Does Diversity Cause Anti-Semitism?

Looking for articles about George F. Will and Zionism, I stumbled across the words of the words of a Holocaust revisionist about anti-Semitism from an interview with the neoconservative columnist:

At one point, and suddenly changing the subject, Will asked me why I think that anti-Semitism exists. I said that this is a complex issue, and that a better way to put it might be to ask why hostility toward Jews has persisted over so many centuries, and in so many different cultures.

I went on to say that I largely agreed with what Theodor Herzl, the founder of the modern Zionist movement, had written (in The Jewish State) on this issue. I mentioned that Herzl, along with many others, often referred to the relationship between Jews and non-Jews in society as “the Jewish question.”

Having approached this situation from the opposite direction, namely “what data patterns can we infer that might prevent genocide?,” I found this interesting, and not only because Herzl is one of my heroes. Herzl articulated one of those rare arguments that is not against another race, but against the concept of diversity itself, following in the footsteps of Plato and Aristotle.

In Herzl’s view, the cause of anti-Semitism was diversity itself, or the fact that a foreign population within an ethnically-consistent population would stand out and become a scapegoat. He wrote about this after witnessing The Dreyfuss Affair and analyzing the psychology of the crowds, and his ideas led to the formation of modern (post-diaspora) Israel:

Herzl first encountered the anti-Semitism that would shape his life and the fate of the Jews in the twentieth century while studying at the University of Vienna (1882). Later, during his stay in Paris as a journalist, he was brought face-to-face with the problem. At the time, he regarded the Jewish problem as a social issue and wrote a drama, The Ghetto (1894), in which assimilation and conversion are rejected as solutions.

In 1894, Captain Alfred Dreyfus, a Jewish officer in the French army, was unjustly accused of treason, mainly because of the prevailing anti-Semitic atmosphere. Herzl witnessed mobs shouting “Death to the Jews” in France, the home of the French Revolution, and resolved that there was only one solution: the mass immigration of Jews to a land that they could call their own. Thus, the Dreyfus Case became one of the determinants in the genesis of Political Zionism.

Herzl concluded that anti-Semitism was a stable and immutable factor in human society, which assimilation did not solve. He mulled over the idea of Jewish sovereignty, and, despite ridicule from Jewish leaders, published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State, 1896). Herzl argued that the essence of the Jewish problem was not individual but national. He declared that the Jews could gain acceptance in the world only if they ceased being a national anomaly. The Jews are one people, he said, and their plight could be transformed into a positive force by the establishment of a Jewish state with the consent of the great powers. He saw the Jewish question as an international political question to be dealt with in the arena of international politics.

…Although at the time no one could have imagined it, Zionism led, only fifty years later, to the establishment of the independent State of Israel.

In his book The Jewish State, Herzl expanded on his earliest ideas: conversion and assimilation do not work, so Jews must either exist as (1) an isolated ethnic minority within host states — the condition of the diaspora — or (2) an ethnic group with its own state, a philosophy known as nationalism.

This leads back to the fundamental question: what is the cause of anti-Semitism? Some say that it is ethnic cruelty, others claim it is a legitimate response to the ethnic cruelty of Jews, but as Herzl found out and common sense dictates, people recognize that having a group of Other among them — whoever it is — is a form of slow genocide by outbreeding and therefore eventually lash out, leading to situations where whole villages unite to burn Jews alive in barns.

Diversity causes negative consequences for both host and minority populations and is unpopular with those who experience it while knowing of the alternative. It will lead to the eradication of indigenous peoples, and this makes them withdraw from society entirely, a condition known as atomization.

It is not surprising that as diversity thrashes a society to death, there will be outbursts which as mis-directed at the foreign population instead of diversity itself. Those who find themselves irked by diversity should heed this lesson, and instead of attack the Other, attack the policy of Othering the majority, namely diversity.

Chinese Students Discover Nationalism Through Alienation in Diverse America

Amazing how well diversity and equality backfire once experienced by those who have known their absence:

Some Western academics, politicians and media commentators believe Beijing may be winning that war when it comes to its overseas students – that rather than bringing Chinese youth towards a more politically liberal outlook, study in the West may instead be arousing greater nationalism and disdain for host countries, and in the process, be ushering in the Communist Party’s eyes, ears and hostile approach to free speech onto Western campuses.

…Han says that since coming to the US, he has been disappointed by American uninterest in understanding, or even listening to, views like these. Growing up in China, he explains, despite government propaganda, he came to see the US as a beacon of freedom, liberalism and open-mindedness. “But after a lot of people come here, they realise it’s not like that,” he says. “If you’re Chinese, when people talk about politics and democracy, you’ll always be targeted […] They try to put us under one very radical label, like, ‘Chinese people are lovers of dictatorships,’ things like that. At times, it’s very aggressive.”

…In many ways, interactions like these play into the Communist Party’s patriotic education campaign, which Chinese students are subjected to growing up. Instituted in the early 1990s, in the aftermath of the Tiananmen uprising, the curriculum began emphasising Chinese nationalism and the country’s 5,000 years of greatness that were interrupted by imperialistic atrocities inflicted by the West and Japan during a “century of humiliation” (1839-1949).

Westerners have never known a world apart from diversity, democracy, equality, and tolerance. We pride ourselves in having fought two world wars for “freedom” and see it as a bedrock of our civilization. While Chinese feel that Americans are biased against Chinese, they are also experiencing how the rhetoric of equality becomes a cause in itself that necessarily excludes those with national pride.

Much as people in the Soviet Union were unaware of any other way of life until they saw information about America and Western Europe, Americans are unaware of how our mania for individual freedom makes us the enemies of any who want to keep their national cultures. Only recently has that begun changing with the rise of identity politics, which causes Americans to experience what these Chinese students have undergone.

Intermediate Stage In Diversity: Proportional Representation And Meritocracy

Diversity destroys civilizations and results in genocide of the majority through outbreeding because every identifiable group — race, religion, ethnicity, caste — acts only in its own interests. This means that groups inevitably clash because each needs to be in control of its surroundings in order to avoid being replaced.

This process takes time and is rationalized by participants at different levels that allow them to accept it. At first, diversity is limited to a labor role, and over time it expands to full-blown cultural warfare. A quotation from John Wayne shows us how people rationalize its first stage in an attempt to deal “fairly” with diversity from 1971:

I’ve directed two pictures and I gave the blacks their proper position. I had a black slave in The Alamo, and I had a correct number of blacks in The Green Berets. If it’s supposed to be a black character, naturally I use a black actor. But I don’t go so far as hunting for positions for them. I think the Hollywood studios are carrying their tokenism a little too far. There’s no doubt that 10 percent of the population is black, or colored, or whatever they want to call themselves; they certainly aren’t Caucasian. Anyway, I suppose there should be the same percentage of the colored race in films as in society. But it can’t always be that way. There isn’t necessarily going to be 10 percent of the grips or sound men who are black, because more than likely, 10 percent haven’t trained themselves for that type of work.

This is similar to the “meritocracy” view used by conservatives. The idea is that, since diversity is there, people should be treated fairly, which means showing them as they actually are in the world. However, this clashes with egalitarianism, or the idea that all people are equal, because then the diversity is not being shown as equally successful as the majority.

Hence the society enters the next stage, where the diversity is artificially made more prominent, successful, and competent in the public eye. That in turn further deepens the inter-group warfare because it has created a politically protected class whose interests are now directly opposed to that of the majority.

Nancy Pelosi Accuses Donald Trump Of Trying To Make America White Again (MAWA)

Trying to make sense of the complex coalition of grievances — feminism, minorities, youth, disabled, criminals — that they have assembled, the Left came right out and accused president Donald Trump of majoritarianism. This is a typical stage in diversity where, since the society is divided, one group forms a coalition of the discontented and the other aims for protection of the historical majority.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi accused Republicans of waging an “unmistakable campaign to make America white again”:

Trump’s proposal would offer a path to citizenship for 1.8 million so-called “Dreamers.” He would insist on $25 billion in funding for a border wall and security. The proposal also called for a crackdown on chain migration and the diversity visa lottery program.

Pelosi wrote in a statement on Friday that the 50 percent cut to legal immigration and the “recent announcements to end Temporary Protected Status for Central Americans and Haitians are both part of the same cruel agenda. They are part of the Trump administration’s unmistakable campaign to make America white again.”

At this point in the diversity game, the social breakdown predicted by Plato and Aristotle, and documented by Robert Putnam, has occurred. Putnam found that diversity causes people to become alienated from one another; Haidt follows up on this by pointing out that diversity erodes culture. This begins with the lack of a sense of what the society is, since it no longer means a tribe and now relies on amorphous financial, legal, and socioeconomic definitions.

If Donald Trump defends the majority, he will be accused of racism because that is how his actions appear to a coalition of those who want to remove the majority from power; if he defends the coalition, he will be seen as participating in the ongoing genocide of the majority (frequently called “white genocide” despite the murkiness of the term “white”) and his base will abandon him.

As usual, diversity becomes genocide when the instability of diversity becomes clear. We are at a fork in the road: either we admit that diversity has failed, at which point we become “racists” arguing for a monotribalist American ethnostate, or we double down on diversity, at which point we signal that we are in favor of the ethnic destruction of the majority.

Corporate America, Like Our Democratic Leaders, Wants Obedience — White Males Do Not Fit

James Damore, author of a controversial memo that pointed out how conformist Google’s corporate “culture” had become, is now suing the company not for wrongful termination, but for discrimination while he worked there. This strategy enables him to win his case and, despite being likely awarded no real money, having proved his point.

The suit — which seems balanced on the whole, and confined to the factual — reveals what a hostile work environment at Google that Damore had to endure:

According to his filing, Google employs “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favored minority candidates, and openly shames managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas—in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favored than others.”

The suit also claims that the “numerical presence of women celebrated at Google” was based “solely due to their gender” while the “presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during companywide weekly meetings.”

…To underscore her point that Google’s policies need to be amended, she cited so-called TGIF meetings at Google, telling reporters that during Damore’s tenure, “managers were called out and shamed and mocked if they didn’t have 50/50 gender parity in [their respective] units.” She called the goal “fair” but asked, rhetorically: “How do you get there? Job fairs. Making yourself more attractive. Not by saying, ‘White guy, you can’t have that job because that’s reserved for a woman or [other] minority.’”

Nothing here is surprising. Tech has left the years of innovation behind; Google is messing around with AI and other tech that will mature in a few dozen years, but that is being handled by unwashed geeklings hidden in back rooms. The rest of Google has become as corporate as Monsanto, GM, or Microsoft, and for that, they need obedient little tools to carry out the detailed tasks handed down from above.

As a result, they are turning to women, Asians, and other minorities because these groups tend to be detail-focused but oblivious to the big picture, which means that they will carry out paradoxical or pointless instructions to the letter, which is what administration needs in order to remain in power.

Although this seems like Google is strong, what is really announces is that Google has become weak. It has moved from the youth of a company to old age, mainly because its existing product does not produce enough money, and its future products are not yet realized. This is a company in crisis, and James Damore is bringing that to light for the benefit of all, including Google itself.

Ethnic Ties Are More Important That Alliances With Other Races

Diversity makes people isolated and withdrawn, conditions that go alongside paranoia. Xenophobia, or the pragmatic recognition that other groups want to dominate your group, can also coincide with paranoia. But in the end, ethnic allegiance is more important than cross-racial alliances. We can see this in the case of Donald Trump and John Lewis:

Shortly after arriving in Atlanta, Trump signed a bill that grants Georgia its first national historic park at the Martin Luther King Jr. National Historic Site near downtown Atlanta. He signed it shortly after Martin Luther King Jr.’s niece, Alveda King, boarded Air Force One.

The measure was long championed by U.S. Rep. John Lewis, an Atlanta Democrat and vocal Trump critic, who praised the bill without mentioning the president.

In theory, Trump is reaching out to another ethnic group, but this is not praiseworthy in the eyes of a member of that group. If he acknowledges the help of a cross-racial ally, he is ceding some power to that other group, so he cannot both recognize the help and maintain his own action in the self-interest of his group. This is yet another reason why diversity will never work, but in the meantime, will make unintentional enemies of us all.

The Grief Exception: Diversity Causes Depression

At The Guardian, buried deep within an article on depression lurks a shocking admission of its causes, including diversity.

Then, as the years and decades passed, doctors on the frontline started to come back with another question. All over the world, they were being encouraged to tell patients that depression is, in fact, just the result of a spontaneous chemical imbalance in your brain – it is produced by low serotonin, or a natural lack of some other chemical. It’s not caused by your life – it’s caused by your broken brain. Some of the doctors began to ask how this fitted with the grief exception. If you agree that the symptoms of depression are a logical and understandable response to one set of life circumstances – losing a loved one – might they not be an understandable response to other situations? What about if you lose your job? What if you are stuck in a job that you hate for the next 40 years? What about if you are alone and friendless?

The grief exception seemed to have blasted a hole in the claim that the causes of depression are sealed away in your skull. It suggested that there are causes out here, in the world, and they needed to be investigated and solved there. This was a debate that mainstream psychiatry (with some exceptions) did not want to have. So, they responded in a simple way – by whittling away the grief exception. With each new edition of the manual they reduced the period of grief that you were allowed before being labelled mentally ill – down to a few months and then, finally, to nothing at all. Now, if your baby dies at 10am, your doctor can diagnose you with a mental illness at 10.01am and start drugging you straight away.

…We act like human distress can be assessed solely on a checklist that can be separated out from our lives, and labelled as brain diseases. If we started to take people’s actual lives into account when we treat depression and anxiety, Joanne explained, it would require “an entire system overhaul”. She told me that when “you have a person with extreme human distress, [we need to] stop treating the symptoms. The symptoms are a messenger of a deeper problem. Let’s get to the deeper problem.”

The grief exception points out that depression cannot be purely chemical because people experience it in response to grief, which is an external stimulus. If grief can cause the effects of depression, then we cannot universally say that those effects cause depression, because that is a cause-effect error. If when it rains, the sidewalk is wet, it does not mean that the if the sidewalk is wet, it has rained; there are other ways in that the sidewalk can become wet.

As it turns out, that is not all. Instability caused by diversity causes people to fear for their future, and this makes them depressed and paranoid:

We all know that every human being has basic physical needs: for food, for water, for shelter, for clean air. It turns out that, in the same way, all humans have certain basic psychological needs. We need to feel we belong. We need to feel valued. We need to feel we’re good at something. We need to feel we have a secure future. And there is growing evidence that our culture isn’t meeting those psychological needs for many – perhaps most – people. I kept learning that, in very different ways, we have become disconnected from things we really need, and this deep disconnection is driving this epidemic of depression and anxiety all around us.

…Professor John Cacioppo of Chicago University taught me that being acutely lonely is as stressful as being punched in the face by a stranger – and massively increases your risk of depression. Dr Vincent Felitti in San Diego showed me that surviving severe childhood trauma makes you 3,100% more likely to attempt suicide as an adult. Professor Michael Chandler in Vancouver explained to me that if a community feels it has no control over the big decisions affecting it, the suicide rate will shoot up.

As time goes on, we are seeing that diversity is destructive to all groups involved and that our attempts to fix the situation only make it worse. Like any other crusade against a condition of life itself, this one is doomed to fail because it has no condition for stopping, thus will continue to accelerate in manic intensity until it self-destructs.

Anti-Diversity Means No More Ethnic Conflict

The Jersusalem Post opines that racial animosity arises from conflicting interests even in neutral, pacifistic, diversity-worshiping America:

Though US President Donald Trump is a philosemite and has proven to be a major ally of Israel, many of the issues that he has advanced – anti-immigration, America First, anti-globalism – are shared by blatantly antisemitic conservative politicians. Indeed, a number of political pundits have noted that, leaving aside Patrick Buchanan’s anti-Israel and antisemitic rhetoric, there are remarkable similarities between Trump’s campaign and the issues championed by Buchanan during his unsuccessful 1992 and 1996 presidential campaigns.

As a result, the supporters of men like Buchanan have shown thrown their support behind Trump and have been emboldened by Trump’s victory. Because Trump is dependent on this constituency for its support, he cannot easily disassociate himself from them or openly criticize them.

The tragedy here is that ethnic interests conflict: the Western European substrate of America wants to have its own nation, and the Jewish people surely need theirs. While Donald Trump is not anti-Semitic, he recognizes the primal rule of nations. One ethnic group defines one nation. Only when two or more overlap do we see the horrors of racial resentment, pogroms, Holocausts and other outward signs of ethnic conflict.

Diversity = Racism


The slogans “diversity is racism” and “multiculturalism is genocide” emphasize the truth of these programs, which are sold to you as a rainbow nation of people of different origins holding hands and singing “Kumbaya.” In reality, diversity and multiculturalism are designed to replace a majority ethnic population with a mixed-race one.


Racism is discrimination against those of another race.

Racism, n. (2) a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.1

Multiculturalism is racism against the majority. When leaders who want totalitarian control see a majority population, they realize they have a problem. Majorities have cultures, values, folkways and belief systems. The tyrannical leader needs people who will follow a carrot (ideology) from fear of a stick (political ostracism), and majorities do not do this enough. Therefore, they need to be replaced. The solution is to bring in people from all over the world, then punish those who do not interact, socialize, and conduct commerce with these, forcing the mixing of the groups.


Genocide is removal of a race.

Genocide is defined in Article 2 of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948) as “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”2

Diversity (also called internationalism, multiculturalism and ethno-pluralism) starts with the happy row of ethnic restaurants and neighbors of different national backgrounds. It ends with those cultures each destroyed as they are assimilated into majority culture, which in turn assimilates majority culture to a new mixed-race group, which then replaces the majority. If you did it with machine guns, people would recognize it as genocide. It is simpler a slower less visible method.