Diversity is Not Our Strength | Mario Laghos
Politicians of all stripes often claim that ‘diversity is our strength’. The word diversity by their meaning does not refer to the diverse geography of our isles, nor the diversity of thought of our people, but the diversity of demography. The idea that this kind of diversity is a societal good is an a priori truth for much of the Western elite, who persevere with the refrain no matter the events which transpire to demonstrate the precise opposite. The diversity drive is ubiquitous at the top of society, as every public body enthusiastically wages a perennial crusade to diversify its personnel, the Oscars must now produce winners who are racially representative, and every terrestrial television panel must now resemble a United Colours of Benetton advert. The idea that ‘diversity’ is good, has been stress tested, and found wanting, yet our leaders busily carry on singing the false song irrespective of public opposition and the material reality, much like the long march toward ‘equality’ and the never-ending slippery slope of ‘tolerance’. To err from ‘diversity’ does not necessitate a retreat to nativism or xenophobia, cultural interchange is largely beneficial, indeed diversity in its true sense can be an enriching force for good. But the diversity that unfettered mass migration has wrought has not served to broaden our horizons or temper our tolerance, but to suppress wages, ferment societal distrust, and fuel factionalism.
The happiest countries in the world are largely homogenous. The 2020 World Happiness report shows that the top five happiest countries in the world, in descending order are: Finland, Denmark, Switzerland, Iceland and Norway. In contrast the report states that amongst the least happy nations in the world are India (144th) Venezuela (99th) and Afghanistan (153rd). There are exceptions to the rule of course, nations wracked by crisis in Africa are generally less happy than an Arab or Western nation with more heterogeneous populations – one factor cannot holistically account for such a complex question – but that all the happiest nations correlate with homogenous populations is beyond dispute. But constrained by the zeitgeist as are the rest of us, the World Happiness Report has to do down its own data, and go to serious lengths to disabuse the reader of the notion that the composition of a population could be a contributory factor to the happiness of a population.
The report scrambles to get in front of its own data, lest you believe the evidence of your own eyes and question the unassailable virtue of diversity: ‘Some empirical studies have found that increased ethnic diversity is associated with reduced trust. This is attributed to ethnically diverse societies having more difficulty generating and sharing public goods, but Eric Uslaner shows that it is not ethnic diversity per se, but rather ethnic residential segregation that undermines trust.’ And after the World Happiness Report made the necessary and most minimally taxing attempt possible at attempting to dissuade us of the correlation between heterogeneity and societal distrust, they go on to say the following: ‘The historical fact that the Nordic countries have not had an underclass of slaves or cheap labor imported from colonies could play some role in explaining the Nordic path to welfare societies’.
The above is both simultaneously profound, and blindingly obvious. How can the demographic makeup of countries like Brazil, or the United States of America, which are diverse primarily because those nations imported hundreds of thousands of slaves, be a force for societal good? No sane person could claim to be surprised that there are deep fault lines cutting across the various societies of the Americas, when the vast bulk of the African American population are where they are only because their ancestors were kidnapped, put to work for hundreds of years and even after their emancipation denied the opportunity to eat downtown or sit where they so choose on a public bus. Naturally such a settlement would breed resentment, and demand remedy – and there are many suggestions as to what the best prescription is – from reparations, to education, to enhanced welfare and so on, but that the status quo necessitates remedy is a clear indicator the patient is sick, not strong. To claim that the diverse societies of the Americas are a strength, nay the very source of solidarity in society is plainly insane.
The need for labour is the primary means by which societies become ‘diverse’. The corporate class and the governments who sit in hoc to them desire above all else to facilitate uninterrupted and exponential growth in GDP. One of the most maximally efficient ways to achieve this end is through mass immigration. The consequences; wage depression, segregation, slum housing, and civil strife be damned. Thus, the lie that ‘diversity is our strength’ becomes a necessary pacifier to suppress dissent from those who experience its effects on the ground. The legitimate concerns of tradesmen, machinists, carers, and cleaners can be waved away by the feel-good platitude that diversity is our strength. Naturally, those who espouse this mantra are well sheltered from its ill effects, while themselves being the sole beneficiaries of its advantages: the au pairs, the cuisine, the gig economy. For the elite, these personal conveniences negate the brain drain crisis in less developed countries, the need to reskill our own people, or the responsibility to kickstart our stalling productivity in a sensible way – just keep importing more people. Why front the cost of training workers within the nation, when you can just import massive numbers from without? For some, it’s a no-brainer.
The truth is that ‘Diversity’ has been a disaster. For one, the word is a misleading descriptor, only very small pockets of Britain could be accurately said to be diverse melting pots. For the most part ethnic populations are concentrated in a limited number of urban centres, for it’s here they were sent to work in the construction and manufacturing industries which have long since waned. And by the way, the Windrush generation, as much as any other, were abandoned to their fate, as the state happily went about importing a fresh wave of workers from Eastern Europe to flood the new service economy, content to let a new generation join the fight for precarious employment. We could compare 98.8% white Wigan, which is not atypical of an English town, with 50% BAME Leicester as one example. And incidentally, when the 2011 Census discovered that in a decade the white population of Leicester had fallen from an already low 63% to 50%, the Deputy Mayor told the BBC that he believed the cities’ diversity to be ‘a major strength’.
The consequences for Leicester have, unsurprisingly, not been as rosy as its representatives claim. The rapid and overwhelming pace of change has not diversified the city, it has cleaved it in two, between the white community who predominate the west of the city in overwhelming numbers, and the Asian community who predominate in the east. The scandal of sweatshops and slave labour at the heart of Leicester’s rag trade have been known about for decades, but little done to rectify it. For all the left-liberal complaints of historic slavery, they conveniently overlook the Leicester East constituency and all that goes on therein. Like Tower Hamlets and elsewhere the politics of the clan, old tribal rivalries and religious sectarianism are imported and hold local politicians hostage, naturally they are beholden to their new voters. The Labour party were punished in Leicester East at the last election both for their stance on the question of Kashmir – and because they replaced Keith Vaz with Claudia Webbe, a black candidate, which reportedly angered Leicester’s British Indians. but having factions in the society electing national parliamentarians on the basis of factional disputes is no healthy way for a democracy to conduct itself. We need to look only to Ireland to see the outcome of sectarianism becoming endemic in a society.
Just 50 years ago it would have been unthinkable that British soldiers or French teachers could be beheaded walking the streets of their own societies’ – now Islamist attacks are so frequent we have become desensitised– last year’s Reading attack barely made the news. Such is the consequence of a migration policy that fails to, or even fails to attempt to, integrate migrants into the society, or demand that they accept British values as supreme.
As it relates to the vaccine the government faces a crisis. Much of the British BAME population are recalcitrant to receive inoculation – many are totally isolated from the mainstream of society and don’t speak English, which is why the government have been forced to expend much time and resource translating public health messaging into Urdu and a swathe of other foreign languages. Many BAME Britons think the vaccine will track them, or change their DNA, such is the thought that can thrive when enclaves are permitted to form on the fringes of society. This phenomenon which threatens to jeopardise the reopening of society in good time could not in good faith be said to be a source of good. Enclaves are not our strength.
Mass migration, particularly for the end of cheap labour is a force for destabilisation. The most stable countries in Europe are the least diverse – the Scandinavian countries and those which were insulated from globalisation by the Soviet Union: Poland, Hungary, Estonia and elsewhere don’t have terrorist attacks, Black Lives Matter riots, taking the knee, record violent crime, decolonisation of the curriculum, or pathological self-hatred. No doubt British culture has been enriched by immigration in many ways. No one would seek to malign the vast majority of hard-working migrants who seek out a better life in this country and elsewhere. That British music has advanced beyond Morris Dancing and that British cuisine has discarded sugar sandwiches and spam is an objective improvement. Meeting people from various backgrounds and learning from their lived experience is a good thing, we do not have a monopoly on knowledge. And the work ethic of migrants is beyond question – the vast majority want to contribute and get on like everybody else. The fault primarily lies with our government, and its abdication of its responsibility to police our borders and oversee a robust integration policy. The ramifications of the importing of some half a million individuals every single year into the United Kingdom has led to the formation of enclaves, a catastrophic breakdown in societal trust, civil disorder, and the reintroduction to our society practices which had been thought to have been consigned to the Dark Ages. Multiculturalism divides by definition, a nation cannot be united on the basis of its difference. Diversity isn’t our strength, it’s a fault line.