One cannot help noticing the propaganda barrage in favor of "diversity" that our ruling elite are forcing down our throats. We are told that "diversity" exists, it is increasing, it is good, and we must all learn to accept and celebrate these "facts." That much of this propaganda is targeted at children is of extreme concern. We would like to ask a few brief questions about this propaganda campaign, and the subject of "diversity" itself.
1. Does diversity really exist?
This is a serious question. On the one hand, looking at all the system's propaganda in favor of diversity, it seems that the major type of diversity that is being promoted is that of having physically different types of humans - in other words, different RACES (and ethnic groups) - in one place. BUT...the pro-diversity liberals also tell us that:
"There is no such thing as race; we are all actually really the same, we are all essentially identical. What we think of as race is really a social construct that has caused enormous human misery; thus, we must get rid of this social construct. In fact, whatever differences people think exist between human populations are extremely superficial and meaningless."
OK, then, we can ask the following. If race does not exist, how can one have - never mind celebrate - "racial diversity?" If the social construct of race is so bad, and has caused so much misery, and must be eliminated, then why do the diversity-mongers emphasize these social constructs, and make them the center of attention, the center of society, and a cause for "celebration?" If human differences are "superficial and meaningless", then what, pray tell, is the advantage of having a diversity of such superficial and meaningless differences?
Either human diversity does not exist OR human differences are real and important. Which is it? Diversity-mongers like to confuse the public with Orwellian statements like: "race does not exist, but racism is real"; however, any thinking person has to reject such rubbish. Again: are human differences (i.e., races and ethnic groups) real, or is "diversity" about nothing but an illusion?
2. If diversity is real, is it good?
Let us assume that the liberals somehow wiggle their way out of the contradictions discussed above, and assert that indeed, human differences exist, and thus, human diversity exists. We can then ask: is the liberals' version of diversity good?
First, a few comments. When scientists talk about the benefits of "biodiversity", they mean by that something quite different than what liberals mean by diversity. The key to biodiversity is preserving all of nature's species and subspecies within their natural environments. It does NOT mean that animal and plant species and subspecies from all over the globe are to be brought to one area to live together, and where attempts are to be made to interbreed those species/subspecies which are so capable (e.g., dogs, wolves, coyotes; lions and tigers; various bird species, etc.) into one sort of homogenous hybrid species. Again, true biodiversity is concerned with preserving all life within its natural habitats. Thus, in fact, racial separatist nationalists are the true champions of human biodiversity, which they want to preserve, and the liberal diversity-mongers are enemies of human biodiversity, which they wish to eliminate. Well, actually, liberals are concerned with eliminating EUROPEAN human biodiversity throughout the Earth; other human population groups "of course" are allowed to exist unmolested in their own homelands. But, in any case, the contradiction between real biodiversity and liberal "diversity" is clear for all to see.
Liberals also like to preface their statements on the "blessings of diversity" with comments such as:
"Diversity exists, and it is increasing, so we had all better get used to it. Your children will live in a more 'diverse' society, so you'll help them by making them more comfortable with such 'diversity."
Well, that makes no sense. We can also say that terrorism exists and is increasing, diseases such as cancer exist and are increasing, crime exists, etc., so should we celebrate these things also, promote their existence, and make our children more comfortable with them? The fact that something exists, and is increasing, is no logical proof that the thing in question is "good." And, also, the "inevitability" of increasing diversity, which liberals like to make out to be a "random force of nature", is in fact no such thing. Increasing "diversity" in White societies is the result of political decisions which can be reversed. Even low birthrates among western populations could be reversed with the correct policies and the political will. The liberals want their agenda to seem inevitable, but it is inevitable only if those who oppose the agenda accept that it is inevitable - which it is NOT.
The main question of this section of this essay is: is "diversity" good? The messes caused by such "diversity" around the globe- including in America - are fairly conclusive proof that liberal diversity has serious costs. It also seems to have no clear benefits. After all, if diversity was such an obvious strength, people would be seeking it out naturally, and the monolithic pro-diversity propaganda campaign would not be necessary. But actually, an excellent analysis of the absurdity of the "diversity is strength" nonsense already exists; thus, instead of just repeating what it says, we link to it here:
Read it for yourself and make up your own mind.
3. If diversity is so great, why don't "nations of color" practice it?
Hmm...this is strange. All of the nations of Asian, Africa, and Latin America - which increase the "diversity" of the West via constant immigration - themselves seem to reject the blessings of diversity. Nations like Japan and Korea (Korea being a prime source of immigration to the USA) are among the most racially/ethnically homogenous nations on Earth. Another major source of immigrants is China, a state run by its Han Chinese majority. The small percentage of the population of China which is not Chinese is herded into the western areas of the country and are in fact, in some cases, being displaced by ethnic Chinese. The heavily populated eastern and east-central portions of China are essentially racial homogenous Chinese. Question: since China has an imbalance of young males over females, and since this is considered a vexing social problem, why doesn't China start importing excess females of
other races to wed Chinamen, and help build China's booming economy? I would think that millions of African and Latino women would help "enrich" China, don't you agree? And of course, China should not be sexist as well as racist; thus, the blessings of diversity can include immigration into China of African and Latino males as well. And of course, the same goes for all the relatively homogenous (and in some cases xenophobic) nations of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. [Note to non-White racial nationalists: I am obviously being sarcastic here. But, this sarcasm points out non-White hypocrisy on "diversity", a hypocrisy that non-White nationalists need to correct. If you wish to be masters of your own domains, then let us - the Whites - be the masters in ours.]
What about Israel? Why should Israel be just a "Jewish state?" I would think that Israel would be greatly strengthened by diverse immigration of gentiles from all over the Earth, including Africans and Latinos. What about the benefits of Arab Muslim immigration into Israel? Diversity is strength! And of course, we cannot forget the exclusive and homogenous Hasidic Jewish communities in the USA. There are some towns in New York state which are essentially exclusively Jewish. These poor people are suffering from inadequate diversity! Perhaps low income housing should be built there, in the interests of "desegregation!"
4. Other kinds of diversity exist, no?
Liberals like to say:
"Diversity is not only about (non-existent) race or ethnicity or gender. Diversity includes all of us - we all contribute to diversity with our unique selves, our particular interests perspectives, experiences, thoughts, and personalities. Some of us are tall, some short, some extroverts, some introverts, with all different ideas - that is what diversity is really about."
To which I reply: that is simply not true. The system's diversity propaganda seems to concentrate exclusively on the diversity of (usually) immutable physical characteristics such as race, ethnicity, and gender, as does the hiring practices of companies that "wish to promote a diverse workplace by encouraging applications from 'people of color' and women." Why does no company encourage applications from "burly White redneck men", for example?
Let's look at how this "holistic diversity" could work. Certainly, the mass media could diversify by hiring more conservative Republicans to go with all the liberal Democrats; college faculties can be diversified in the same manner. Pacifists can help diversify the General Staffs of our military forces. No doubt that anarchists, mobsters, and gangbangers could strengthen your local police force. The NBA can recruit midgets and dwarves; blind men can be effective airline pilots. Companies without a healthy quota of White nationalist separatists can be considered to have inadequate diversity. Why are undertakers all living people; why do we assume that the dead would not have useful input to that profession? That is anti-deceased hate and intolerance! And, if diversity of opinion is to be valued, what about the opinions of those who think that liberal multiracial/multicultural diversity is bad? Will we soon see propaganda from that point of view ?
5. Isn't it possible that the whole diversity-program is nothing more or less than an organized system of genocide against peoples of European descent, sweetened up with syrupy propaganda in order to mask the poison's bitter taste?
We won't answer that one. It is up to you, dear reader, to provide your own response.
* * * Back to the Home Page of John "Birdman" Bryant, the World's Most Controversial Author * * *