Timothy Birdnow

A very good question indeed.

Diversity didn't do the Balkans any good, did it? It didn't help the Caucasus, or India. In fact nations with diverse populations are usually poorer, less safe, less free, and weaker than the homogenous societies.

Back in the eighties and nineties, when this diversity stuff started, Japan was rising fast and hard and it was admitted that Japan was doing so well because it was NOT a diverse country. Ditto Germany, which was also riding high at that time.

And the dirty little secret is that China is not in the least diverse and it is the top dog now next to the U.S. and may well displace us. Why? Probably because we are diverse and they are not. (Japan's fall was entirely because they adopted Western Keynsian economic theory and it cost them dearly.)

What are the wealthiest countries on Earth? According to Forbes they are:

1.The United States.

2. China

3. Japan

4. The United Kingdom

5. Germany

6. India

7. France

8. Canada

9. South Korea

10. Italy

Off these only the U.S., India, and perhaps Canada can be said to be truly multicultural, the rest are in varying shades of non-diversity. Certainly the top five are not at all diverse except the U.S. and Britain, and Britain wasn't until the last decade or two. It was fairly homogenous before that, although it had several different countries amalgamated into the United Kingdom.

So you certainly can't make the argument of economic success from diversity. At best you could argue it doesn't HURT economic success, but that is the best case scenario.

Another point abut diversity; it's a one way street. Diversity to the Liberal is getting more minorities to participate, to bring in more Third World peoples, and to marginalize the white majority, particularly the white Conservative male majority. If you have a university faculty that includes several lesbians, several blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and maybe Native Americans but not one single white male you have a "diverse" faculty to them. "Diversity" is but a weapon with which to beat the majority in America.

So in the sacred name of diversity we have open, flagrant discrimination against the people who actually built this country and who form her backbone.

Take a look at the U.S. Post Office; as of 2022 it's workforce was officially 29% black. Now the black population in America is only 14.4% of the population of the United States as of 2024, according to the Pew Research Center.

19% are Hispanic and Asians 6%. Hispanics are at least appropriately represented; they are 20% of the population. Asians are also represented properly as they make up 6.9% of the American population. So if anything Hispanic and Asians are slightly underrepresented.

The point is this isn't "diversity". I would add that postal jobs are given out based on a civil service exam and yet blacks - who routinely score well below Whites and Asians, certainly, on most tests, are way over-represented. So we don't have true diversity at all, but rather special privileges for a favored group.

The author of the article makes the following observation about the need for genetic diversity:

He's right and we have multiple isolated case studies to prove it. For instance, the most remote inhabited place on Earth is an island named Tristan Da Cunha in the South Atlantic ocean. It is three thousand miles from Captetown, it's nearest neighbor. It was settled by a British Lieutenant in the Navy, one John Glass, who decided to stay behind when the Royal Navy pulled out (they occupied the island to prevent the French from using it as a staging ground to rescue Napoleon). Glass stayed behind because he had fallen in love with and married a Capetown Colored woman - a mixed race girl. He couldn't bring her back home with him in those days, so he stayed on the island (and she bore him no fewer than 20 children). Shipwrecked sailors wound up stranded on the island too and decided it was a good place to live and eventually there were six men living on the island. A passing ship captain took pity on them and promised to find them wives - he returned later with five more women, all colored prostitutes, who found it preferable to settle down at the end of the world than continue to scratch out a living selling jelly role to sailors. All of the inhabitants to this day on Tristan are descended from these six couples, or almost all anyway. Yet they are generally healthy and well adjusted and intelligent. Inbreeding didn't hurt them much.

The same is true of the islanders on Pitcairn, the descendants of the mutineers of the Bounty.

It does not require a lot of ethnic diversity to make people healthy. Nor to make a culture healthy.

Yes the European nobility had their problems but some of those can be laid to a rather unhealthy lifestyle.

And Muslims today in the Arab world very often marry first cousins because they actually get to look at those gals and don't have to worry about nasty surprised (anyone remember the Three Stooges where they get Muslim gals and Shemp gets the toothless hag?)

At any rate the push for diversity started back in the eighties and I remember it well. I had these professors who pushed it very hard and it never did make a lick of sense to me. Why, for instance, during the Civil War, were local boys kept together? why were there Irish brigades instead of breaking them up?

The fact is it was the white male Christian heterosexual who built America and made her such a success. That is why they want to force us into the shadows.

Diversity is a scam and always has been a scam to push white male and Christian normies into the shadows and empower everyone outside of the mainstream.

Hide Comments | Add Comment