One of the biggest shibboleths in American society, indeed the entire Western World, is that diversity is good. Of course, the question is, what do they mean by diversity?
For example, as a libertarian I don’t think having a diverse group of people politically in my community is conducive to my freedoms, as they believe in the use of the state to carry out their form version of The Vision™. I also am not especially enthusiastic about living around people who share different ideas about how society should be organized.
I am also not required to celebrate their proximity to me. Contrary to the beliefs of certain libertarian circles, I don’t have to like something in order to tolerate it.
I am compelled to state here, before going any further, that in a free society voluntary cultural diversity is perfectly within the bounds of libertarianism, but the key point of that is must be a voluntary act, unadulterated by the state. So when the state is the one pushing and promoting cultural diversity propaganda, libertarians should not be so naive as to think it is purely a coincidence, or that such a polluted message has any place within the liberty movement.
Something diversity advocates won’t accept, or intentionally ignore, is that diversity within a group, by its very nature, creates conflict, because is necessarily involves differences that must be reconciled, whereas homogeneity reduces tensions by eliminating these differences.
True diversity acknowledges that people are different and should be allowed to be different. It allows for homogeneous groups be separate and distinct; yet that is not what they speak of when they discuss diversity. Their concept of diversity is actually anti-homogeneity.
Over at the Orthosphere, guest writer Richard Cocks explains why on a cultural level diversity breaks up cohesive societies (emphasis added).
If cultural diversity is just in and of itself an intrinsic good, then every Amazonian rain forest tribe desperately trying to preserve its culture should have a random American (USA) inserted into their tribe because this would make them more “diverse.” Likewise, Swedes should be encouraged to join African tribes in the name of diversity and Christians should be encouraged to emigrate en masse to Muslim countries. Such cosmopolitanism would just undermine each culture’s distinctiveness and thrust incompatible groups together.
In other words, diversity equals cultural dilution. If you’re trying to preserve your culture, if you believe your cultural values and traditions and beliefs are worth preserving, then diversity is a threat to this objective because it doesn’t allow you to discriminate in such a way as to preserve your culture. When “diversity” is placed as a higher priority or value, then everything else must be sacrificed to it which is mutually exclusive.
This is exactly what author Jack Donovan, who writes on masculinity and tribalism, makes this same argument in a speech at the 2014 American Renaissance Conference (he also bashes hipsters, which is an added bonus).
Despite what anyone wants to tell you, it is a fundamental aspect of human nature to be initially wary or suspicious of people from either outside your community or who are different from you. Note I said “wary,” not “use violence against them.” I’m talking about personal sentiment, not actual actions.
It is perfectly legitimate to seek out homogeneity and fear strangers from outside your culture entering your community, because you don’t know how they will impact you or your neighbors. Are they there to assimilate into your culture, or introduce conflict that might break it up and create social chaos? Do they come to undermine what you have built, or add to it?
The idea that you shouldn’t seek to protect your own culture against outside influences is inane, but one that has been successfully engrained into most Western thought.
This is why the open borders debate sounds preposterous once you flip it around, exposing the double standards for what they are. If 200,000 Americans fled the United States and tried to enter China, only to be turned back at the border, we would be hearing about how the Chinese government is only looking out for the interests of its people and that it is not fair to place the burden of care for Americans, who voluntarily chose to leave their country, in the hands of those who have no control or say over the matter. And if 200,000 Germans attempted to migrate to Africa and were opposed by the tribal people there, we’d be told that the tribes have a right to resist foreign invaders who will probably end up destroying their culture if allowed to enter.
Here we get to why cultural diversity is being pushed, but only in Western countries; because it dilutes a culture that contains ideas which might yet pose a threat to the state. Cohesive cultures form the basis for civilization, and civilization is measured by its stability in the absence of the state. Cultures strong enough to resist the state must be broken up and diluted. Forced integration and coercive state-education are all designed to accomplish this by abolishing separate cultural institutions.
That is exactly what is happening right now as part of an effort to undermine Western culture.