Diversity = Division


Much of the public has unquestioningly embraced the mantra “Diversity is Strength.” Then again, in George Orwell’s dystopian novel 1984, much of the public also blindly accepted oxymoronic slogans such as “WAR IS PEACE” and “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.” Throughout history, the general public has been little more than a giant hardware store full of tools.

A Google Images search of the word “diversity” shows an uninterrupted syrupy stream of rainbows and smiling faces and clasped hands, a global clog dance where everyone gets along because that’s naturally what occurs whenever you cram people of different continental origins, religions, languages, and ideologies together in the same space…right?

I mean, if that’s accepted as the sort of common wisdom that you can’t dare question without being branded a witch, that’s what the historical record would show…n’est-ce pas?

According to the Online Etymology Dictionary, the word “diversity” only acquired a positive connotation regarding things such as race and gender in 1992. Prior to that, the word was derived from the French word diversité, which signified less cheery synonyms such as “wickedness” and “perversity” and the ancient Latin word diversitatem, which connoted “contrariety, contradiction, [and] disagreement.”

It’s instructive that the modern word “diversity” is rooted in a Latin word that signified “disagreement,” because perhaps the primary reason the Roman Empire crumbled was because as it spread itself too thin and allowed incursions from non-Roman ethnic elements, diversity’s weight proved too much for the empire to sustain itself.

Note the similarity between the words “diversity” and “division,” the latter of which is derived from “divide.” Fifteenth-century Italian political strategist Niccolò Machiavelli posited a basic rule of politics: “divide et impera,” which in English is most often translated as “divide and conquer.”

India is often said to be the most diverse country on Earth. And diversity worked so well there that its eastern and western provinces split off into Pakistan and Bangladesh amid oceans of blood.

According to the map in this article, Africa is the most ethnically diverse continent on Earth, yet it continues to eat itself alive due to ongoing tribal conflicts that may have been exploited by colonialists but that existed long before Europeans ever set foot in Africa and have persisted—and even escalated—once the colonialists began their slow retreat.

European history is replete with homicidal group conflicts that may on their surface appear to have been rooted in religion or ideology but were more deeply entwined with things such as cultural, linguistic, and phenotypical differences.

For all the badmouthing that the American South gets for being “racist,” it is no coincidence that it has always been the least uniformly white part of the United States. For racism to exist at all, you sort of need more than one race to get the fire started.

So rather than the rainbow fantasies and bubblegum dreams that are endlessly peddled by the world’s power-hungry would-be central planners, the historical record tends to show that instead of harmony, ethnic diversity leads to ethnic conflict. To blindly chant “celebrate diversity” is akin to chanting “celebrate conflict.”

Or maybe that’s giving the globalists too much credit—if they aren’t being purposely manipulative, then they are hopelessly naïve.

After Obama was elected, the “post-racial” society we were promised did not emerge. If anything, things got more racial. Instead of everyone getting over race, they grew increasingly obsessed with the topic. People aren’t celebrating differences, they’re highlighting them. Instead of harmony, we have endless infantile pissing matches over status and hierarchy and the depressingly persistent primitive religious notion of historical collective guilt.

As this new consensus nation that was hastily stitched together into a patchwork quilt struggles to define itself, it is hardly inclusive—for reasons of social psychology that an antisocial person such as myself can’t emotionally grasp, all in-groups appear to need an out-group, so the script was flipped and the new Devil became white people, specifically the all-consuming Beelzebub pejoratively referred to as the “white male.”

Here’s a radical idea, and I know this makes me an impenitent hatemonger: Although I believe the evidence suggests that many physical and cognitive traits may be hereditary, I doubt that character is genetic at all. I believe all human beings, both individually and in groups, have a more or less equal potential to be assholes. If given the chance, they also have an equal potential to be noble.

If you continue to scratch your head and wonder why many white males aren’t down with your program, perhaps you should quit ceaselessly smearing shit in their faces. Otherwise, considering the historical lessons, you’re begging for conflict rather than harmony, and you may be hastening a rather nasty pushback.

I honestly don’t know if there’s an easy way out of this mess. If I ever figure it out, I’ll let you know. It may be possible, but Jesus Christ, you’re going about it all wrong. If you keep playing your juvenile game of Devils & Angels, Americans will never get along with one another. EVERYONE needs to lighten the fuck up, and instead of what the innately humorless social-justice zombies would dictate, we need MORE racial jokes rather than fewer ones. If Americans can’t learn to laugh at their differences rather than consistently generate increasingly oppressive taboos in thought and speech, the entire nation will go absolutely fucking insane. We’ll have a rainbow world where everyone is clasping hands so hard that their knuckles bleed, where they’re forcing their smiles to the point where their faces crack into pieces and fall to the ground.

Ethnic, cultural, and linguistic diversity may ultimately mean we might never get along—at least not entirely—but the worst possible solution would be to cut off everyone’s tongues. If you’re really sincere about the idea that diversity is a good thing, you need to quit insisting that everyone should THINK exactly like you do. Unanimity of thought—especially when it’s enforced through speech codes and laws that restrict and criminalize ideological dissent—is not tolerance, it’s totalitarianism. Tolerating different ideas is the most important form of tolerance. Otherwise, you’re only tolerating things that are skin deep.

Despite what you may wish, I honestly couldn’t give a fuck about your skin color, gender, or what you do with your genitals. And unlike many of you—perhaps the majority—I can tolerate the idea that you may think differently than I do. But if you want to demonize me for my skin color or the fact that I don’t follow the script that you’ve eagerly swallowed like a baby bird being fed a worm, I think we know who the bigot is in this equation. Tag—you’re it.