Diversity is good because it smashes 330 million Americans’ evolved social rules and strips away their expectations for proper behavior, says Noah Smith, a pro-immigration progressive who writes for the business-first Bloomberg News empire.
When nations are forced to become diverse, then “people from diverse backgrounds are constantly struggling to understand each other better, to take each other’s divergent family histories and cultural backgrounds into account, in order to get along at work, at school, in marriages, etc,” Smith said in a series of Tweets defending the rarely described idea of diversity from criticism by Fox News’s Tucker Carlson.
So “you can’t expect people to follow the [home nation’s evolved] rules” about how people are supposed to behave, Smith says, and therefore:
diversity strengthens America’s core values of individuality and freedom. Diversity provides a backstop defense against the natural tendencies of homogenization and conformity …
A country with institutions strong enough not to have to rely on homogeneity will be the strongest country imaginable.
The America experiment [with diversity] must continue.
Smith’s promotion of diversity was made in response to a segment by Carlson, who asked supporters of diversity to explain why diversity helps ordinary Americans. Carlson’s comments immediately prompted claims of racism by pro-immigration diversity advocates:
Amid his criticism of Carlson, Bloomberg’s Smith did recognize his elite-imposed experiment in civic variety may inflict catastrophic damage to civic rules which allow Americans to easily cooperate:
I believe that there is a chance our experiment might fail. That building a free society from people of all races, religions, and national origins might in fact prove too hard a task …
Smith’s argument that diversity is good for national power, for companies and investors, was echoed by one of the editors at the Economist, a leading pro-globalist, business-first magazine which favors large-scale migration.
The Economist editor, Matt Steinglass, also argued that people prefer civic variety and that homogenous nation-states were foisted on pro-diversity Germans, English, French, Spanish, and Russians by arrogant governments:
“The diversity doctrine is authoritarian in its essence,” countered Peter Wood, author of the 2004 book, Diversity: The Invention of a Concept.
Government-imposed diversity divides and atomizes society, and it denies citizens the freedom and equality to create a shared and useful cultural environment to help them manage their lives, he said.
The wide variety of ordinary people need clear cultural rules — not just laws — to guide the behavior of the elite and other normal people, he said. In that sense, Smith’s call for using diversity to wreck those civic rules is “sticking it to the average Joe,” Wood said.
Government-enforced civic variety also fosters the types of political divisions preferred by Smith, Wood said. “The variety he wants is the variety that he can control,” he said, adding that diversity:
would be good for people who are adroit in exploiting diverse conflicts … Diversity is a recipe for strife, and those who thrive on creating strife among others love the doctrine … These are comments [from Smith] that flush that out in the open in a rare way.
Smith says he wants diversity to prevent homogeneity, which he has elsewhere crudely described as “racial homogeneity.” But the flip-side of diversity is not racial homogeneity, said Wood. The opposite of diversity is the idea that there is an excellent way to accomplish certain tasks, he said. “Excellence exists though we struggle to find it [and] there is a right answer to the questions,” he said.
Smith’s argument for diversity is intended to allow elite control via top-down social engineering, said Peter Kirsanow, an attorney and a member of the United States Commission on Civil Rights. He continued:
“The benefits of diversity “ is a phrase recited with near-religious certitude and embarrassingly little rigorous empirical analysis. The Equal Protection Clause doesn’t allow for the range of social engineering preferred by elites, but achieving “diversity “ is an unassailable good that justifies all kinds of “bright” ideas.
Carlson used Twitter to debunk the “Racism!” charges:
After Breitbart News spoke with Woods, his criticisms of diversity were inadvertently validated by a series of Tweets by Smith.
For example, Woods argued that a government demand for diversity creates group conflict. That view was echoed by Smith’s subsequent claim that disagreement gets labeled as dishonesty:
Wood’s argument that diversity creates group conflict was also highlighted by Smith’s suggestion that Carlson’s criticism of diversity is “racist demagoguery”:
Smith admitted that a flood of job-seekers in his peers’ job market drives down salaries, echoing Americans’ worry that the immigration urged by diversity advocates is bad for Americans’ wages and salaries:
Amid a mountain of evidence, Smith acknowledged that “common purpose” — not diversity — help communities get problems fixed:
Smith also admitted that the ideology of diversity pressures individuals to comply with the expectations set by their elite-sanctioned groups, not to treat each other as individuals in a shared culture:
Overall, the Washington-imposed economic policy of economic growth via immigration shifts wealth from young people towards older people by flooding the market with cheap white-collar and blue-collar foreign labor.
Four million young Americans will join the workforce this year, but the federal government will also import 1.1 million legal immigrants, and allow an army of at least 2 million visa-workers to work U.S. jobs, alongside asylum-claiming migrants and illegal aliens.
That flood of outside labor spikes profits and Wall Street values by cutting salaries for manual and skilled labor offered by blue-collar and white-collar employees. The policy also drives up real estate prices, widens wealth-gaps, reduces high-tech investment, increases state and local tax burdens, hurts kids’ schools and college education, pushes Americans away from high-tech careers, and sidelines at least 5 million marginalized Americans and their families, including many who are now struggling with opioid addictions. Immigration also pulls investment and wealth away from heartland states because investment flows towards the large immigrant populations living in the coastal states.