiro T. Agnew, the son of an itinerant Greek fruit seller, was elected Vice-President in 1968.
This did not result in pluralism, or parallel societies of WASPs and the newcomers, but the replacement of Whites with mixed-race people who were mostly Caucasian but included other elements (Slavs=Eurasian, Semites=Eurasian+Negroid, Southern Europeans=Eurasian+Arab, Irish=Semites+neolithics), causing the first steps in the competence crisis that wracked the country after every war:
The sociologist who coined the term WASP was a professor from the University of Pennsylvania with the perfect name, E. Digby Baltzell. In the early 1960s, he wrote one of the great books of his discipline, The Protestant Establishment. And he noted how the old-stock Protestants were in the process of committing class suicide. He predicted that with their prejudice and insularity, the members of this old aristocracy would find themselves in abeyance, pushed aside by more talented members of minority groups. He heaped praise on the likes of Teddy Roosevelt and the presidents of universities who understood the imperative of democratizing their elite, opening it to groups unlike themselves—an act of beneficence and a means of preserving the institutions and privileges of their own cohort.
With the rise of Irish diversity in the early 1800s, speeding up when Tammany Hall and other political machines became the swing vote in American politics, the WASP had become an endangered species as it was crowded out by the newcomers with lower standards:
After the Civil War, there was a great Dante craze among certain elements of American life. They had all kinds of nervous breakdowns. They knew it as neurasthenia, and they all suffered. They all were sort of head cases. And Dante really spoke to them by describing their state of mind, their inner anguish, but also his belief that you could work through it and see the light. Henry Stimson would quote Dante in his own memoir, saying that after years of the narrow practice of law, when he finally was able to be the United States attorney for the Southern District of New York, he said, “I felt like the first time in my life I got out of the dark places to a place where I could see the stars,” which recapitulates the end of the Inferno, the first part of Dante’s Divine Comedy.
In the 1960s a combination of things are occurring. First of all, WASPs themselves, they’re sort of—forgive me for saying it, but their inbreeding and their nepotism would be ruinous if they’re not bringing enough new talent into their organization. You have Henry Chauncey, who ironically is a legacy at Groton and at Harvard. He’s instrumental in developing the Scholastic Aptitude Test to level the playing field. So now you don’t have to go to Groton or Hotchkiss to be admitted to Yale or Harvard. You can go to a regular high school and perform well on the SAT. The postwar meritocracy is eroding the WASP position. There’s also a cultural shift after the war. There’s less deference.
As it turns out, the WASPs were the last group to ensure that there was American culture — other than the ersatz replacement of movies, media, and pop culture — that had a clear purpose to it:
The defining qualities of the WASP were typically found at the intersection of patrician bloodlines, political and cultural influence, and a desire for completeness, which Beran describes as “a developing of all sides of one’s nature to satisfy some longing in the soul.”
In this way, Irish diversity led to general ethnic diversity and from that to the racial diversity that effectively ended the American experiment. The Judeo-Arab religion of Christianity, in some of its varied interpretations, featured prominently in this decay, as did democracy, whose pathology of equality started the decline.