Thursday, 15 September 2011


By August Pointneuf

The inherently benign noun "diversity" has been politically manipulated. It is now a term of aggression. For many it is emotionally impregnated.

This is because the term has become a powerful political instrument in Europe. It is a key contributor to an entire philosophy upon which the survival of the race and civilization teeters. 

In the 20th C, the early stages of the political engineering, the populations of Europe were characterized by a bizarre and perverted form of gerrymandering: European political groups persuaded their populations that immigration was essential for the benefit of those populations. It was marketed as a necessity for their future welfare. The rhetoric, strongly implied but often overt, was that the "integration" of foreigners would occur spontaneously. The population was told that the incoming aliens would assimilate rapidly, creating an essential workforce. This was promised as a necessity to produce a powerful economy, one which would compete successfully against the rest of the world. This immigration, so it was said, would allow Europe and Britain in particular, to become more successful and dominant global economies. But the unparalleled perfidy and surreptitiousness of these politicians kept the population from knowing and understanding that these machinations were designed, by the politicians, primarily to be self serving, and to keep themselves in employment.

At that time many recognised the conceptual fallacy and its failure was seen as certain.

The extraordinary empires of the Europeans, particularly the British, had bred administrators who were experts in dealing with mixed populations. These Europeans had been exposed to manifold communities which varied by race, culture, geography, history and much more. These one-time expatriates were the supreme authorities on the difficulties of harmonizing the relationships between variegated peoples. Once back in Britain these experts were appalled and astonished that the politicians intended allowing immigrants from failed countries to flood into a nation which was aiming to become a socialized state. Amongst the opponents of the doomed policies, were some who were outstanding as intellectually supreme. And yet these people – some elected into government – with their unique intellects and insights - were over-ridden, denigrated and vilified.

Eventually it became clear that “integration” and “assimilation” would not, could not, occur. By the time this was obvious to all, the alien presence was (at least politically) irreversible. There was therefore a shift in political policy. The word “diversity” was now used in a pitiful exercise of political face-saving. The future of Europe was now projected by political spin to become one of “diversity”.
This word, “diversity”, became the banner of a new political crusade.

It is therefore worth inspecting the meaning of the word. It is derived from and bears a relationship to “diverse" which means varied and sometimes discreet and separate: a distinct separation of the elements

When “diverse” is applied to humans it connotes also the complex penumbra of human contextual variance.

It is inescapable, when considering humans, that “diversity” implies separation of humans into distinct groups, together with separating their array of contextual paraphernalia such as culture, language, behavioural rituals, attitudes, foibles, fidelities, inclinations and expectations.

However the forceful, nay obligatory, political assertion today is that the populations of Europe must “homogenise”.  This is despite the diversity caused by alien ingress, and their inescapable differences.

Varieties of humans are therefore ordered, compelled to live together harmoniously by edict.

It is now written into law in Europe that any distinctiveness (i.e. “diversity”) must be ignored. Any expression of, or references to, evident differences in behaviour, appearance, culture, or economic and integrative potential are expressly and specifically prohibited. Severe penalties are imposed for any who disincline.

The result is the most extraordinary attempt to universally ablate inherent human spontaneity that any "government" has ever imposed upon its electorate.

What muddles of the mind have allowed this oxymoronic thinking!

One never needs his wit so much as when he argues with a fool. Chinese proverb.


Silly Kuffar said...

"It is now written into law in Europe that any distinctiveness (i.e. “diversity”) must be ignored. Any expression of, or references to, evident differences in behaviour, appearance, culture, or economic and integrative potential are expressly and specifically prohibited. Severe penalties are imposed for any who disincline."

Not really true though is it.
Muslims and the rest of the immigrants are allowed to show their differences and are applauded for it.

Laager said...

If anyone disagrees with August Pointneuf, pause for a moment and examine South Africa.

Here was a region of diverse ethnic groups. Driven by greed and a lust for power the British conquered these groups and consolidated them into a single "nation" which they called the Union of South Africa.

In effect they created an African Yugoslavia.
It was comprised of 9 different black tribes and their languages. Two different white tribes and their languages. An Indian community speaking three different languages. A Coloured / Mulatto community of Malay slave descendants and other people of mixed ethnic origins.

Just as politicians in the UK today are trying to create a multi-culti "diverse" society which will integrate and deliver all kinds of "enrichment", they did the very same thing in South Africa in 1910.

A fundamental difference though was that the resident groups, driven by the whites with the political power, realised then that these groups were so different that they would never integrate and that it was in everyones interest to remain separate but live peacefully in parallel with one another.

Legislation to maintain this status quo was first promulgated by the Cape Colonial Govt in 1806. It continued for the next 155 years under British patronage until 1961 when Britain withdrew from the region and the Union became a Republic.

In 1948 the new National Party Govt gave the existing status quo the name of Separate Development (Apartheid). In so doing they unleashed the liberal movement in the west who opposed all policies in the country at every level and finally succeeded in having Separate Development declared as a "Crime against Humanity" by the United Nations.

The liberals had their moment of orgasmic euphoria in 1990 when all legislation maintaining forced separation was abolished and in 1994 when white political control over the territory was ended.

A new era of integrated multi-culti diversity was ushered in.

This has resulted in the highest unemployment levels ever seen in the country. An illegal immigrant problem - estimated at up to 10 million - that cannot be reversed. The wholesale slaughter of the population where the white job creators and wealth
makers have been targetted (40,000 dead), legislated into poverty, terrorised off their farms and driven to emigration to find work and safety in other countries in the developed world.

Take heed white caucasian celtic Britain. Your politicians have place you at an identical crossroads. The immigrants who are pouring in are out breeding you. You will be the minority in the land of your birth in about 2050.

Pray that this multi-culti enrichment and diversity being experienced by white South Africans today will not be unleashed upon you in 40 years time.

misterfox said...

Laager, We are well on our way. The British truling-class always imported people into other people's territory for short-term gain. THe Tamils imported inti India is an example. Where ae the original Caribean natives?
Ilana Mercer is trying to warn America not to go the way of SA. She has picked a classic, if not entirely accurate, title.
Mind you Americans were behind most of the anti-racism hysteria over thelast 60 years or so.