Anti Federalist
Member
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2007
- Messages
- 118,682
1/ Diversity is not a strength, it is a solvent. It dissolves the bonds of trust, memory, and belonging upon which every real community is built. What begins as a promise of enrichment ends as a process of unraveling, weakening institutions, corroding loyalties, and replacing shared identity with managed fragmentation.There are, of course, forms of diversity that enrich human life. One finds it in the contrast of seasons, the variation of landscapes, the ideas that arise within a civilization over time. A craftsman’s skill improves not through uniformity, but through trial, variation, and rejection. A body of thought grows not by suppressing error, but by exposing it to correction. The mind sharpens when it is confronted with challenge, not comfort. There is a kind of diversity that belongs to the realm of excellence.
But this is not the diversity the modern world demands of us. When political leaders speak of diversity as a strength, when universities elevate it as a core value, and when corporations restructure themselves in its name, they are not speaking of intellectual breadth or refinement through competition. They mean something very specific: the deliberate ethnic, sexual, and cultural integration of radically different groups into a single institutional, political, or national framework. Diversity, in this usage, is not an outcome, but a goal—a goal pursued through policy, enforced through quotas, and sanctified through moral coercion. It is not the diversity of minds but of bodies, not the diversity of perspectives but of demographics. It is not ordered growth, but forced fusion.This version of diversity is no longer content to be a consequence of merit, exchange, or discovery. It has become an end in itself, pursued regardless of its impact on institutional performance, social cohesion, or national continuity. It is praised not because it works, but because it flatters the modern religion of egalitarianism. In that religion, all differences are declared equal, all outcomes must be equalized, and all resistance to these premises is stigmatized as heresy. The phrase “diversity is our strength” functions not as an empirical claim to be tested, but as a moral axiom to be affirmed. That it is repeated by those who lower educational standards, dismantle hiring criteria, and dilute the very structures they inherit only underscores the nature of the creed: the proof of diversity’s strength is never to be measured by the old metrics of achievement, but by the zeal with which its devotees destroy what came before.
It is worth asking why this belief has taken such hold in the West. How did the pursuit of diversity become the central organizing principle of nearly every elite institution across our civilization? Why is homogeneity, once regarded as a source of peace, unity, and public trust, now treated as a pathology to be overcome? The answer lies not only in the rise of liberalism, or the legacy of empire, but in the psychological condition of a civilization that has lost its will to continue itself as itself. The elevation of diversity is, at bottom, a form of civilizational fatigue, a desire not to grow stronger through challenge, but to dissipate through mixture, to surrender identity in the name of universal comfort, to dissolve boundaries rather than defend them.Where older societies viewed social and biological cohesion as preconditions for trust, sacrifice, and continuity, the modern West sees them as barriers to progress. The result is a paradox: while our institutions celebrate diversity as a moral good, they decay under its weight. While our societies declare themselves enriched, they grow increasingly fractured. And while our leaders proclaim inclusion, they preside over a system of slow-motion disintegration. The evidence is all around us, but the religion of diversity requires faith, not sight. One must believe in its blessings even as the structures around us begin to fail.
But this is not the diversity the modern world demands of us. When political leaders speak of diversity as a strength, when universities elevate it as a core value, and when corporations restructure themselves in its name, they are not speaking of intellectual breadth or refinement through competition. They mean something very specific: the deliberate ethnic, sexual, and cultural integration of radically different groups into a single institutional, political, or national framework. Diversity, in this usage, is not an outcome, but a goal—a goal pursued through policy, enforced through quotas, and sanctified through moral coercion. It is not the diversity of minds but of bodies, not the diversity of perspectives but of demographics. It is not ordered growth, but forced fusion.This version of diversity is no longer content to be a consequence of merit, exchange, or discovery. It has become an end in itself, pursued regardless of its impact on institutional performance, social cohesion, or national continuity. It is praised not because it works, but because it flatters the modern religion of egalitarianism. In that religion, all differences are declared equal, all outcomes must be equalized, and all resistance to these premises is stigmatized as heresy. The phrase “diversity is our strength” functions not as an empirical claim to be tested, but as a moral axiom to be affirmed. That it is repeated by those who lower educational standards, dismantle hiring criteria, and dilute the very structures they inherit only underscores the nature of the creed: the proof of diversity’s strength is never to be measured by the old metrics of achievement, but by the zeal with which its devotees destroy what came before.
It is worth asking why this belief has taken such hold in the West. How did the pursuit of diversity become the central organizing principle of nearly every elite institution across our civilization? Why is homogeneity, once regarded as a source of peace, unity, and public trust, now treated as a pathology to be overcome? The answer lies not only in the rise of liberalism, or the legacy of empire, but in the psychological condition of a civilization that has lost its will to continue itself as itself. The elevation of diversity is, at bottom, a form of civilizational fatigue, a desire not to grow stronger through challenge, but to dissipate through mixture, to surrender identity in the name of universal comfort, to dissolve boundaries rather than defend them.Where older societies viewed social and biological cohesion as preconditions for trust, sacrifice, and continuity, the modern West sees them as barriers to progress. The result is a paradox: while our institutions celebrate diversity as a moral good, they decay under its weight. While our societies declare themselves enriched, they grow increasingly fractured. And while our leaders proclaim inclusion, they preside over a system of slow-motion disintegration. The evidence is all around us, but the religion of diversity requires faith, not sight. One must believe in its blessings even as the structures around us begin to fail.
Last edited:
