Saturday, December 14, 2013

Diversity => Adversity

Diversity, as our anointed elite usually means it, is always a disaster. It works remarkably well in fiction, as diverse races cooperate beautifully in Star Trek, And lest you think I'm being an old stick-in-the-mud White guy, Tom Sowell agrees, at least in part.

Think of it in terms of cuisine.  You don't want a diverse meal for the sake of diversity — you want a balanced meal, which consists of things that complement each other, not things that work against each other, or your stomach. You want some meat and potatoes and green vegetables and a nice drink.  You don't want rocks and poison ivy and anthracite and a mug of petroleum, so that kind of diversity is NOT good.

All countries are diverse to some extent.  Let's take Iceland — they have all ages from newborn babies to old geezers like me.  Though they're mixed pretty thoroughly, they are descended from Nordics and Gaels. As far as recent immigrants are concerned, for some reason they have quite a few Poles. Languages spoken are Icelandic, and that's about it.  As for religion, this from Wikipedia:

Affiliation by religious movement (1 January 2013)
Church of Iceland
Other Christian
Other and not specified
Germanic neopaganism
Bahá'í Faith

And, that's about all the diversity Iceland needs.  Its homogeneity permits the country to have reacted in concert to the financial crisis, to have a system of socialized medicine where half the country doesn't suspect the other half of malingering, and to have a crime rate that is indicated by the fact that the Icelandic police just killed their first perp ever recently.  A little more diversity, and the guns will be blazing in all directions.  What I'm getting at here is that diversity is usually a bad thing, and homogenous countries that think it's cool to import a bunch of Muslims and Africans are in for a big surprise.  Over at Alternative Right, Brett Stevens writes:


America is based on this picture.

My position has been consistent since 1997: diversity doesn't work.
This is different from dislike or fear of the elements of diversity, such as "I don't like black people" or "I think Caucasians are inferior." It is not a critique of a specific aspect of diversity, but diversity itself.
It applies uniformly to diversity of religious, ethnic/racial, cultural, linguistic and even caste distinctions. The rule is that the less variation you have in your society, the healthier and happier it is.
A society which is unified requires the fewest rules, police and government interventions. Culture is a superior method for enforcing values because it does not require enforcers. Ordinary citizens enforce it by ostracizing those who do not meet its standards.
Without that culture — which unifies vital measures as disparate as the value system, identity, and social pressures — only government can enforce standards. What inevitably results is a Nanny State that makes many rules, sets up lots of detail-fixated bureaucrats, and grows like a cancer, enriching itself.
The problem with diversity is that instead of culture, it chooses anti-culture, or the culture of having no culture. It's an extension of the idea of freedom, which is that you don’t have any positive goals, but share a negative goal, which is agreeing to have no goals.
A person in a culture afflicted with diversity — known also by its synonyms internationalism, multiculturalism and cosmopolitanism — faces an ugly choice: they can either join the culture of non-culture and give up on their own values, or they can retain their own values and be socially ostracized or treated as a stereotype.
Diversity always leads to the same thing. Society simultaneously widens its tolerance while demanding more government interference to enforce basic rules. This becomes too much, and soon third-world levels of criminality, corruption, low hygiene and disorder descend.
Look at most countries on earth. Most of them are of mixed race, culture and religion. Over time, this became an anti-culture which settled on the lowest common denominator, which means that no one has much in common. People just want to get rich and escape such societies. There is no actual joy.
Some time ago, Robert Putnam came out with a study that was so toxic to prevailing attitudes in academia that he has spent the years since it came out fighting for his career. In it, he revealed that diverse societies increase internal alienation and distrust:
"Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for Bowling Alone, his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings."
Incorporating different groups means we cannot have a common standard of behavior. This means that we cannot predict society's response to what we do, and if someone is offended, we lose big. That translates as "take your toys and go home." (Read the rest HERE.)


  1. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn said the same thing in "Leftism Revisited": we have a desire for homogeneity and a desire for diversity. He also said there can be too much of a desire for homogeneity, when it comes to trying to make everyone exactly the same. That's leftism.

  2. "Congress shall make no law establishing religion or denying the free exercise thereof" sure sounds like a positive value placed on diversity to me. Seems like diversity is best applied when people facing a common problem (prospering, not simply surviving, in the desert) bring ideas from a variety of cultures to create a new culture. Nominally, in the US the common goal is a free and rich society, but we've gotten confused. The trick is to have an agreed on goal and then see what you can bring up from the different groups to achieve it. Americans need to agree on that one central value.