If you look at all the free democratic countries in the world, it's quite easy to notice a general trend: The ones with the most multiculturalism and "diversity" tend to have the most amount of violent crime, riots and discontent, while the ones with the least amount of multiculturalism tend to be very peaceful and prosperous, and with the most amount of average happiness. (Exceptions in both directions may exist, but they tend to be much rarer than the norm.)
It's also quite noticeable that, in general, the countries with the most amount of multiculturalism and "diversity" are the ones where social justice warriors are the loudest, protest the loudest, and have by far the largest amount of sociopolitical influence, and with it the erosion of essential constitutional rights is the fastest. Conversely, the countries with the least amount of multiculturalism have likewise the least amount of social justice ideology (and, in some cases, may even oppose the ideology).
If you look at many examples of free democratic countries with a very homogeneous population, such as Japan and many countries in Eastern Europe, Africa and South America, they tend to be some of the most peaceful countries with the least amount of violent crime. (Non-free non-democratic countries generally don't fit into this pattern, for rather obvious reasons.) And if you look at countries with the most amount of multiculturalism, like Sweden, the UK, the United States and so on, there tends to be the most amount of discontent, violence and rioting.
Politicians and other loudmouthed far-leftist influencers keep repeating the mantra "diversity is strength". Curiously, they never seem to explain why diversity is strength. It just is, because they say so.
The matter of fact seems to be, however, that the opposite is true: Unity is strength, not diversity.
The more sociopolitical, cultural and ideological differences there are in a country, the more different people will clash with each other, and the more discontent there will be. There will always be disagreements and infighting, there will always be people claiming to have been wronged by another ideologically different group, there will always be one group ideologically (and sometimes even physically) attacking another, there will always be some group making demands of another group, there will always be disagreement over how society should run and which group should be in charge. There will always be prejudice and discrimination between groups.
Cultural and sociopolitical homogeinity, however, brings peace and harmony. When everybody has the same background, the same culture, the same ideology of cooperation and working together to make a better society, the less infighting there will be, the less prejudice, the less discrimination, the less discontent, the less attacks against and demands between groups (because there are no "groups" to be prejudiced against or making demands from).
Somehow we have become a society where absolute cultural homogeinity is seen as a really bad thing, even though nobody can explain why it's a bad thing. It just is, because they say so. No need for explanations. Just like there's no need to explain why "diversity is strength". It just is, because they say so. And if you disagree you are a bigot and you'll get physically assaulted.
These notions have been ingrained so effectively and so deep into modern society, that people just instinctively believe it and repeat these ideas without even thinking about it. Take almost any average person out there, and he will probably think that absolute homogeinity of the population of a country is a bad thing, and leads to bad things (even though he probably can't even say what these bad things are), and that immigration, multiculturalism and diversity are a good thing (even though, once again, he probably can't explain why). These are just truths that require no proof.
Comments
Post a Comment