Diversity and Multiculturalism

When you think about it, politically-correct multiculturalists are, at root, anti-human diversity.


They take the American Melting Pot idea and wish to apply it globally.


While the Melting Pot idea is fine to define one nation, it goes against the idea of “preserving diversity” to apply it to the entire world.

I’ve always found humans a bit funny.  They really have blinders on when it comes to their own species.  When it comes to them, what’s good for the  goose ain’t good for the gander, just because the gander says so.  If you can’t figure out what I mean, then think about it a little more, and keep coming back here.  You might one day understand.

For starters, let’s examine human diversity.  Some think that humans are not diverse at all; that differences are only skin-deep.  Yet they don’t think so when it comes to varieties of other species. judging by the taxonomies humans give them, and the differential treatment given.


Witness this: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=0c6ae388-05df-4f29-9ce9-7b7831c7f887&k=95255



Biologists are all concerned that a cross  between a grizzly and a polar bear (I guess they’re not separate species after all, eh, guys?  Despite the extreme difference in behaviour and appearance?) a bellwether for the demise of both groups into a single third – that would represent a loss of diversity, and hence why biologists are upset.

Yet human cross-racial breeding is encouraged.

Before you go off the deep end over this sentence, consider:

What, in fact, does the American Melting Pot model entail?

Well, it certainly doesn’t mean people of different identities retaining those identities and living side-by-side.  That’s the “Canadian Mosaic” model from the 1970s, and it doesn’t work, but I’ll deal with that in a later post.

What it means is, all people of different backgrounds mix and breed into one single race, one single culture – a new one, different and distinct from those it was built out of.

That’s an admirable goal for a single country built along the lines of the United States; that’s a matter of national sovereignty re: identity.  It’s also very Darwinian – a unique and conscious attempt at an evolutionary split.

But not only does it not work on a global scale, it’s inherently unethical to try to impose it on the whole world.  Doing that would not result in an evolutionary split, but a binding of multiple human evolutionary threads into one homogenous rope.  The same thing biologists fear what will happen to North American bears.  Both result in the same thing – a loss of diversity.

The solution for both is the same, if one really cares about “diversity”.   Isolation of populations.









This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s