Dachshund wrote: ↑Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:24 am
"Diversity is our Greatest Strength !". This is the mantra that is continuously chanted by mainstream academics, journalists, educators and politicians in the United States today, and they mean all kinds if diversity: language; religion; culture; sexuality and in particular, race. Of course, when you ask them to explain what exactly is so great about about having 40 million Mexicans living in America, or how it is that 6 million Muslims improve the lives of the American people, you wont get and answer, you'll probably just get yelled at for asking the question.
It's amazing that you believe that you can actually speak for ALL Americans. Should I call you GOD instead of DOG? Get it? Dachshund = dog! Dog is god spelled backwards! And you speak as if your diatribe is necessarily definitive of every single American. I could go on and deal with the rest of your paper, but I'm afraid that this first paragraph has set the pace/tone for the rest of it. See how that feels? Did you get it?
The reason you wont get an answer is because diversity is not a strength, it's a weakness. Without racial diversity there would be: no race riots; no dangerous inner cities; no "Black Lives Matter" protests; no prejudicial "Affirmative Action" programs; no worries about whether there are too many Asians at Harvard and not enough Hispanics on television; no racial discrimination law suits, no compulsory diversity training. There would also be no "White Guilt", no "White Privilege", in fact there would be no racial conflict or tension at all. Can you imagine such a peaceful, unified and carefree United States ! Admittedly, there would be fewer Mexican restaurant and the US might not win so many medals in the Olympic Games, but I think most Americans could live with that.
Just look at what racial diversity is doing to American politics. The Democrats have become the non- White party, 90 - 95% of Black African - American and 70% of Hispanics and Asians now vote Democrat. At the same time, the Republican party is increasing becoming the White people's party, a number of authoritative, mainstream American political analysts are now forecasting that within a decade, 80% of White (European descended) Americans will vote Republic. So it appears that racial diversity is already rendering elections in America merely a "racial headcount" and not a choice between different ways to govern a country.
The whole myth that racial diversity is a strength has been debunked by many recent research studies, perhaps the most decisive evidence comes from a research investigation conducted by eminent Harvard sociologist, Professor Robert Putnam who conducted a large study involving over 30,000 Americans from a broad range of communities, ranging from those in Southern towns of America that were essentially all White to those that were racially very racially diverse, such as the central districts of Los Angeles. When Putnam had collected all of his data, and began to look through it, he was deeply shocked what he found. He had been expecting (and indeed hoping) to find that increased levels of racial diversity has a positive effect on community life. What he found, however was robust evidence that racial diversity destroys trust in communities. The findings from his study clearly demonstrated that people who live is areas of high racial diversity, like Los Angeles don't trust their neighbours. Moreover they don't trust their politicians, they have few close friends, they don't get involved in their community, they don't do charity/volunteer work and they are less likely to vote. About the only thing that they do more of are go on protest marches and stay at home watching television. Putnam was so astonished by his research results that to begin, he simply could not believe them, he felt there there must be some other factor at work - something he had overlooked - apart from racial diversity, that would explain his results. He then spent literally years hunting for some alternative explanation that could account for research finding. Ultimately, however, after 6 years searching, Putnam could not find any social factor, apart from the degree racial diversity, to explain the variation of levels of trust in communities that his research data confirmed. He then finally published his research in 2007 in the high-impact journal, Scandinavian Political Studies as in paper entitled : "E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the 21st Century." (cf: June 2007 30(2); pp. 134 - 174) Since Putnam's paper was published, other researcher from around the world have confirmed the same phenomenon, that is. there is a direct relationship between levels of diversity racial, ethnic, religious, tribal) in a community and the level of trust that prevail. As diversity is increased, levels of trust are diminished.
Diversity destroys trust; with enough diversity in a society, people stop having much of anything in common, and ultimately diversity destroys CULTURE. Here's an example. Consider the buildings that house the three branches of American government: the US Supreme Court building; the Executive mansion or the "White House"; the legislative branch in Congress and The Senate. These buildings could have been built ONLY in a country that drew its culture directly from Western Europe ( i.e. "The West") which is a culture that has one of its primal foundations in the culture of ancient Greco-Roman antiquity. The architecture of all these three building was strongly influenced by by the Classical style of ancient Athens and from other great Western
cultural traditions such as the 16th century Palladian architectural style which is incorporated into design of the White House You will see the same thing in other American public buildings like the National Gallery and even the Department of Agriculture building, both of which bring to mind the Doric Temples of ancient Athens.
Note that these buildings were all erected before America decided that "diversity is our greatest strength". They were constructed at a time when the American people knew that they were a Western European people, and when they were very proud to identify themselves as such - as Westerners". They were very proud, as well, of their Western cultural heritage and the extraordinary achievements their of culture over the millennia. But how long will it be, I wonder, before the increasing non-White/European country that America is becoming begins to openly denounce buildings like Congress and the White House as offensive White-Supremacist architecture that must be destroyed and replaced with something more "politically correct" and "multicultural" I can see it now, the White House, Congress , the Senate, the US Supreme Court building and the National Gallery ( and public building that looks like them) being bull-dozed into the ground and replaced with buildings that are intended to suit all of the different racial/ethnic groups. What would these new building look like? I think you might get a good idea if you google up the images of building like these: (1) The Supreme Court of Brazil (2) the parliament building of Bangladesh or, say, (3) the Opera House of Taiwan and (4) the United Nations building. What we have in these buildings is a good example of the appalling ugliness and cultural vacuousness of modernist architecture. Buildings like these are the products of a soulless, "machine" architectonic. They are aesthetic eye-sores which have no roots in any distinctive cultural tradition. These buildings could be placed anywhere or nowhere, - they are what some traditional architects call "junkspace". They have no conceivable connection with unique cultural/ethnic identity of the native people in those countries. This is what architecture for a racially diverse society that celebrates multiculturalism looks like, i.e. like something a bored 4-year old could design in 30 minute at kindergarten.
On the other hand, countries that don't celebrate diversity can still have a national architecture. Take for example the swimming pool enclosure at the Ritz Carlton in Saudi Arabia. This is a space fitted with vaulted columns of glowing, polished marble and a splendid arabesque aesthetic that immediately brings to mind the exotic beauty of a niche in an medieval Islamic mosque. Even Saddam Hussein's former palaces in Baghdad had deep aesthetic foundations in his culture. These palaces are all large buildings that draw on a variety of traditional architectural styles including Moorish, Timurid (Turkistani), ancient Iraqi Mesopotamian and Ottoman. While in Asia, the distinctively styled Korean President's house, known as "The Blue House" (Cheung Wa Dee) is a striking example of a wooded building that was constructed using the traditional curving, sloped forms of the "hipped-and -gabled" architectural style. These building look like they belong in the country they were built in Meanwhile, back in the US, we have to quote Prince Charles a "monstrous carbuncle" like the Afro - American Museum in Washington DC. Here is a build that is completely divorced from the Western (European) cultural tradition; it doesn't look like anything in particular except a large nondescript , lurid, bronze/gold (?) -clad, roughly - rectangular. And this is what happens to every element of a culture when its heart is cut out.
What will the "Multi - Cultis" put in the Afro-American Museum, I wonder? Will it be the most beautiful art or political "Affirmative Action" or "Black Live Matter" art? Music, movies, drama, the fine arts, novels they all have to satisfy everyone, which means they wont satisfy anyone. Who listens to "Classical" music in America ? Whites and some Asians. The great fugues of Handel, Beethoven and Wagner, amongst others,are culturally speaking, quintessentially Western. A piece of music like Richards Wagner's, "Flight of the Valkyries", is, without doubt, one of the purest expressions of the true soul of Western culture to have ever been composed. There was once a world-class symphony orchestra in Oakland, (California), but it went bust when Oakland's leftist hipsters decided the town should become "vibrant"
Have you ever wondered why it is so many of today's American movies are violent, special - effects extravaganzas ? It's because they're made for a world market - the least common denominator. An important part of the world market is China and recently (last year) the Wall Street Journal was reporting (quote): "Hollywood under Pressure to put More Chinese Actors in the Spotlight."
And it's even worse when you have the whole world living in your country. Nothing survives, anything of value is ground away in the churning and mixing. Multiculturalism does not mean that authentic national/cultural traditions exist side-by-side, it means that all traditions are worn away and destroyed.
I support TRUE diversity. I want to see Japan remain distinctly and proudly Japanese. I want the same for Nigeria, England, Somalia and Denmark. Every culture, no matter how strange it my seem to us (Westerners) is beautiful to its own people and deserves to survive. Could the Buddhist way of life as it is practised in Tibet ever survive the onslaught of mass immigration, racial/ethnic diversity and multiculturalism?
What the left in America calls "diversity" is the mindless destruction of everything in their country that is rooted, that is authentic, that is judged to be of value and therefore worth preserving, that has risen out of a shared heritage over countless generations. Real diversity requires a commitment to conserving/preserving the common legacy of a distinct people and their culture. The irony is that his is something America seem to understand perfectly well when it comes to protecting the unique cultural traditions of OTHER peoples in foreign countries. When in 1965, for example, the people of Thailand were threatened with a armed communist insurgency that was absolutely intent on destroying every element of their traditional culture and way of life, the US military promptly arrive to help defend the Thai people from the communist aggressors and did leave until the threat had been neutralised in 1983. Likewise in Bolivia (1966-7), South Zaire (1978) and Cambodia (1967-75).
What America does not seem to understand is that for the past 50 odd years (since 1965), an internal Neo-Marxist insurgency has been waging an increasingly successful cultural war within its own borders; a war whose ultimate goal is to destroy the United States Western/European nation; to destroy its traditional Western (European) culture. America is now being swamped by immigration from non-Western nations, and everything that Americans cherish, everything they have striven for and built since the birth of their nation in 1776 will be lost. It will be lost if European American turn their own country over to people who are NOT Americans. Ultimately, Americans will lose themselves. If non-White (European) immigration continues at the pace it has done and every institution in the US promotes inter-marriage between races in 200 years there will be no White?European Americans in North America. There will still be Asians (Japanese, Chinese), Africans, Latinos, Amerindians etc; in the world because most of them live in countries that don't celebrate diversity. But the White American will disappear from the US and so will his culture - Western culture. Western culture, the greatest, and most objectively superior culture that has ever emerged in the entire history of human civilization will disappear from North America.