Diversity is Not a Strength, by The Southern Avenger

[Hail Columbia]

Diversity is Not a Strength
by The Southern Avenger
21 August 2007

Of all the politically-correct doctrines that dominate modern life, perhaps the most idiotic is the notion that "diversity is a strength." Cultural, ethnic or even racial diversity is considered so important these days that everything from school districts to corporations are intentionally manipulated to reflect a multicultural image. Whether this is even a good idea or not is never discussed. The notion that "diversity is a strength" has become an unassailable mantra, case closed and mind shut.

But not according to Harvard political scientist and best-selling author Robert Putnam, who after intensive study has declared that only is diversity a weakness, but is more destructive than we could have ever imagined. Writes Putnam: "People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to 'hunker down,' that is, to pull in like a turtle. (They) tend to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don't trust people who do look like us.'"

But how can this be? For normal people, you don't have to be a rocket scientist – or even a Harvard professor – to understand that people enjoy the company of people like themselves.

I remember a conversation with a friend once, a nice enough fella who fancied himself as a "progressive." Being a progressive, he told me that my views were wrong on this subject and that diversity was indeed a wonderful thing. I conceded his point and invited him to join me at a redneck bar right down the street. He refused. Then I offered to buy him a beer at a Mexican dance club on the other side of town. He just stared at me.

Truth be told, my progressive friend only kept company with other white progressives, all of whom despised the Southern Avenger, I might add. In his defense, the redneck bar or the Mexican dance club likely wouldn't have appreciated his presence at their establishments either. The only difference is they wouldn't hesitate to tell him.

When couples meet other couples for dinner, the men and women always end up having their own segregated conversations. At family reunions, young and old tend to stick to their own. And there isn't a school lunchroom in this country where white, black and Latino kids don't stake their racially separate territory.

That diversity exists is undeniable. But so is the fact that it always creates friction. That multiple cultures, living in close proximity, would try to make the best out of a bad situation is honorable. That our leaders would seek to import alien cultures on purpose, whether they be Mexican nationals or Muslims, is deplorable. The very essence of community implies a certain degree of cultural coherence, of belonging to the same people or nation. It is our sameness that binds us together. It's hard to imagine anything more obvious or less controversial. And far from being a strength, the cult of diversity has in fact, become a religion of the worst kind – where faith dictates facts and the biggest hypocrites are indeed the most faithful.


Leave your comments:

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog&pop=1&ping=1&indicate=1

Thanks

SA

[newman]

Common sense. It won't get a run with the cultural elite, though.

[fjack]

Dear Newman, when you use the phrase 'common sense' to a liberal it is as though you exposed a vampire to daylight, they are horrified. The liberal is basiclly a conflicted, confused and mentally ill person. The liberal wants 'us', the little people to live with the mexicraps, the africanus criminalis, the 'minority of the hour', watch our neighborhoods be destroyed, our schools turned into indoctrination centers, our lifestyle destroyed and our daughters violated. While this is going on to us, the liberal lives, like katie couric, meredith, nancy pelosi and all the hollywierds in gated mansion and co-ops that are impregnable forts, go to exclusive clubs where only the 'negro of the month' are accepted and do not interact on a day to day basis with the mexicraps and the other non white creepy crawlers that are sneaking into our country bringing in strange customs, alien dieseases, knew type of bugs that destroy our crops and trees, new type of crimes and on and on. The liberal does not deal with these problems in a direct way. They send their offspring to private schools to 'make sure that their children's presence in a public school would not be a distraction to the other students'. If you remember that statement came from the stainmake and hillary when asked why didn't they send little ms ugly big time to a crime, 99 percent black, drug infested, low performing black school that was just a few steps from the white house. It is this lack of living in a real world that makes them seem to give them the sense of moral superiority over us, the little people. I also recall that this 'professor' tried to keep his report 'under cover' so to speak. This lefty is a true dyed in the wool liberal which makes me tend to believe that the report is mucn worse then what he prof has released. We know that from the outset he went in to show us, the little people, what a joy diversity really is, and when he got kicked in the nuts (if he has any) he probably went into a panic and sugar coated what he released to the public. I have no doubts that what he found is far, far worse then what he is telling us now.

[newman]

Another excellent post, fjack!

One of MANY (of the COUNTLESS) phsycological  issues that the liberal has is a type of Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy.*

They are addicted to feelings of self-gratification, moral superiority and the need to attone for some imaginary past crimes of their forebares.
They are as addicted to these needs as a junkie is to his crack fix.
In porder to get THEIR 'fix', they require victims. They endlessly search out victims. Where there are NO victims, they will create victims. They have absolutely NO intention of eliminating the causes of victimhood, because the victim serves as the vehical for their fix.

Once they locate the victim, the liberal wallows in the victims misery (often a creation of liberal policy...like a fireman who moonlights as an arsenist). This is liberal 'foreplay'. They then apportion blame for the victim's situation on whites, the church, capitalism, guns, conservatives or anyone else EXCEPT the the real culprits- liberals or the victim himselfe. This is liberal 'copulation'. They then proceed to demand punitive measures against the scapegoats on their list  to private the victim . And demand legislative change that will inflict suffering on the majority community. This is the liberal 'climax'. They then bask in the warm inner glow of self-righteousness and the adulation of other liberals. This is the liberal 'laying back with a cigarette'.

This process must be repeated constantly, throughout the liberal's lifetime. The frequency of the acts depends on the voraciousness of the individual liberal's appetites.


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munchausen_syndrome

[ChaimBenMordechai]

Ask a liberal if he'd give up a job so an AA ape can take it. Bet you don't get an answer...

[newman]

Ask a liberal if he'd give up a job so an AA ape can take it. Bet you don't get an answer...

Whenever I encounter those who advocate AA, I suggest they move out of their house so a homelss person can move in and have true affirmative action. For some reason they never agree.

[Ehud]

Ask a liberal if he'd give up a job so an AA ape can take it. Bet you don't get an answer...

Whenever I encounter those who advocate AA, I suggest they move out of their house so a homelss person can move in and have true affirmative action. For some reason they never agree.

That's a good comparison, albeit an extreme metaphor for affirmative action.  Here are some other good ones too:

"Trade in your Mercedes for a Ford for the poor black people who can't afford a luxury car"

"Take a trip to Oregon instead of taking your trip to Paris and let the poor black people who have never been out of the U.S. have the chance to go abroad."

When affirmative action is proposed as a sort of general concept, people can agree to it because it doesn't have any direct material cost to them.  People don't associate education or job opportunities with hard cash, but education and hard cash are assets that are basically converted into hard cash.  They are almost material assets like an investment in land or other goods.  When people are denied to better schools because of affirmative action people filling up the slots of the school (and this does happen) in essence that person is trading a bit of wealth with an Affirmative Action person.  He might as well go hand him some cash, because even though he can't see it now, and he may not even be able to realize that it happened, he was downgraded to another school which, even being a small amount of money, still has financial consequences.  The problem with affirmative action is because there is such a disconnect of the school and the rewards, the rewards come over a person's lifetime, so a person is unable to see the losses that he sustained.  But when you translate affirmative action into a real life metaphorical situation, shorten the scope of time from investment in asset to reaping financially from the asset, such as with the house example, people won't support it because people don't want to support something that's not in their interest.

The problem with people who support affirmative action is because it doesn't matter to them whether they support it or not.  It has no negative or personal consequence on that person because he's probably out of school and doesn't need to worry about it.  Affirmative action is people who don't have anything to lose from affirmative action, supporting something that effects other people.  It's like a rich taxpayer supporting an increase in tax for poor people.  Isn't that inherently unfair and unjust?

Ask most people if they wouldn't mind if they personally would agree to be the victim of affirmative action in being downgraded to a lower college and graduate school and then being downgraded in their job.  The support for affirmative action would plummet so much, only the completely insane people would support it.  I'm guessing not even 5% would support it if that were the situation and they were faced with something that would affect them personally. 

 First of all, that article by Southern Avenger was great.  I agree that we tend to hunker down when we're surrounded with people who are different than us.  I honestly think that if everyone were white people, I would be a more social person, and indeed that is the feeling you get when you are in Israel in a predominantly Jewish area.  It's a feeling of safety, of belongingness, of perfect peace.  Also that's how I felt when I was living in Idaho where everyone was white.  Even though I'm Jewish and they're all Christian, it's just the similarity of culture and behavior that binds you together.  It doesn't matter what ethnicity people are whether they're Jewish, German, French or Italian, it's their behavior that makes one feel comfortable in society and the behavior of other races is very different than the behavior of white people.  Of course you could never try to explain that to a politically correct person because no matter how much you tried to tell them that it's the way that the people act that's important, they would always stick to the notion that it only has to do with race.  Well, much of the time, race is behavior. 

[EagleEye]

Explain to me this, what is the pragmatic benefit of diversity.  Does it strengthen encourage the use of one language, does it strengthen the economy, does it cut down crime, does it alleviate tension between various groups?  No.  There is no concrete benefit to diversity.  It is simply embraced for its "internal" value.  In other words, people who embrace diversity don't do it for any pragmatic benefits, but do it in cult-like way in which diversity is worshiped.

[Ehud]

Well there is actually a pragmatic benefit to accepting diversity.  Basically tolerance for diversity is necessary in the U.S. in order to get people from different races, religions, ideologies, to work together in the free-market.  It's an imposition of the free market but of course it has lots of negative consequences.  It's basically forcing people to work and live together against their human nature and hence against their will.  It's an artificial imposition of human thought that goes against the hard-wiring of our brains because of thousands of years of human evolution.  It's essentially unnatural.

[EagleEye]

It's basically forcing people to work and live together against their human nature and hence against their will.

Exactly, given freedom of choice, more often than not, people will choose to associate around people who have stuff in common with them.

[newman]

My idea of diversity is Gieseppi the Italian, Wassa the polak, Mick the Irishman, John the Anglo, David the Jew and even Hop Sing the chinaman all living and working together, abiding by the law, respecting each others' customs & beliefs, acting morally and building a great community together.

Notice that there is NO place here for abdul the towell head or leroy the subway mugger? In MY diverse society they were done away with!