Tags
America 911, American Liberty, BBC, Britain First, Christianity and Islam, Civilisation, Defend the modern world, Democracy forum, Diversity, Enrichment, Facebook, Login, Mass immigration, Multiculturalism, Muslims, No to Turkey in the EU, Race and ethnicity in the United States Census, Standpoint, The Commentator, Twitter, UKIP
It is one of the great buzzwords of our age. America’s strength is purported to be built upon it. Society is enriched by it. As a principle, it explains all that is good, true and beneficial to humanity. The word is ‘diversity’ – a formerly accurate and useful term that has come to mean something rather mind-bending.
You see, ‘diversity’ – when used by the political elite – does not signify the absence of homogeneity (which is either a good or bad thing depending on your personal sensibility) but only the absence of a certain kind of homogeneity – the wrong kind; typically, the Western or Christian kind.
The photo above was published last week in the Daily Mail. It shows the intake of a class in Birmingham, England. As the captions inform us, many different languages are spoken by the pupils, thus earning it the adjective ‘diverse’ in the article beneath. But is it? Is it really?
Certainly by the standards of our elite, this class is a wonderful and perfected kind of diversity; the kind the world should collectively strive for. But to the trained eye this photo reveals an entirely (one might say, homogenously) Muslim class.
The first names of the pupils pictured are as follows – Amil, Shahid, Alishma, Safyaan, Marwan, Humaya, Amaan, Shams, Awran, Duaa, Aminah, Saira, Shaila, Rina, Abubakar, Farhad, Mohammed, Sayam, Sams, Aksa, Yusrah, Ubaydah, Maha, Mohammed, Muhammad, Sairaj, Ismaid and Amaar.
I’m sorry, but that is about as diverse as rural Waziristan.
Of course, diversity, in its genuine sense, can be a blessing. If you have two schools – one of which contains a mix of Christians, Sikhs, Jews, and Hindus, and another which contains only white Christians, the pupils in the former school will doubtlessly end up as more worldly and informed adults than those in the latter. Real ‘diversity’ is built on difference, not any random arrangement of the foreign.
By contrast, the Birmingham students depicted in the photograph will emerge into adulthood completely unenriched, zombiefied by lack of variety, and with their minds closed to the complexity of general society. (*Needless to add, Muslim homogeneity is also a grave threat to national security. The lack of sunlight which might otherwise break the dark-room orthodoxy of Islam contributes directly to violent extremism).
It is high time people took issue with the missuse of ‘diversity’ and exposed the roots of its distortion in political anti-language. Those in the corridors of power know well what is meant by it, and their refusal to speak out tells us everything about their attitude to traditional English culture.
And that culture (the one diversity seeks to contain if not wholly replace) is not malevolent, built upon exploitation, or designed to exclude those of other backgrounds. In fact, it is uniquely universal in a world dominated by the English language and cultural standards first set by the British. The ideas of Shakespeare, Mill, Hume and Russell are anything but parochial. They have informed every country the world over.
But then again, perhaps to admit this would only risk exposing the lack of (genuine) enrichment the other way around.
D, LDN.
“Diversity” is a fetish of the white liberal relativist class.
I kind of think that this years election is a defining moment, because the Labour Party, most associated with this, and the Islamisation of towns and cities in our country, have been dealt a blow. I have no data for this, its just a hunch. But jihadism, Islamic separatism, rape gangs, are on some level getting associated with Labour and the Left. And the more Labour panders to Islam, the more the bulk of Britain will turn away from them.
I agree. I’m not ready to write the obituary of Labour yet though. Some people have short memories.
People have all but stopped talking about Rotherham in the media. It’s like it never happened.
Pingback: The Anti-Language of 'Diversity'.
Yes, but I get the sense that something has changed. Something in the bones of the nation. An awareness beyond what is topical and in the news. And quietly, with dignity and silence, people are altering their orientation politically and culturally. And this will manifest itself in the diminution of the Labour Party and the Left in general as an electoral, administering force. Also, the internet and social media keeps these issues alive as wasn’t possible in the past.
I think you’re right. People have woken up. The problem is they still regard Muslim crimes as exceptional and uncharacteristic of all Muslims. They don’t fully concede that the root of the aggression is in Islamic belief itself. Some do – a growing number – but not all.
That will change too. The utter belligerence of Islam, and the continuing outrageousness of the Islamophobia industry, which is a racket, will see to that.
Contrary to the fears of many, the country is largely opposed to the Guardian worldview. The relativist, self loathing Left make lots of noise, it sometimes seems that we are the minority. They are so cocksure and arrogant, they believe they are ‘progressive’ everyone else is evil etc etc. The reality is that Tommy Robinson is more in tune with the working classes than Owen Jones. The Guardian world is an echo chamber that makes lots of noise, but it is not powerful. The people have the power. The people reject it. All else will become plain and the louder and more arrogant Islam becomes, the more it will clarify matters.
Indeed. Even Owen Jones is beginning to criticise Hamas and the Islamic State. That’s quite shocking given his deluded orthodoxy on the Middle East.