Are you still afraid that continued “balkanization” of NYC will send it down the toilet any time soon?

The interests of various groups in the USA have indeed always diverged, but did so in the context of an ambient, dominant majority culture that provided a stablizing, binding cultural matrix. The stability of that cultural foundation, however, depends on unity, not diversity. It’s simple enough: the more diversity, the more divergence, the more “identity politics”, the more Balkanization of American society there will be — and Balkanization means conflict. To imagine that the importation of millions of poorly assimilating non-Western immigrants under the banner of Diversity will do anything other than to accelerate the fragmentation of America — indeed to imagine that the maximization of Diversity itself strengthens a nation in any way whatsoever — is simply to deny plainly evident realities of history and human nature.

About slavery, you write:

“We managed to survive that without permanently breaking apart..”

Well, almost, except for that little matter of the bloodiest war in America’s history, the enormous strife and woe of the Restoration, and then a continuing saga of racial conflict and violence that has divided and bedeviled us ever since. And all that is just the result of the level of Diversity we already had in place from our nation’s founding. Why, then, would any sane person want to create more?

That you can greet all of this simple common sense with a patronizing “hearty chuckle”, and optimistic hand-waving about the good judgment of our leaders, gives me further cause to fear for our future, and ample reason to think, I am sorry to say, that you and I have so little common intellectual ground that further discussion will be entirely unproductive.

It is my custom, when discussions with commenters have obviously reached the point of diminishing returns, to offer them the last word. You may have it, if you like.

You should ask: in whose best interest? What you seem not to grasp is the most important point of all, the essential nub of the problem: that as diversity increases, the interests of the various groups diverge.

I am looking out for the best interests of the culture I belong to. And you may be right that we will change course before we dive off the cliff (though I doubt it) — but it won’t happen if nobody sounds the alarm.

What I am afraid will happen is that our current course will lead to a fragmentation of the US along cultural and ethnic lines. This would have been unimaginable 50 years ago, but could happen very quickly once we reach what has come to be known as a “tipping point”.

Oh, yes I do. You are obviously a good deal more optimistic about all of this than I am, JW — which view, likely being representative of the opinions of a great many other people like yourself, rather confirms my fears, and makes me in turn more pessimistic.

??? I thought you understood me perfectly when you said a company that does business in Japan would find it in their interest to have Japanese people in their staff? If you are a japanese company trying to decide between an american company that has significant numbers of japanese people vs a norweigian company of the same skill level that has none, which would you decide to work with? Heck, you might not even had the opportunity to *bid* without those japanese employees! If we assume that businesses are all about relationships and ethnic and cultural bonds are strong,and opportunities overseas are important, is it not to a big company’s advantage to have as diverse a workforce as possible?

My point in that paragraph — I apologize if it is badly worded, but I don’t think it is incomprehensible — it’s a very simple point. Put it to you this way — if the net negative effects of diversity ought to be abundant clear to people of reasonable intelligence and especially to those that set the national agenda — these are the two groups of people who will have most influence on the nation — then you don’t have to worry, because reasonable and intelligent people in an open democracy like America will not remain in a state of self delusion for very long given real actionable data that clearly point in one direction regarding an issue as paramount as that of the long term viability of their nation.

I’m afraid you haven’t understood me at all. I have never said that there wasn’t money to be made in Africa; I can’t imagine what made you imagine I had, or what that has to do with anything we’ve been talking about. We are discussing here the ethnic, racial, and cultural diversification of Western nations.

I’m afraid I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

My point, if I must make it again, is that it is plainly not clear to all that increasing Diversity will do anything other than strengthen and enrich our nation; this is why Mr. Derbyshire and others, including me, feel an urgent need to point it out. A great many who otherwise ought to know better are ensorcelled by a Utopian fantasy in which increasing Diversity can only lead to a multiculturalist rainbow of happy harmony — a stupefying delusion that, were they able simply to acknowledge self-evident realities of human nature, or even read the international news with the slightest glimmer of comprehension, they would see at once to be glaringly false.

A second thing to keep in mind is that there are many in government, academia, and elsewhere who quite explicitly relish the idea of bringing down the dominant Anglo-European culture, consequences be damned.

I have a hard time believing this, because if it was as *clear cut* as you say, that there is no chance of diversity providing significant benefits to a nation in the long term, then the odd majority culture member here and there would have no chance at all having system wide influence. Values and ideology do *not* diverge meaningfully on the issue of whether or not we want a successful future for America in the long term.

“it is hard for me to see how such a company would benefit from going out of its way to hire Tamil Hindus, Tarahumara Mexicans, and Somali Muslims as well.”

India, Mexico, and Africa. Forget India and Mexico. Let’s just take what one could reasonably take as the most difficult situation, Africa. You must surely be aware that China sees Africa as a HUGE opportunity and are currently in the process of investing tons and tons of resources into a region that you apparently write off as an insignificant entity in terms of deriving benefits from. And I certainly wouldn’t assume that you think that the Chinese are stupid. (I wouldn’t care if you do, however– I’m not Chinese)

Yes. Those on the Left often have the same incredulous reaction when they see working-class people voting Republican. It’s a matter of values and ideology.

“Or are you saying that there is a group of elite minorities powerful enough to exert this type of systematic influence against the majority culture?”

Also yes, and quite obviously so.

“Honestly, I think you’re giving much too short shrift to the idea that diversity may just be a primary ingredient to success in *today’s* world.”

It may of course be useful for an American company that does business in Japan to have some Japanese employees on its staff, for practical reasons; it is hard for me to see how such a company would benefit from going out of its way to hire Tamil Hindus, Tarahumara Mexicans, and Somali Muslims as well.

“Surely you would agree that the people in power in these companies are smart enough to make diversity related decisions that at least approximately leads to the maximum benefit to be had out of such decisions?”

No, I most surely would not. American corporations have had, over the past few decades, to be dragged kicking and screaming to the altar of Diversity — by means of hiring quotas, government regulations, and anti-discrimination lawsuits. Corporations thrive on team-building, and it is a simple fact of human nature that people bond more naturally with others who are like themselves.

And anyway, a nation is not a business: it seems abundantly clear upon any reading of history that as diversity increases within a nation, faction and strife does as well. Examples of this are beyond number, and available daily in any newspaper; counterexamples are almost entirely nonexeistent.

Fascinating. Are you saying that there is a subset of members of the traditional majority culture in power who are intentionally willing to work against their own influence? I find that a little hard to believe… Or are you saying that there is a group of elite minorities powerful enough to exert this type of systematic influence against the majority culture? I find this a little hard to believe also…

Honestly, I think you’re giving much too short shrift to the idea that diversity may just be a primary ingredient to success in *today’s* world. And I don’t suppose I have to explain to you why the big companies that depend heavily on overseas business will see diversity of the right type of people –grounded firmly in the universal virtues– in their workforce to be a net benefit *by far*. Surely you would agree that the people in power in these companies are smart enough to make diversity related decisions that at least approximately leads to the maximum benefit to be had out of such decisions? (wall street notwithstanding…)

I apologize if it turns out that this has nothing to do with what you intended point out in this post. :)

I do think, however, that even “thoughtful” liberals — who presumably are the ones making social policy in the upper strata of government, the academy, etc. the tend to have a blind spot as far as this topic is concerned — though it seems clear to me that in many cases it isn’t a “blind spot” at all, but a positive malevolence toward our traditional majority Anglo-European culture.

But many thoughtful liberals — and I am acquainted with a great many of them, both here in New York and in Cape Cod — aren’t thoughtful at all, it seems, when it comes to this subject. If there is any topic that tends to jerk even relatively unjerkable liberal knees, it’s this one.

With all due respect: you cannot be serious. Everywhere you look you see paeans to Diversity — and entire departments of corporations, universities, and government agencies are devoted to its expansion, and to management of the many problems it creates. (An English cousin, upon reading this post, sent me a note saying she had just returned from a National Health Service Diversity conference.) The Chief of Staff of the United States Army recently declared that “if our Diversity becomes a casualty, I think that’s worse” than the actual murder of more than a dozen soldiers by a traitor in their midst.

In proclamation after proclamation our leaders, in government, business, entertainment and academe, make fulsome and misty-eyed tribute to the sweet and copious blessings of Diversity in America. It is taken, as a given truth, that our strength and well-being must increase in proportion to our Diversity, though no evidence whatsoever for this stupendously counterfactual assumption is ever given.

As you interpret ‘diversity’, this is, indeed, a bizarre notion. In fact, it’s so bizarre that I don’t think you could identify more than a handful of “liberals” (among those able to spell their names) who would endorse it. So if you wish to attack stupidity, have at it — but don’t think that by attacking stupid liberals you’re undermining liberalism.