People in the ruins of the West are starting to realize that diversity does not work.
On the surface, they see it through increased behavior of the type one finds in the rest of the world outside of the West. Most of the world languishes in third world status because of its refusal to adopt the founding principle of Western societies, which is the need for social order, including behavioral standards like honesty, integrity and a need to be productive.
Beneath that, they realize on some level that it means their nations have become shopping malls where citizenship is for sale in exchange for votes or paying taxes. No healthy society runs on this principle, so at a gut level they know their society is falling around them. This provokes some fear and trembling, but as long as the jobs are OK and they can afford reasonably comfortable lifestyles, they sleep.
At the most profound level, that of inner thought, some are starting to realize that diversity means a lack of direction. Diversity is the committee principle extended to ethnicity. And so there is no longer a standard like “the way we do things around here” or any principles in common except those of liberal democracy, tolerance, basic law and order, and that the money must flow.
Diversity creates apathy. The most diverse American city is also one that is famed for its apathy. When there are no social standards because every group has its own, people hunker down and ignore the world outside of their homes, jobs and grocery stores.
As usual, responses to this vary with how the individual thinks. Conservatives, who are realists who aspire to transcendentals like goodness and beauty, realize that the basic questions of life are qualitative. The methods are long known but the degree of their application determines how well results turn out, and how long they will endure.
Leftists, on the other hand, are motivated by egalitarianism alone. It is their one theory from which all of their rhetoric springs. In their view, the loss of social standards is a good thing because it empowers the individual. They favor apathetic, third world style civilizations because the individual has the least restrictions on its whims.
For this reason, the issue remains at an impasse. Conservatives are focused on improvement of what exists, and Leftists actively desire diversity. But this has changed with the observations above. Add to that the ongoing collapse of the American economy brought on by Leftist tax-regulate-and-spend coupled with a constant flow of new workers, driving down wages.
As a result, President Trump was elected in a large part based on his promise to Build That Wall. For most Americans, this was not a statement of racism, only a recognition that diversity is not just failing at its own goals, but damaging the country. The biggest social change of the last two decades has been the re-segregation of America in response to diversity, a prelude to Balkanization and eventually ethnic separation. Diversity has failed.
So far, however, we see no wall. There are political reasons for this, and practical ones, but even more, it may be that the wall is best interpreted at metaphor. What if we could, without laying a single brick, end diversity and immigration, or at least third world immigration (and bring the battered South Africans over instead)?
The answer lies in a simple question: why do they come here? Why give up their culture, way of life and homeland just to join the great shopping mall that is the post-collapse West?
The answer is equally simple, because the human organism never changes: for the free stuff and better money.
If you really want to build a wall, you will do so by making the free stuff go away and ending the guaranteed better money because of forced hiring. This means targeting our social welfare programs, including free medical care at emergency rooms, and ending the host of civil rights policies that follow the “disparate impact” theory behind Affirmative Action.
As American law is currently interpreted, if a white person and a minority person walk into a job interview, a rental office, a real estate office or a store, and the minority person does not get hired, rented to, sold a house or served first, legal liability is created. The business owner can be sued and the high legal costs could easily deprive him of his business.
These laws guarantee that if third world people come here, they can have whatever jobs, housing and service they want. This slipstreams into the psychology of immigrants, which is to want to convert whatever place they occupy into something like their homeland. They must either admit their homelands were not as nice as the new place, or invent a cognitive dissonance response that claims the new place is not nice at all, but will be so once the newcomers take it over and make it in their image. This, too, is eternal human behavior.
If Mr. Trump wants to build a wall, the fastest way to do this would be to change the interpretation of American law from “disparate impact” to no presumption of racial guilt if results turn out unequally for white people and non-whites. This would remove minorities from the legally-enforced front of the line, and allow the re-segregation to continue even faster.
In doing so, he would not be changing history but acknowledging it. The postwar experiment in diversity has failed, and since it is taboo to say so in public, people are simply segregating themselves. All races are doing this, as we see in places like Houston, which is in a pre-Balkanization state of each race isolating itself in its own neighborhoods.
A physical wall would be impressive, certainly. But the only sure way to stop the flood is to stop the handouts. Without guaranteed jobs and housing, and with no social benefits like welfare and healthcare to tempt them, the third world would stay home and do the right thing, which is to work toward the improvement of its own nations instead of deferring the solution by coming here.