Did the much-quoted Dunkirk Spirit during and after WW2 come from the diversity of Britain’s population during the 1940s? Of course not, that unity in the face of adversity arose from the exact opposite. The homogeneity, or to put it more plainly, the oneness of our population. Before post-war politicians set in motion those policies that created the slow eradication of the native British people.
How many times have you heard ‘Diversity Is Our Strength?
When! our own everyday experience of diversity confirms just the opposite? This gut feeling of insecurity when faced with ‘the other’ would seem to be borne out by research conducted in this area. What this shows is that high levels of diversity in close proximity inevitably lead to conflict.
To quote Robert Putnam in his ‘Bowling Alone’‘ published in 2000. A study of the decline of social capital in the US, but equally applicable universally. Virtually all measures of civic health are lower in diverse settings. Social capital is the concept of shared customs, heritage, and history. And values that lead to mutual understanding and cooperation among individuals.
And how much worse has the situation become with 21 more years of enforced diversity since Putnam’s observations?
Just 50 years ago we would have found it unthinkable that a British soldier or a French teacher could be beheaded on their own streets. Now Islamist attacks are so frequent we have become desensitized to the horror. The 2020 attack in a Reading park barely made the news. Perhaps because it featured two of the liberal establishment’s favorite minorities, Muslims and homosexuals. This is what happens when medieval Islam comes up against the West’s rainbow coalition. Such is the consequence of a migration policy that doesn’t even attempt to integrate migrants. Much less demand that they accept British values.
Universal welfare benefits in advanced Western societies can only work within an ethnically homogeneous population with the resultant high levels of trust. Citizens will not support a system where their taxes go to fund benefits that are immediately available to anyone on arrival in their country.
So, the closer diverse peoples are to one another, the more often they will come into conflict. The great liberal drive for maximum diversity will inevitably result in maximum conflict. We are told that the major benefit of diversity is the multiple cuisines this offers While we are all aware of the real ‘benefits’. Which seem to include: terrorist bombings and beheadings, FGM, acid attacks, grooming gangs, and generally high levels of crime. And that constant feeling that one is living in a Mad Max dystopia.
Diversity actually threatens that sense of community that liberals love to bang on about
The more diverse the community, the less interest in volunteering and charitable work. Immigrants are less inclined to do anything that may not benefit them directly,. This altruism seems to be confined to the native population.
This worship of diversity has been enthusiastically embraced, with every organization constantly monitoring quotas within their workforce. The cult of diversity has seeped into every aspect of modern living. One is confronted at every turn by advertisements featuring mixed ethnicity or same-sex couples.
However, the idea that diversity is an unqualified good has been stress-tested and found wanting. Human beings seem to naturally prefer to live amongst their own, rather than endure the conflict that results from difference. Research seems to show that the happiest countries in the world are largely homogeneous. The 2020 World Happiness Report shows that the top five happiest countries in the world are. Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland, and Norway, with among the least happy – India, Afghanistan, and Venezuela.. However, happy EU countries will soon find themselves inundated with their mandatory quota of refugees ‘fleeing’ unhappy Afghanistan in the wake of Taliban victory.
Homogeneous China was a third-world country not that long ago,
But a concerted drive to modernize and improve productivity amongst their patriotic population. Sees them now rivaling the US for economic world dominance. Meanwhile, the diverse US population is split in two with many quoting ‘secession’ as the only answer. Their population is too ‘different’ to remain one nation. BLM and Trump seem to have created an unbridgeable chasm in American society.
We are always hearing that Japan will have to allow immigration in order to service its aging population. This their government robustly resists, insisting that they will instead rely on advances in technology to address things like social care. There is no ethnic discrimination in Japan as it has only one ethnicity, the Japanese.
Incidentally, countries like India, China, and Mexico with their high levels of emigration, themselves permit no immigration. Preferring to reject diversity in their homelands.
The supposed need for an endless supply of cheap labor is the main driving force by which societies become diverse, with all its attendant problems. The corporate push for continual growth in GDP, and the mass immigration necessary to feed it. Means wage depression, segregation, slum housing, and civil strife for the bulk of the population. While the big business beneficiaries retreat to their gated communities. Thus, the lie that ‘diversity is our strength’ becomes a necessity to suppress dissent from those who experience its effects firsthand. No need to invest in training our own people or improving our dire productivity. Just keep importing more people with each new influx joining the fight for precarious zero-hours employment in the gig economy.
Meanwhile, when the 2011 Census showed that in just one decade the white population of Leicester had fallen from an already low 63% to 50%, the Deputy Mayor told the BBC that he believed the city’s diversity to be ‘a major strength’. Again this rosy picture is not borne out in actuality.
The rapid and overwhelming pace of change has not actually diversified the city of Leicester, it has cleaved it in two, with the white community predominantly in the west of the city, and the Asian community clustering in the east. The scandal of sweatshops and slave labor at the heart of Leicester’s rag trade is well known, but little is done to rectify it. For all their wailing about historic slavery, liberals conveniently turn a blind eye when confronted with dubious practices in the Leicester East constituency.
As in Tower Hamlets and other immigrant enclaves, the politics of the clan, old tribal rivalries, and religious sectarianism are imported, with immigrant communities holding local politicians hostage – they are inevitably beholden to their new voters. The Labour party was punished in Leicester East at the last election, both for their stance on the question of Kashmir – and because they replaced Keith Vaz with Claudia Webbe, a black candidate, neither action going down well with Leicester’s Indian British citizens. Having foreign factions wielding power in our elections is not conducive to a healthy democracy. Diversity sees every minority group rooting for its own interests, this is the tyranny of democracy – the tail wagging the dog.
Mass immigration is a force for destabilization within the host country.
The importing of some half a million individuals every single year into the United Kingdom, without a requirement to integrate, has led to the formation of enclaves, a catastrophic breakdown in societal trust, civil disorder, and the reintroduction into our society of practices which had been thought to have been consigned to the Dark Ages. Multiculturalism divides by definition, a nation cannot be united on the basis of its differences, and there is no community when there are numerous communities.
Join – NHPUK