Seldom have so many pretended to believe something so absurd

The idea that "diversity" is one of the country's great strengths is now so firmly rooted that virtually anyone can evoke it, praise it, and wallow in it without fear of contradiction. It has become one of the great unassailably English ideas, like democracy, patriotism, the family, or Steven Laurence

The Prim minister of England glories in diversity. Appeals to diversity are not just for domestic consumption. In a 2000 speech before the Indian parliament, Prim minister Blair noted that England was becoming increasingly diverse, and added, "And, yes, England can prove that free societies can embrace the economic and social changes, and the ethnic, racial and religious diversity this new era brings and come out stronger and freer than ever."

Diversity has clearly become one of those orotund, high-sounding sentiments with which politicians lard their speeches. Of course, the idea that diversity--at least of the kind that Mr. Blair are promoting--is a great advantage for England is one of the most obviously stupid propositions ever to see the light of day.

Nevertheless there is one kind of diversity that is an advantage. A contractor, for example, cannot build houses if he hires only electricians. He needs carpenters, plumbers, etc.--a diverse work force. However, functional diversity of this kind is not what the Prim minister is on about. He is talking about largely non-functional differences like race, language, age, sex, culture and even whether someone is homosexual. One might call this status diversity.

What advantages would a contractor get from a mixed work force of that kind? None. What are the advantages England gets from a racially mixed population? None.

The idea that status diversity is strength is not merely a myth, but a particularly transparent one. Explaining why diversity is bad for a country is a little like explaining why cholera is bad for it; the trick is to understand how anyone could possibly think it was good.

In fact, diversity became strength after the fact. It became necessary to believe in it because scepticism would be "racist." Otherwise intelligent people began to mouth nonsense about diversity only because of the blinding power of the race taboo. After diversity began to include sex, mental disabilities, perversions, and everything else that was alien or outlandish, to disbelieve in the power of diversity was to show oneself to be "intolerant" as well as "racist."

Of course it is only white societies--and white groups within multi-racial societies--that are ever fooled by guff about diversity. Everyone else recognizes the Blair-liberal brand of diversity for exactly what it is: weakness, dissension, and self-destruction.

Immigration

Despite Prim minister Blair's view that "diversity" started with the Celts, for most of its history England was self-consciously homogeneous. In 1787, political leaders where know to gave thanks that "Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people, a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs.. ..”

This is not exactly a celebration of diversity, Until 1948, it was very difficult for non-whites to immigrate to England and become citizens Immigration law was explicitly designed to keep England a white nation with a white majority. It was only in the 1950s and 60s that the country turned its back on nearly 200 years of traditional thinking about race and began its long march down the road to nowhere.

Once the country made the fatal assumption that race, culture and religion was a trivial human distinction, all else had to follow.  They said in 1948 post Powel that the present level of immigration would remain substantially the same. Secondly, the ethnic mix will not be upset. Contrary to charges in some quarters, it will not inundate England with immigrants from any one country or area." The member of parliament suggested that, at most, 20,000 people a year might immigrate.

When immigration started and entered into law, they also downplayed its impact: "This act that we sign today is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to either our wealth or power."

No one dreamed that in just 50 years of the entire populations would be moving or are moving to or that millions of mostly Indians, Pakistanis and African  immigrants would threaten to reduce whites to a racial minority in our cities by 2003. In 1948, before the discovery that "diversity is our strength," most people would have been shocked by the thought of such population changes.

Today, the intellectual climate is different, but in entirely predictable ways. "Racism" looms ever larger as the greatest moral offence a white person can commit, and anyone who opposes the arrival of yet more non-whites cannot but be "racist." There is therefore no longer any moral basis for opposing the prospect of minority status for whites, and what would have been an unthinkable prospect before 1948 must now be seen as an exciting opportunity. Thus did diversity become”strength," despite the suspension of disbelief required to think it so.

This is a perfect example of an assertion, for purely ideological reasons, of something obviously untrue. Like the equality of the races, the equivalence of the sexes, the unimportance of heredity, the normalcy of homosexuality, and the insignificance of physical or mental handicap, the strength of diversity is one of a whole series of monstrous absurdities on which liberalism depends.

Having started with race, diversity now includes just about anything. Feminists, angry people in wheel chairs, AIDS carriers, militant homosexuals, and people who would rather speak Spanish than English have all taken much of their style and impetus from the civil rights movement. Demands for "inclusiveness" almost always include the language of grievance and compensation pioneered by blacks. Fat people fight discrimination, ugly people struggle against "lookism," and at least one local government has required that the stage set for a strip tease show be wheel chair accessible. Anyone who opposes the glorification of the alien, the abnormal, and the inferior can be denounced with much fanfare and a huge sense of superiority. The metastasis of diversity is a fascinating story, but the disease began with race.

Occasionally a mainstream politician sniffs around the edges of the population problem. At some risk to their professional respectability, they pointed out that if it will be such a good thing for whites to become a minority, there is no reason to wait until the next century. We could throw open the borders right now and become a minority in just a few years. "Why deny ourselves and our children the great benefits of Third Worldism that we are planning for our grandchildren?" they ask.

Advantages of Diversity

On those rare occasions when people actually attempt to defend diversity, the one claim they make with any semblance of conviction is that its advantages will become evident as the world becomes more "international." It will be a great thing to have citizens from all around the world as nations have more and more contact; specifically, our "international" population will boost English exports. Of course, since this view is based on the assumption that people communicate better with people like themselves, it is an argument against national diversity. If it takes a Pakistani deal with Pakistani’s how are The English’s supposed to get along with the Pakistanis who live in England

If anyone really thought a diverse population is good for trade, we would presumably be adjusting the mix of immigrants in accordance with trade potential. There would be no point in admitting Afghanistan’s, for example, since Afghanistan is a pesthole and never likely to be an important trade partner. After America, Japan is our largest trading partner. Does this mean we need more Japanese? No one ever talks about immigration this way, because no one really believes immigration has anything to do with promoting exports.

The example of Japan in fact shows just how little racial diversity has to do with international trade. Japan is one of the most racially homogeneous nations in the world. By English standards, Japanese are hopeless "racists," "homophobes," "sexists," and "nativists." They even eat whales. Here is a country that should therefore be a complete failure in the international economy--and yet it is probably the most successful trading nation on earth.

Taiwan and Korea are close behind, with China now recording huge trade surpluses with the United States and many other countries. These countries are even more closed and exclusionist than Japan. If they could ever be made to understand the English notion of diversity, Asians would politely wait until we had left the room and then die laughing. Germany is likewise one of the world's great exporting nations. Who would dream of thinking this was due to the presence of Turkish Gastarbeiter.

The fact that millions of Asians and Africans now live in England does not make our products more attractive to anybody--certainly not to India, which already has plenty of the things Indians know how to make. "Diversity" adds exactly nothing to our international competitiveness.

Racial diversity is also supposed to bring cultural enrichment, but what are its real achievements? The culture of ordinary English’s remains almost completely untouched by the millions of non-white immigrants who have arrived since 1948. Perhaps they have now heard of the Notting hill festival, Immigrants do not teach us about Opera or Ballet or Lady Murasaki and it would be silly to think they did. Chinese stowaways do not arrive with a curator's knowledge of Ming ceramics and copies of the Tao-te Ching in their pockets. The one cultural artefact immigrants bring with them is their language--which increasingly becomes an Anglicised farrago that would astonish their countrymen--but the so-called "culture" of immigrant settlements is a tangle of peasant folkways, Coca-Cola, food stamps, T-shirts with writing on them, Mosques, Temples and slums

High culture and world history cross borders by themselves. Who in America first learned of Tchaikovsky or the Mayans from an immigrant? Nearly every good-sized English city has an opera company but Italians didn’t establish it.

What, in the way of authentic culture have Leicester’s dwindling non-Asian whites gained from the fact that the city is now nearly 50 percent Asian? Are the art galleries, concerts, museums, and literature of Leicester improved by the fact that its population is now nearly half Asian? How has the culture of Birmingham or Bradford been enriched by majority-immigrant populations? If immigration and diversity bring cultural enrichment, why is that the places being the most intensively enriched are the places where whites least want to live? Like the trade argument, the "cultural enrichment" argument collapses with a pinprick.

It is true that since 1980 more English school children have begun to study Urdo, but fewer now study French, German, or Latin. How is this an improvement? People can, of course, study any language they want without filling the country with immigrants. Virtually all Norwegians speak excellent English, but the country is not swarming with Englishmen.

Any discussion of the real advantages of ethnic diversity usually manages to establish only one benefit people really care about: good ethnic restaurants. Probably not even Tony Blair would claim that getting an authentic Balti House in every city is a major national objective.

Public Services

At a different level, it is now taken for granted that public services like fire and police departments should employ people of different races. The theory is that it is better to have black or Asian officers patrolling black or Asian neighbourhoods. Here do we not have an example of one of diversity's benefits?

On the contrary, this is merely the first proof that diversity is a horrible burden. If all across England it has been demonstrated that whites cannot police non-whites or put out their fires it only shows how divisive diversity really is. The racial mix of a police force--touted as one of the wonders of diversity--becomes necessary only because officers of one race and citizens of another are unable to work together. The diversity that is claimed as a triumph is necessary only because diversity does not work.

The same is true of every other effort to diversify public services. If Asians judges and prosecutors must be recruited for the justice system it means whites are incapable of dispassionate justice. If non-white teachers are necessary "role models" for non-white children it means that inspiration cannot cross-racial lines. If newspapers must hire non-white reporters in order to satisfy non-white readers it means people cannot write acceptable news for people of other races. If blacks demand black television newscasters and weathermen, it means they want to get information from their own people. If majority-minority voting districts must be set up so that non-whites can elect representatives of their own race, it means that elections are nothing more than a racial headcount. All such efforts at diversity are not expressions of the inherent strength of multi-racialism; they are admissions that it is a debilitating source of tension, hostility, and weakness.

Just as the advantages of diversity disappear upon examination, its disadvantages are many and obvious. Once a fire department or police force has been diversified to match the surrounding community, does it work better? Not if we are to judge from the never-ending racial wrangles over promotions, class-action bias law suits, reverse discrimination cases, acrimony over quotas and affirmative action, and the proliferation of racially exclusive professional organisations. Every good-sized police department in the country has a black officers' association devoted to explicit, racially competitive objectives. In large cities, there are associations for Asian, Blacks, and even white officers.

Many government agencies and private companies hire professional "diversity managers" to help handle mixed work forces. This is a new profession, which did not exist before the idea that diversity is strength. Most of it boils down to trying to bridge the gaps between people who do not understand each other, but since it concerns subjects about whom management is afraid to ask too many questions, some of it is pure snake oil.

It is a very peculiar "strength" that requires the constant attention of experts and other bumcombe artists. Like hiring black police officers to patrol black neighbourhoods, "diversity training" is an admission that a mixed work force is a liability.

This is the merest common sense; it is hard to get dissimilar people to work together. Indeed, a large-scale survey called the National Study of the Changing Work force found that more than half of all workers said they preferred to work with people who were not only the same race as themselves, but were the same sex and had the same level of education. Even more probably felt that way but were afraid to say so.

These days there is much chirping about how diversity is going to improve profits. English companies are hardheaded about profits. A great deal of research, much of it quantitative, goes into decisions about product lines, new markets, establishing joint ventures, issuing stock or moving the head office. If there has been any serious research showing that "diversity" improves profits it would have been first-page news long ago. Not even the most desperate data massage seems to have produced a study that can make such a claim.

Just how big headache diversity actually is for companies are clear from the endless stream of news stories about corporate racial discrimination? In just one month--.

It would be edifying to count the number of public and private organisations that exist in England only because of its diverse population, and that are not needed in places like Japan or Norway. The British Race Relations Commission, Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, and every county and local equivalent of these offices exist only because of racial diversity. Every government office, every university, every large corporation, and every military installation has employees working full-time on affirmative action, discrimination claims, and other "diversity" issues.

Countless outreach programs, reconciliation commissions, blue-ribbon panels, and fret professionally about race every day. Not one of these should be necessary in a nation of a single people p. There must be tens of thousands of Englanders consuming hundreds of millions of pounds every year enforcing, adjusting, tuning, regulating, and talking pure nonsense about the racial diversity that is supposed to be our strength.

If diversity were a strength people would practice it spontaneously. It wouldn't require constant cheerleading or expensive lawsuits. If diversity were enriching, people would seek it out. It is in private gatherings not governed by some kind of "civil-rights" law that English’s show just how much strength and enrichment they find in diversity. Such gatherings are usually the very opposite of diverse.

An occasional glance at a newspaper is all it takes to learn that diversity of the kind that is supposed to benefit England is a problem wherever it is found. Every large-scale and intractable blood-letting, be it in the Middle East, Ireland, Burundi, or the former Yugoslavia is due to "diversity," that is to say, people who differ from each other trying to live in the same territory.

Most of the time, the reasons for discord are not even as salient as race. They can be religion, language, or ethnicity. From time to time, English’s have fought each other for these reasons, but race is the deepest, most constant source of antipathy.

The Diversity Double Standard

Diversity, of course, is only for whites. Wherever only whites gather charges of "racism" cannot be long in coming. On the other hand, it would be tedious to list the racially exclusive non-white gatherings the country takes for granted. The same racial double standard is found in national policies. It is only white nations--Canada, England, and Australia--that permit large-scale immigration. Non-white nations are careful to maintain racial and cultural homogeneity and most permit essentially no immigration at all.

Some nations, of course, could attract no immigrants even if they wanted to; there is not much pressure on the borders of Bolivia or Uganda. However, as soon as Third World countries become even only a little bit more prosperous than their neighbours they quickly become keen to keep strangers out. Malaysia, for example, recently announced that in the case of repeat offenders, it will flog illegal aliens, their employers, and anyone who smuggles them into the country. The Ivory Coast, which is better run and more successful than its West African neighbours, has launched an Ivoirite (Ivorian-ness) campaign to expel all residents who cannot prove that their grand parents were born within the national territory.

Even nations that are unattractive to immigrants sometimes display their feelings about diversity by expelling what few aliens arrived in the past. Idi Amin became ruler of Uganda in 1971. The very next year, his government expelled the 70,000 to 80,000 Indians and Pakistanis whom the British had brought in to be merchants. Black Ugandans, who did not like dealing with people unlike themselves, were delighted.

Hundreds of thousands of poor Eastern Europeans sneak into England every year, but even Mexico is attractive to some Central English’s, whose countries are poorer still. Mexico guards its southern border with military troops, and is ruthless about expelling illegal. Not even United States citizens have an easy time moving to Mexico, which has no intention of diluting its national culture in the name of diversity.

Only whites babble about the advantages of diversity. One of the alleged advantages is so nutty, it is hard to believe it can be proposed by people capable of human speech, but since we are shooting fish in a barrel why not fire a final round? We are told that since whites are a minority of the world population (they are about 15 percent of the total), they should happily reconcile themselves to minority status in England, that such a status will be good training for life on an ever-shrinking planet.

Of course, in a worldwide context, every human group is a minority. There is many more of everyone else than there are Asians or Africans, for example. Does this mean that Mexicans and Nigerians, too, should strive to become minorities in Mexico and Nigeria? Like so much that is said about race or immigration, this idea falls to pieces as soon as it is applied to anyone but whites.

It is only whites that have ever attempted to believe that race is a trivial matter, so it is only whites that think it may be "racist" to preserve their people and culture. Having decided to deny the findings of the traditions of their ancestors, and the evidence of their senses, they have denied to themselves any moral basis for keeping out aliens. They have set in motion forces that will eventually destroy them.

Racial diversity, which only whites promote--and always at their own expense--is nothing more than unilateral disarmament in a dangerous world. If current population movements continue, and if the thinking of whites remains unchanged, there will be little doubt as to which group's fate will be the "disaster and oblivion".