Understanding diversity and inclusion to be both a myth, in that it is fictitious, and superficial, in that its proponents are seeking to advance ideological sameness masquerading as diversity, diversity and inclusion is also a lie; because absent its superficial function, human beings do not gravitate toward those who are different than them.

Introduction

“Do Americans truly cherish diversity?” Pat Buchanan asked in his 2011 book Suicide of a Superpower. “Why, then, when free to associate, do so many Americans separate and segregate themselves?” 

One needs only to visit a college campus to see the groups that form from a likeness of race, ethnicity, and heritage; or open up their Twitter and Instagram feed to see content specially tailored to their interests; or think of their friendships and why they have either fallen apart or stayed together to see that diversity is not a quality that is welcomed. 

Many reasons help explain why 2020 was a divisive time, separating friends and family and dehumanizing the people we once shared meals with. One such reason is that we didn’t keep our eyes up and away from our phones enough. We were always a click away from bad news. The news today buzzes in our pockets, reminding us that the world is out to get us: the conservative Nazi homophobes have just made it harder to kill babies and the ideologically infested left are defending sexually explicit books being shown to children. 

As if we aren’t being constantly reminded from these outlets that there is a reason to hate those we disagree with, the government has also reinforced this division in the form of “public health” and “education,” where the “unvaccinated are the problem” and parents who speak out about their children’s education are domestic terrorists. 

The irony in America’s political and social divide is that the calls to segregate society almost entirely seem to come from the left, save the fringe idea espoused from both sides who claim that balkanization is the answer. Yet the left is the political aisle that champions diversity and inclusion. What type of diversity and inclusion is supported? And how real is diversity? 

Diversity is a political farce. It chains groups of people to historical grievance, forever breeding the establishment’s complacent and emotionally ravaged useful idiots (also: social justice warriors).

There are two types of Diversity: the word, meaning a difference between things; and the political concept, the bureaucratic ambition to intentionally find and then integrate differences that exist between people. There are a multitude of differences that exist between people, but socially archetypal are racial, ethnic, religious and sex. Until recently, sexuality. This ambition is predicated on the assumption that equal representation will bring about desirable outcomes and, ultimately, ensure harmonious social and institutional relations. 

What we see enduring in our civilization’s social identity are these above archetypal categories. To accompany them, groups have been built within a solid framework of language. Encompassing gay rights and transgender rights, amongst a new swath of other recognitions, is LGBTQ+. Encompassing LGBTQ+ is progressivism. A derivative of progressivism being liberalism, where the latter devolves into the former properly understood. 

When we think of Diversity as a political concept, we see how it hides in the guise of “difference” while perpetuating difference, in order to justify its own ideological existence; in effect, diversity’s social implementation subverts the true meaning of “diversity.” 

Therefore, Diversity is a political farce. Its program is predatory, effectively exploiting human differences and creating from them a sense of identity, to work for a Cause (its ideological ambition). One way it does this is by chaining groups of people to historical grievance, forever breeding the establishment’s complacent and emotionally ravaged useful idiots (also: social justice warriors). In other words, the fragmentation into tribes offers the powers that be the opportunity to leverage their interests; subsequently, coupling “marginalized peoples” with a host of other party demands.  

Still, tribalism is a natural disposition and response, especially along race and ethnicity. The 20th Century showed us all how lethal racial and ethnic division has been and can be. This is what made the American Experiment so great: it recognizes this fact and answers it with national sovereignty and identity, and assimilation into a melting pot; yet, as a consequence of this American identity being lost, this experiment is going awry. Our diversity is tearing us apart.

Though there are still the cultish chants that “Diversity is our strength,” it might be arguable that the decline in our national identity was a result of diversity, both superficially and programmatically, which led to the increase of tribal politics. What is the solution? Is it to integrate people of all different races, creeds, cultures and ethnicities? Is it to segregate them? Is it to allow them to self-segregate and become separatists? Or is it to forget that this problem exists at all, reject our nationality, and read a bit of critical race theory? 

In summary, we’ll see that diversity is a myth. It seeks to foster something that it is not and never will bring: equality and harmony. It is superficial, because it masquerades itself as harmony. And it is a lie. The historians know this. The academics know this. The elites know it too. Devoid of a national umbrella, people begin to naturally fragment themselves into their own; and even with the umbrella, in-groups and out-groups will always form as outgrowths of these categorical differences, including talent and wealth. 

Self-segregation & Safe Spaces

Diversity has always been a myth in its preconceived success for civilization. There is not one prosperous civilization in all of human history that has championed diversity; or rather, there is not one civilization that has championed diversity without subsequent decline. Diversity is a fictitious ideal, meaning it will never exist. In other words, a people can claim to be “diverse,” and to some extent, everyone is different from one another; but we are not, and never will be socialized to live amongst those who are wholly incompatible with our culture, lifestyle, values, and beliefs, lest chaos and war erupts. 

In Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, sociologist Robert Putnam writes of the increasing disconnect of Americans from one another, their relationships and social institutions. In another 2007 paper, E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century, Putnam writes: 

“In the short run, however, immigration and ethnic diversity tend to reduce social solidarity and social capital. New evidence from the US suggests that in ethnically diverse neighbourhoods residents of all races tend to ‘hunker down.’ Trust (even of one’s own race) is lower, altruism and community cooperation rarer, friends fewer.” 

On the flip side, Putnam contends that in the long run, “successful immigrant societies have overcome such fragmentation by creating new, cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities.” 

As Americans have lost their sense of nationhood, they have tribalized into their own sense of solidarity. As colleges create “multicultural” spaces where whites are not welcome and friends and family split along political differences, Americans have begun to tailor their social lives as though it was just another social media feed.

But the idea that in the “long run” this diversity will be overcome is contestable, as evidence shows self-segregation along racial lines in America, even half a century after the Civil Rights movement and a century of increasing immigration from South America. “Cross-cutting forms of social solidarity and more encompassing identities” may have been true of early America as immigrants primarily descended from European countries, with values compatible with that of America who herself is descended from European roots. 

In 2009, then Attorney General Eric Holder spoke at the Department of Justice for Black History Month. In his speech, he recognized the self-segregation of races in this country, despite becoming more racially conscious: 

“On Saturdays and Sundays America in the year 2009 does not, in some ways, differ significantly from the country that existed some fifty years ago. This is truly sad. Given all that we as a nation went through during the civil rights struggle it is hard for me to accept that the result of those efforts was to create an America that is more prosperous, more positively race conscious and yet is voluntarily socially segregated.” [emphasis added].

Arguably, becoming more racially conscious did not do a justice to race relations in this country, but the opposite. The more distinct from others a people see themselves, the less they will assimilate into a unified whole, as exemplified in America’s “melting pot,” where a people assimilate under the umbrella that is American values and national identity.  

While the changing social fabric wrought by immigration is a significant topic to our time, as millions of illegal immigrants have invaded our nation this year alone, the fragmentation of Americans across political and cultural lines might be more pressing when concerned with our national identity. It’s only without a unified nation can immigration spiral out of control to no concern of the citizenry. 

Still, Putnam’s findings were a shock to the sociological world and still unspoken in the field. Upon his findings he was hesitant to publish them, as they were contrary to his own beliefs about the success of diversity, prompting him to go back to double check his research before publishing his findings. 

As Americans have lost their sense of nationhood, they have tribalized into their own sense of solidarity. As colleges create “multicultural” spaces where whites are not welcome and friends and family split along political differences, Americans have begun to tailor their social lives as though it was just another social media feed. Is this anything new? Not quite. 

Back in 2008, Washington Post columnist Robert Samuelson began his article Political Perils of a ‘Big Sort’? with “People prefer to be with people like themselves.” 

“For all the celebration of ‘diversity,’ it’s sameness that dominates. Most people favor friendships with those who have similar backgrounds, interests and values. It makes for more shared experiences, easier conversations and more comfortable silences. Despite many exceptions, the urge is nearly universal. It’s human nature.” 

Human beings are innately tribal. Since the dawn of our conception we have formed tribes as a way to create distance from those who were “other.” In his 2018 book, Suicide of the West, Jonah Goldberg, former writer for National Review, expressed this dilemma in our contemporary political sphere. 

“All that matters is ‘winning’ for my team or race or coalition. Following the rules or tolerating expression you disagree with has been redefined as surrender. Your enemies’ misfortune is your victory, and vice versa. Again, this is the only natural way for humans to think about the world. It is consistent with our basic programming. During Hurricane Harvey, legions of partisans took to twitter to cheer the fact that Texas was being punished for being a “red state” or for voting for Trump or simply for being Texas. Put the asininity of such expressions to one side. There could be no more human response than to think a terrible storm was sent to punish your enemies. All that was missing was an offering to Baal or Thor of a hundred oxen.” 

Today, universities have made it central to their mission to provide a space of “diversity and inclusion.” But that does not mean tolerance toward every thought or idea. Their mission can only be successful when it’s at the exclusion of ideas that do not conform to their own. Ideas that are against their notions of what it means to be diverse and inclusive are shunned as racist, bigoted, or ignorant (and this is being generous with the insults). 

Diversity is superficial. The concept cares not about merit but whether an institution is the right shade of brown, or the right amount of gay, or the right amount of female (even better if all three; and even better if a transgender), for all of these can be seen as points in the Oppression Olympics.

While students are being brought up in “safe-space” environments, where their ideas go unchallenged, the intellectual and social impact is dire. Americans have begun to shun those who were once friends and family as “unhealthy” and “toxic” to their “mental health.” The media has been an accomplice to this attitude. 

In his New York Times review of The Big Sort: Why the Clustering of Like-Minded America is Tearing Us Apart—a book by journalist Bill Bishop and sociologist Robert Cushing on Americans’ self-segregation—Scott Stossel wrote: 

“The three-network era of mass media, which helped create a national hearth of shared references and values, is long gone, displaced by a new media landscape that has splintered us into thousands of insular tribes…Blogs and RSS feeds now make it easy to produce and inhabit a cultural universe tailored to fit your social values, your musical preferences, your view on every single political issue. We’re bowling alone—or at least only with people who resemble us, and agree with us.” 

Thirteen years have since gone by since Stossel wrote those words. The segregation of people along political lines has exacerbated with the help of the media, tailored to fit the audience whose narrative they wish to propagate. Our phones buzz to remind us that we are not the same and never will be. We go to college to learn that this country is brimming with hate and the only way to combat it is to purge the nation of those we find disagreeable. Friends unfollow friends for not posting black squares. Families are banning unvaccinated members from gatherings. 

The country is not becoming more “diverse,” it is becoming more tribal. There is no national identity that belongs to Americans anymore, and if there is it is becoming increasingly harder to identify it. The flag is now a symbol of oppression, but the pride flag is one of inclusivity (except for straight whites). The nuclear family is a symbol of privilege, but abortion is laudable. Judeo-Christian values are bigoted, but don’t dare criticize Islam. Our founders are racist white men that must be torn down, but George Floyd is a hero. The Constitution and Common Law are founded in archaic systemic oppression, but the court of public opinion is just because it bows to the will of the people. 

Diversity as Ideological Sameness

Diversity is a superficial concept. It is a myth and a lie. It does not mean to be ideationally different, it means to be racially different, sexually different, or any other preapproved “different.” But this “diversity” is contingent upon one common denominator: ideology. As we’ve seen, it matters not whether one is black, but whether one is black and a leftist. Otherwise, they are “uncle toms,” “race traitors,” or “the black face of white supremacy,” as the left called Larry Elder, or the “black mouth for white supremacy,” as they said of the new Virginia Lt. Governor Winsome Sears. 

Diversity and Inclusion has been a program, now national, to “diversify” schools and workplaces with people who are considered marginalized. This is often based on race, successfully implemented with programs like affirmative action, which proffers preferential treatment according to skin color; however, diversity and inclusion includes other marginalized groups as well based on one’s ethnicity, sex and sexuality. 

In this way, diversity is superficial. The concept cares not about merit but whether an institution is the right shade of brown, or the right amount of gay, or the right amount of female (even better if all three; and even better if a transgender), for all of these can be seen as points in the Oppression Olympics. 

These identities don’t really mean anything, insofar as merit is concerned. They are given preferential treatment for the superficial function of a space simply appearing diverse and inclusive. Diversity then ceases to be real; it becomes a front, a farce. It is constructed around the mythos that the more diversity is integrated in institutions, the stronger these institutions become, even if mere “representation” is the only arguable strength in the effort toward equality of opportunity, and even if the negative effect is fragmentation and self-segregation. 

Devoid of a national identity, identities along racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, gender, etc. begin to take precedence. What many of these marginalized identities have is their self-perceived marginalization that falls within the same ideological discourse to justify that marginalized status. This discourse legitimizes its social currency. This currency can be expended for preferential treatment, as exemplified in political policy—i.e. Affirmative action (which has been disadvantageous for whites and Asians), university acceptances and corporate quotas. 

But there is no performance metric by which we can see racially conscious (or sexually conscious) institutions improve on the basis of increased “representation.” The motto, “diversity is our strength” is meaningless, as it has no performative justification. In fact, it has proved to be detrimental to social harmony. 

As aforementioned, in Bowling Alone, Robert Putnam observed an increasingly isolated and distrustful America. In his five-year study seeking to understand why, E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and Community in the Twenty-first Century, with over thirty thousand interviews conducted, Putnam found that people living in diverse communities tend to “hunker down,” trust each other less, support community activities less, and vote less. 

Putnam found that in Los Angeles, “among the most diverse human habitations in human history,” trust was lowest as compared with more homogenous areas. 

(The sociological literature has more to say about the cities compared to rural areas. There are other factors that are theorized to contribute to desensitivity and estrangement from others, which would be beyond the scope here).

Understanding diversity and inclusion to be both a myth, in that it is fictitious, and superficial, in that its proponents are seeking to advance ideological sameness masquerading as diversity, diversity and inclusion is also a lie; because absent its superficial function, human beings do not gravitate toward those who are different than them. Ask a black Democrat what he thinks of Republican Tim Scott, and the latter might be besieged with another barrage of racist insults. 

Diversity and Inclusion is a myth, it’s superficial, and a lie because it has nothing to do with the merit of ideas or performative improvement in conditions. However, it does have to do with “ideas,” but the right kind, and of the right discourse, aligned with the right political and worldly ideology. This is what Karl Mannheim called total ideology, as distinct from an individual’s worldview and psychology. 

In other words, Diversity and Inclusion is not about an individual coming forward with his or her own life experiences and ideas and abilities; Diversity and Inclusion is about coming forward with experiences that can be aligned and interpreted by leftist ideology for its own sustenance. 

Diversity is about sameness. When there is “true” diversity (dissonance to homogeneity), people seek sameness, self-segregate, become more distrustful and isolated. 

Curse or Blessing 

“Curse or Blessing” is the last section in Buchanan’s eighth chapter, The Triumph of Tribalism. While there he focused on ethnonationalism (as a product of ethnic diversity), Buchanan paints an honest picture of human history in the face of tribalism and “the four horsemen of the coming apocalypse (religion, race, culture and tribe).” He asked an important question that will define, build, and tear nations up for many more centuries to come: Is ethnonationalism a curse or blessing? 

“To many who lived through the twentieth century, the poisonous fruit of ethnonationalism, the horrors it produced from Nanking to Auschwitz to Rwanda, answer the question with finality: ethnonationalism is a beast that must be chained. Yet ethnonationalism liberated the captive nations and brought down the ‘evil empire.’ And with the rise of Solidarity and its crushing by General Wojciech Jaruzelski on Moscow’s orders, America’s cry was ‘Let Poland be Poland!’ Ethnonationalism gave birth to scores of African and Asian nations that came out of the old European empires. Many are prosperous and peaceful… 

“But let us give the last word to Professor Jerry Muller,” Buchanan concludes. “Americans find ethnonationalism discomforting both intellectually and morally. Social scientists go to great lengths to demonstrate that it is a product not of nature but of culture… But none of this will make ethnonationalism go away.” 

Here we are left with a chilling reality of the state of America as she splits apart into Left and Right; as black nationalism and white nationalism are on the rise with the long-time aid of racialist academics and politics; and as numerous more identities within the tribal umbrella of LGBTQ+ continues to grow. The Oppression Olympics is the new national game for everyone who desires the advantages that come with minority, marginalized, oppressed, and victim status. The United States now has open borders, where immigrants are flooding through the southern border. The Michigan city of Hamtramck now has an all Muslim elected city council, an “historic first” according to the Detroit Free Press, as the city now reaches over fifty percent Muslim, displacing the once Polish majority. 

U.S. education is ever racially conscious, as university curriculum, and now elementary schools, are undergoing racially sensitive training, condensed from Critical Race Theory. Schools are also adopting “sexual diversity” where explicit materials are shown to children. 

As the American social fabric tears apart, the wicked nature of “diversity” is once again rearing its head, in the form of ethnonationalism, sexual liberation, secularization, and tribalism.