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.
Defend the Modern World 