In the old narrative, there were a few evil racists who hated people of other racial and ethnic groups. If we removed the power that these racists had, the theory went, then everyone could live in harmony.
In reality, we see another instance of humanity denying nature. Different groups exist for a reason, namely that if a group wants its own values to persist, it must separate itself and then encode those values into its DNA through years of selective breeding. This is how we achieved different groups with different abilities.
That “different abilities” part, even if those abilities are not linearly measured in a superior/inferior scale, enrages egalitarians. Those people are essentially individualists who want to remove the ability of someone else to know better than the individualist does, so they declare all people equal, essentially abolishing differences in ability, talent, and wisdom. This makes the entire herd feel happy because everyone is accepted and, they think, will dwell in peace because there is nothing to fight over.
So far, throughout history, this approach has failed every time it has been tried along with other idealistic notions such as the planned community, bohemian lifestyle, and socialist economies. It denies reality so that the human ego will feel good and therefore, the group will do as the individualists want, namely to let the individualists do whatever they want in exchange for universal tolerance, freedom, equality, etc.
America came late to the equality game since a frontier nation has no need for equality. You go out there, tough it out against the elements, hostile tribes, disease, famine, and your own learning curve, and the ones that survive prosper. Under those conditions, charity seems wise but a support net seems to reverse the triumph of those who prevail against the harsh environment.
After WW2, however, America got into the equality game first to show our opposition to Hitler, and next to be “better than” the Soviets, who were after all offering what seemed to be more equality than we were. Instead, we demonstrated more prosperity, but in order to avoid socialist revolt, implemented socialist programs to buy off our citizens.
At the same time, the Democrats hatched a plan to get rid of the remaining holdouts against socialism. These people were of the majority group and tradition, so the Left imported third world people to serve as allies to the Left and to break up that original group, replacing it with a cultureless, alienated, and atomized herd which could be manipulated.
This worked well for over fifty years, but on the semicentennial anniversary of the changes in our immigration law, it became clear that everything was rapidly falling apart. We had a black president, but race relations were worse than ever, because now that every group felt itself equal, each was fighting for control.
That is part of the “diversity pattern,” and we can see it unfolding before our eyes as the different minority groups within our diversity are attacking one another over a clash of values and identities:
“The ADL is CONSTANTLY attacking black and brown people,” Women’s March organizer Tamika Mallory posted on Twitter. “This is a sign that they are tone deaf and not committed to addressing the concerns of black folk.” Mallory came under fire earlier this year after attending a Feb. 25 speech by Louis Farrakhan in which the Nation of Islam leader said “the Jews have control over” the FBI.
Cat Brooks, the co-founder of the Anti Police-Terror Project, told ABC News that she agreed with Mallory, saying, “You can’t be a piece of an anti-bias training when you openly support a racist, oppressive and brutal colonization of Palestine.”
The Washington chapter of Black Lives Matter, meanwhile, tweeted that the ADL was “ultra pro-cop,” and cited a 2016 letter in which Greenblatt said “ADL has not endorsed the Black Lives Matter movement” because “a small minority of [its] leaders … supported anti-Israel — and at times anti-Semitic — positions.” Greenblatt’s letter didn’t identify the leaders in question.
What do you do when your diversity is at war within itself? We have seen an uptick in such events for some time, especially in minority-majority cities in the southern half of the country where incoming Hispanics, Asians, and middle eastern people are driving African-Americans out of their traditional economic opportunities and neighborhoods. I saw it twenty-five years ago when open warfare broke out between black and Hispanic communities. We should expect to see more.
Those that we might have identified as “racist” in past years tended to make this argument: some groups can assimilate, but some cannot, and those groups also tend to be criminal, dirty, stupid, violent, mean, and parasitic. In other words, they supported diversity in theory except for some groups. As time went on, however, it became clear that the problem was not whatever group was complaining that week, but diversity itself.
Diversity divides a nation. It can no longer have a strong values system, identity, heritage, rules, or social order once there are people with different cultures within it. Even more, those different groups are used to hybridize with the original group, breeding out the DNA coding for its set of values, creating a permanent cultureless grey race which is wholly dependent on Leftist government, a group which in turn becomes its perpetual rulers.
We recognize now that diversity is dysfunction. It was never meant to work, only to destroy the majority so that Leftists could rule. It will not lead to peace, but to constant low-grade infighting until life becomes too maddening to worry about anything other than the very basics of modern life, like jobs and consumer shopping. In turn, over time, the wealth we built up for generations will be erased, and replaced with a typical chaotic and dysfunctional third world nation.