Diversity, the integration of people with widely diverging cultures, colors, and persuasions, is not always good. Nor is diversity always the best idea for a group or nation that wants to cohere in its traditions and remain functionally intact. It has become a glib aphorism, almost received scripture that “diversity is our strength,” but the reality does not bear that out, and I have seen no evidence that it is always true. Quite the contrary.
Sohrab Ahmari, the author of The Unbroken Thread, opines that when a population devoted to specific traditional ideals that emerge from their religious or ethnic heritage gets too diverse, that population fractures and loses cohesion. Introducing diverse foreign ideologies into a close-knit population can destroy it more easily than enhancing it. If a group of Mennonites or Amish, for example, were to encourage diversity of faith and practice, it would risk the disintegration of their unique culture.
The same is true of most Christian churches, ethnic groups such as Sons of Italy, Hasidic Jews, and groups like our armed forces. Such diversity of ideas would promote not cohesion and expansion, but fragmentation. As for a “diverse” military, if America cannot agree on a common idea in her defense — equality, freedom, and liberty for all — she cannot defend herself against a common enemy and is doomed. CRT (diversity by another name) among the military is a death sentence for our country: a general whose troops are divided along racial or cultural lines, which is what forced diversity brings, cannot fight a winning defensive war for America’s survival with such fragmented troops. I am talking not about color, but about different ideas of what America should be about and why it should be defended.
Maintaining the homogeneity of a group is self-preservation for a specific purpose — the perpetuation of the tenets of the group, not the perpetuation of the society at large. Progressive diversity commandants call their invasions of cultures and groups “progress.” Too often, it is regress for the group involved, and many times it is oblivion. There is nothing wrong with a group saying they want things to remain as they are. After all, many people worked hard to form that group under a certain set of ideas. Who is anyone to say it is not valid because it is not “diverse”? And why is diversity good and non-diversity bad? It is not self-evident.
Diversity advocates claim that meritorious behavior, being on time, working hard, self-denial, and delayed gratification are “white values.” This is what anti-white racists have managed to inject into traditional groups and organizations through DEI, “Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.” Such once-traditional groups are now divided into two: the original group that was doing fine and thriving until diversity despots got hold of it, and the now-diverse group, which survives by creating division. The new now-diverse group pits the races and ethnicities against each other, destroying cohesion.
Diversity for diversity’s sake is a foolish notion.
Forced diversity IS discrimination!
it is DIVISION !!!!