Diversity: strength or weakness? V.2.0.sh. M.R. Didier – November-2015
America was not born to be culturally diverse. Its DNA was set in its Constitution. Any attempt to change its DNA will void all warranties.
Neither the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence claims strength from any source but “Nature’s Law and Nature’s God”. There is no explicit or implicit reference to cultural diversity, because the founders understood that such differences have led to countless wars over the centuries in Europe. The leaders of the UK, France and Germany finally understood that important lesson and declared their own multi-cultural policies a “perfect failure”. Yet both sides of the Atlantic continue with this naïve and counter-productive policy of allowing if not encouraging each to live in accordance with one’s ancestral culture. America designed itself around ideas and values that can be lived independently of race or ethnicity. These ideas include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, followed by the constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of: speech, press, assembly, religion and petitioning. America’s original motto expressed this concept concisely: E Pluribus, Unum. We all came from different cultures, then became citizens of a new and unique culture held together by these common beliefs, not diverse beliefs. But even before it was changed to In God We Trust during the 1950s, eager “liberals” introduced redefined terms into our education system in the name of “progress”. The “darling” words of diversity and multi-culturalism, though well-intended, result in softening America’s cultural cohesion. After all, you cannot fundamentally transform a nation if it is not first declared dysfunctional, if not evil. But what is more evil than dividing people into “diverse” groups and thereby highlighting our differences, rather than uniting us under one American culture. A new slogan had to be invented to fix this absurdity: Unity in Diversity. This is a clear example of an oxymoron which, along with its complementary word Inclusivity, betrays the inadequacy of this “progressive” logic, Studying the cultures of our ancestors is part of our education, but living those cultures within our borders breeds conflict as evidenced by the fact that multi-cultural countries are under constant threat of a break-up along cultural lines. Without scientifically reliable diversity studies, organizations are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on consulting fees to chase this illusory dream. It all sounds so good.
America was conceived as a new-and-improved Europe, strengthened by millions of immigrants who came to live this new enlightened self-interest that elevated the individual, rich and poor, religious and secular, European and non-European, to this new kind of freedom. But today, America stands accused of having been evil throughout its history, and made its fortune on the backs of its slave population and the less fortunate nations of the third world. President Obama did not start this “progressive” movement, but he gave it a face with a great-sounding promise of a “fundamental transformation” wrapped in a haze of “hope and change”. The country is more divided than ever. Obama, who swore to “uphold and defend” the Constitution considers it a “charter of negative rights”. Obama clearly has a fundamental dislike for America’s DNA.