The Trouble with Diversity

Diverse Societies Offer No More Stability than Monocultural Ones

The historical events that gave rise to multicultural nations and cosmopolitan cities also institutionalized new and upcoming forms of social oppression, notably racism. Since people can never change their ‘race’—unlike their religion or nationality—racial discrimination both corners its victims and persecutes their offspring. But in the globalizing West, the public preoccupation with racial inequality obscures an undercurrent of failing multiculturalism. The West is in a deplorable state. To allow for repairments, we must first expose that the concept of universal equality is fraudulent.

Social Oppression

Racism is one of many forms of social oppression. Despite so-called enlightenment, social progress, and decades of political correctness (itself a form of oppression), people from all over the world continue to suffer elitism, casteism, bureaucracy, intellectualism, tribalism, nepotism, nationalism, (child) slavery, religious fundamentalism, financial inequality, sexism, political discrimination, feudalism, corporate and military hierarchyism, hunger, poverty, bullying, ostracism, playground pecking orders, envy and contempt, shame and guilt, and plain verbal insult. Not only have we not eliminated any of these problems, many of these problems keep rising.

Why hasn’t humankind yet successfully rooted out any of these types of social oppression? What makes our politicians and social leaders believe we can end racism? Arguably, the West partially solved slavery by outsourcing slave labor to the Third World, and partially by reinventing modern slaves as low-wage migrant workers. So while richer societies to some extent could afford to dump their social inequality elsewhere, globally speaking nothing has changed.

It appears we can’t cure social oppression. The reason is: oppression serves a purpose. Acting as a guiding principle both in the distribution of wealth, and in the allocation of living space for peoples and their offspring, without social oppression the world of human affairs would implode. Life isn’t fair.

The world we live in is one giant tragedy of the commons. For thousands of years, human innovation has pushed the boundaries of its global population size through arduous innovation, capitalist trade, and even world war. But as Indians already double-outsource Chinese jobs to even poorer Africans, the global economy is close to reaching its limits to growth.[1] Therefore, the future holds more social oppression, not less. Individuals will carry the burdens of economic stagnation, as per the principle “privatized profits, socialized costs”.

Life’s inherent unfairness means the politics of peoples is and has always been right wing. Left-wing politics can never transcend neighborhood activism, because it is itself the result of economic abundance.[2] You have to be rich to practice leftism. In fact, ‘being left’ offers those can afford to practice it public status. Nonetheless, only rich societies can afford to look ‘progressive’. Therefore, in times of great geopolitical rifts, the left is by definition unqualified to support a people’s need for aggressive self-preservation. Yet today we must shamefully admit that precisely those neighborhood activists are leading the West… into the abyss.


Not all forms of social oppression receive proportional public attention, racism standing out. Is the preoccupation with racism today’s fashion? Why do many people feel combating racism is more important than combating the more wide-spread problem of oppressed women, or the morally more disturbing problem of child slavery?

The reason for racism’s spotlight attention is that minorities suffering from such oppression may disguise their own racism as anti-racism. Anti-racism as a strategy offers minorities an opportunity to assert themselves in the light of an eternal second place. For this reason, members of the majority group suffer their own social oppression at the hands of minorities. This should be no surprise: the modern concept of equality carefully disguises that by equal treatment we really mean equal oppression.

Equality, an Illusion?

The debate on race and racism characterizes itself by an abundance of logical fallacies. One fallacy goes, “Blacks (Xs) are equal to whites (Ys), therefore whites should treat blacks equally.” It’s a fallacy, because most whites don’t treat most other whites equally either (Ys are not equal to Ys). We tend to call whites discriminating other whites ‘competition’, while whites treating blacks the same way, which is equal treatment, is nevertheless called ‘racism’. The point being that minorities ought to be able to live equal lives without necessitating equal effort.

The debate on racial discrimination has thus lost all meaning. The doctrines of political correctness have lead to a surrealist state of society. On the one hand, members of a majority group must publicly treat minorities as their equals, which means to give more than to get, or at least pretend to do so. On the other hand, minorities are expected to ‘be grateful’ for such unwanted help, privately aspiring to replace the majority.

Martin Luther King did not dream of equality, but of the reversal of inequality. We practice equality to keep up appearances, but the very idea of equal treatment refutes we possess equality innately. How much political correctness have we embraced in order to suppress our mutual fear and contempt?

The Diversity Lie

Another logical fallacy, or plain lie, states that diversity offers long-term stability. But diversity also incurs great costs—e.g. integration costs, increased governing complexity, decreased economic efficiency, etc. Generally speaking, the majority group, simply because it is the majority, foots most of that bill, which in turn generates growing resentment. Thus, among other factors, diversity itself causes racism. Therefore, diversity destabilizes society. See Ancient Egypt. See Ancient Rome. See the Ottoman Empire. See the European Union.

Leftists mistakenly believe that some new-found moral high ground, which we supposedly discovered right after World War II, lead to our embracing multiculturalism, i.e. the belief that diversity is inherently ‘good’ and more diversity always ‘better’. As the leftists set off to build a society without hate in which educated people would no longer want to go to war, as if war were ever a choice, they conveniently abandoned the realism necessary to defend their own utopiae.

In truth, the multicultural societies we see in the West today are no more than the result of cold mass immigration serving soulless economic survivalism. To avoid social unrest, Western ruling classes reluctantly glued together their rapidly changing populations with taboos on financial inequality, religious intolerance or racial privilege, but Western leaders did so more out of duty than out of choice, the alternative being civil war.

A Turning Point

Diversity may also reach a turning point beyond which minorities prefer to secede from the majority, see for example the Catalans in Spain. And knowing that it took only a few thousand supporters to found the state of Israel, what’s to stop thirty million African-Americans from demanding independence as a people? Or American Muslims, for that matter?

Historically, collaborating minorities have ganged up on richer majority cultures, as we know happened to Ancient Rome and other empires. Realizing that somewhere between 11 to 30 million Mexicans (plus offspring) have come to live in the US during the past half century, what’s to stop Mexico from annexing part of US territory? While there’s no likely scenario for a Mexican army to march north anytime soon, those already in the US could simply plant their flag, with Wal-Mart supplying their ammunition.

Diverse societies offer no more long-term stability than monocultural ones. Multicultural societies exist merely to postpone a tragedy of the commons. Further progressing down this path, the West will have to face its destiny. The European Union will implode. The American majority will revolt. The question is, will be it enough, or will it be too little, too late?

[1]Meadows, Donella, Jorgen Randers, and Dennis Meadows. Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update. 1st ed. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company, 2004.

[2]Potter, David M. People of Plenty: Economic Abundance and the American Character. 1st ed. Essex: Phoenix Books, 1965.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s