Our strength lies in our diversity! This has become a mantra, repeated so frequently that people reflexively believe it. But is it true? We perhaps should’ve had a national discussion about that long ago, because our immigration regime is designed to increase diversity. Why, we even have an immigration program called a “diversity lottery,” a term certainly reflecting how we’re rolling the dice on our future.
Pundit Tucker Carlson made this very point in the Thursday monologue of his Fox News show Tucker Carlson Tonight. Pointing out that amnesty advocate Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) recently “spoke for the entire ruling class” in proclaiming “Diversity is our strength,” the commentator asked, “But what exactly does it mean?” He continued:
You may have noticed that nobody ever bothers to explain exactly what it means. And more pressingly, is it true? The less we have in common, the stronger we are? Is a marriage stronger when spouses have radically different beliefs? Are you closer to your kids when you share no common points of reference? Do you speak the same language as your best friend? Could you be best friends if you didn’t?”
These are important questions given that our leaders are radically and permanently changing our country wholly on the basis of their faith that diversity is, in fact, our strength. Maybe we should have talked this through ahead of time. Somehow we didn’t [video below — relevant portion begins at 2:58].
This “Diversity yields strength” dogma would have befuddled virtually everyone who ever lived for virtually all of history. In fact, as I wrote in December, “It was mentioned among the Founding Fathers that we enjoyed the benefit of ‘consanguinity,’ meaning, a relationship based on having the same remote ancestors. This became less of a reality after the waves of 19th-century immigration, yet emphasis was still placed on maintaining nationhood. For example, President Teddy Roosevelt said in 1907 that treating people with ‘equality’ was not a given, but was ‘predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American.’”
For sure. To paraphrase that famous biblical line, “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” Yet we’ve transitioned from this common sense to callow repetition of a Big Lie. Columnist Ann Coulter addressed this in 2009, pointing out that “diversity” “is a difficulty to be overcome, not an advantage to be sought.” She then illustrated absurdity with absurdity, writing:
We should start making up other nonsense mantras along the lines of “diversity is a strength” and mindlessly repeating them until they catch on, too.
Next time you're at a cocktail party, just start saying, “Chocolate pudding is dramatic irony” from time to time. Eventually other people will start saying it, without anyone bothering to consider whether it makes sense. Then we'll do another one: “Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine.”
Before you know it, liberals will react to news of a mass murder by muttering, “Well, you know what they say: Nicolas Cage is a two-cycle engine,” while everyone nods in agreement.
Except mere gibberish makes more sense than "diversity is a strength."
This leftist tenet also, unsurprisingly, contradicts another leftist tenet. Consider: Diversity can only strengthen us if some groups bring to the table qualities others don’t, if they, not putting too fine a point on it, are superior to other groups in certain respects. Yet leftists also preach that group differences don’t exist and have literally destroyed people who claimed otherwise.
In fact, the whole leftist notion that it doesn’t matter where immigrants come from because all peoples will fit in equally well in these United States is predicated on the group-sameness supposition. So which is it? Does diversity strengthen us or are all groups essentially the same? It doesn’t seem as if both can be true.
Diversity™ has become a mindless obsession, an unquestioned orthodoxy, much like what was presented in an old Twilight Zone episode. Toward the end of “The Eye of the Beholder” (1959), a demagogic leader can be heard on a television proclaiming, “We must cut out all that is different like a cancerous filth! It is essential, in this society, that we not only have a norm but that we conform to that norm! Differences weaken us! Variations destroy us!”
“This norm is what has ended nations and brought them to their knees! Conformity, we must worship in all interests! Conformity is the key to survival!” he continued.
“Conformity!" "Diversity!”— when exaggerated, they’re two sides of the same coin, opposite extremes. Sanity lies in the happy medium: understanding the need for a common culture, language, etc., that a “nation” is an extension of the tribe, itself an extension of the family. At the same time, we must allow the individual diversity enabling people to develop their own unique gifts, so Einsteins can become Einsteins and Copernicuses, Copernicuses.
Instead, we’ve become radical diversity cultists. We should remember that the biblical Tower of Babel story — in which God confused people’s language so they couldn’t understand one another and then scattered them across the Earth — is not a prescription for civilizational success. Rather, it reflects a punishment for, some scholars say, the sin of pride.
Scattering the peoples of the Earth across America, haphazardly, is one reason Americans understand each other less and less. It’s also a sin — and one for which we may end up paying a very hefty price.