Sunday, June 19, 2016

Diversity: Good Diversity, Bad Diversity, and Just-Right Diversity

"Diversity" has become a buzz word, really, and hardly anybody thinks about what it's actually supposed to mean. I first caught on to this in my capacity as a government bureaucrat (retired now) at some kind of symposium. A Black guy was giving a speech and giving it very badly. I said to a fellow bureaucrat sitting next to me., "Why did they pick him for this." She answered, "He's diverse."

It took me a minute to get past the cognitive dissonance and relized that she wasn't being funny or sarcastic. Within the government world, "diverse" had simply come to mean "non-White." She would have said the same thing about a Hispanic or and Asian.

So don't get the idea that the diversity-promoters mean anything like a mix of Black-White-Hismpanic reflecting the percentages found in the general population. No, no, no. "Diversity" means getting rid of Whites. In a truly diverse work force, according to the Government, there would be no Whites at all. That's what they mean, and that's all they mean. Blame Whitey, get Whitey.

Diversity is their strength, not ours.

In the old, dictionary sense of "diversity," though, Lawrence Murray, at Alternative Right [link], discusses something that is seldom brought up these days — the genuine diversity of the people of the British Isles, which is reflected in their settlement pattern in the Colonies that were to become the United States:


It is often said that Diversity is Our Greatest Strength™. It is also often said that White people have no culture. So it follows—by the logic of the left—that White people are not diverse, since diversity is largely used as a synonym for multiculturalism. We know of course that when people speak of diversity, however, it just means less White people. 

While it is debatable for the critical thinker to what degree diversity is useful and what kinds of diversity are in fact beneficial, there is no doubt on the alt-right that ethnic or racial pluralism is a source of tension and conflict in society and undermines cohesion and trust. We also reject the idea that the English-speaking European people of North America have no culture as rank bigotry. I cannot think of a single way one could reasonably define culture while excluding two hundred million people and the majority population of one of the world’s largest and most influential countries. To do so requires a radical re-interpretation of culture that is likely riddled with contradictions. 

Even during the height of European imperialism—when it was broadly acknowledged that some societies were inferior to others—there was substantial interest in how otherized and primitive societies functioned and studies were undertaken to learn how they worked and how their people lived. In other words, some of the most prejudiced people to have ever lived could acknowledge that the people they deemed inferior had culture and found it valuable to study. It is really only our contemporary leftists aping as aristocrats who deem everything outside their ideological borders as nihil

But to be frank, they are just stupid. Very stupid. I could form an argument about how there are (((cultural marxist))) influences at work here going back to the 1930s aimed at making us hate our folk and traditions, and New Left influences going back to the 1960s glorifying the struggle and identity of people of color against Whites, but that is old hat and too sophisticated a response to one of the most banal and canned responses that liberals have about White identity in the United States. It is sufficient to say that anyone who espouses the notion is probably more of an idiot than evil.

Furthering the idiocy hypothesis is the rampant historical illiteracy in this country among all races and the way in which our past is taught to us. In primary education, we learn a liberal, civic nationalist, and teleological interpretation of US history that goes something like this:

  • People fleeing religious persecution and looking for economic opportunity came to the New World.
  • The British were mean to them and they declared independence.
  • Also black slavery. Those racist colonists wanted freedom for themselves but not anyone else.
  • Not everyone could vote, because racism and sexism.
  • After the Civil War, when people who wanted slaves fought people who wanted trve freedom, the slaves were finally free, but not really because of racism and segregation.
  • Blacks get the right to vote but aren’t allowed to because racism.
  • Immigrants came to America and were treated badly, but they became Americans in the end so it was bad that they were treated badly since that was bad.
  • People from Asia were banned from immigrating to the United States at some point a while ago. That was racist. It took a long time for the ban to be lifted.
  • Women finally get the right to vote in the early 20th century.
  • America fought for freedom in the two World Wars but denied it to African Americans at home because of racism.
  • After the Civil Rights Movement and the election of our first black president, we have made so much progress from our dark and racist past! Such freedom very equality.
Read the rest here:
Afterword by Ex-Army
Me, now, I'm pretty much Anglo-American, though there may be a few German Quakers back there in the family tree, going by names, but being a Hoosier from the Southern half of the state, that's pretty much what I'm 90% likely to be. And the most likely place most of my ancestors came from is that very Celtic bunch in red on the map with maybe some of that blue right under them. (I got the map from the attached essay, BTW, and you really should read it all.) The thing about our British ancestry is first, as the essay says, it supplies us with all the diversity we need, some might say a little more, considering that we had a Civil War largely because of a tad bit too much diversity — I'm referring to diversity among Whites, here, not Blacks or anything else. Second, our basic Britishness, despite the Civil War and a few other things, has supplied a core ethnicity that gives the whole country unity. Mainly (and this is my theory) in the Midwest, handily located in the middle of the country, where there is a bit of a blend of all four British groups, culturally and genetically. As the New Englanders and Pennsylvanians moved straight West, and the Virginians and Appalachians moved Northwest, they blended to a large extent in Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois and then spread further West and became your basic Midwestern type. Like I say, that's my theory, and I'm probably prejudiced, because I'm a Hoosier.

I agree, by the way, with Murray, that Albion’s Seed: Four British Folkways in America, is a wonderful book on the subject. You can get it here [link].
Quibcag: Illustrated by Fem America, the USA mascot from Hetalia: Axis Powers (Axis Powers ヘタリア).


  1. I grew up in an area that was John Birch Society and never encountered any problem. I see American Nationalism and wholesome Judaic - Christian values as important. There is much I disagree with in Christianity but I do not see it as a threat. I see the Left however as a very serious threat to me to the USA and to mankind. It is my impression the Left does whatever possible to hurt the USA while pretending to be freinds and to turn the USA into an African 3rd world country


    Diversity is only proper on the margins. We must start with the true and good, and a new perspective might find something we missed. The perspective there isn't truth or good goes back to the serpent in Eden who should have been ejected and ignored.

  3. The same affliction you have towards the Japanese and their culture, some people have towards blacks, Indians, Muslims, etc.

    If you want that pathological altruism stamped out of whites you need to look at your own self as well. Even though you fetishize a more "orderly" minority, both of them will lead to the disappearance of the white race. Not to mention we see more and more Asian Americans getting into the same leftist programs as everyone else. They are also calling for your head, albeit in a more subtle way. Enjoy being called the white devil in your own country by Asians you fetishize. Eventually they will make up a larger proportion and they won't play so kawaii anymore.

    1. Wrong. Obviously, you haven't been reading this blog other than superficially. You'll find nothing here that advocates immigration by nonWhites, be they African, Asian, or whatever. Indeed, one of the things I admire about Japan is its clear intention not to bollix itself up with immigrants, particularly those who differ racially. Surely you don't think that's a case of "fetishizing," do you? That's one thing I want us to emulate. I also admire their ability to select elements of our culture to enjoy and expand upon without importing _us_, which is exactly what I'm doing with their art. So read back throught, the blog, or, better yet, enter "japan" in search this blog, and you'll find something quite different than the "affliciton" you refer to. I'm very much with you on the _phenomenon_ of "yellow fever" or "Japanophilia," or whatever you want to call it. But you have detected it in a place where it does not exist. Indeed, in a place where it exists considerably less than in 99% of American media. When I'm Emperor of the place, any "Asian-American" who's played the "minority" game will be asked to leave.

  4. I don't mind admitting Muslims if they would agree to disarm. Doesn't Obamacare cover amputation? They will be stealing resources.

  5. Yeah, that's your warped ''grade-school history'' alright. At least they no longer include the (folk) tales of Paul Bunyan. Most of this ranks right up there with the ''as a boy George Washington chopped down a cherry tree'' - truly silly and irrelevant (and fictional) stuff. ''Fisking'' just for $#!+$ and giggles:
    Also black slavery. Those racist colonists wanted freedom for themselves but not anyone else.
    Yes, but which culture was the first to formally abolish and even criminalize the practice of slavery? And for your edification, guess which culture was the last to do so?
    As recently as the early 1960s, Saudi Arabia's slave population was estimated at 300,000.[296] Slavery was officially abolished in 1962.[297][298] Yep, the Bush family's ''Saudi friends'' - ain't they so nice?
    Not everyone could vote, because racism and sexism.
    Voting used to be considered a privilege - and a responsibility. Think ''driving a motor vehicle'', you have to prove to the state you are physically and mentally capable of doing so, and willing and able to take responsibility for you actions doing so. It is not a ''right''!
    After the Civil War, when people who wanted slaves fought people who wanted trve freedom, the slaves were finally free, but not really because of racism and segregation.
    Try mentioning that in the comment section of Vox Populi. You WILL be mocked quickly and severely, I promise. Possibly by Vox himself.
    The Civil War was NOT about slavery! It was about the relationship between the States and the Federal Government. The fundamental question was: if the States could join the alliance known as the US government, could they also withdraw their membership in that alliance? With the defeat of the Confederacy that question was settled - NO.
    BTW, Lincoln wanted to send all the Africans back to their natural habitat. Personally, I think that was a wonderful idea. Too bad he never got the chance to.