Image by The All-Nite Images
Ok, so now, RIGHT NOW, I am going to tell you which question among the many facing America today is by far the most important. Ready? Here it comes: Is unity inversely proportional to diversity? Are we becoming less unified as we are growing more diverse?
Before I attempt to answer this question and prove my answer, I need to demonstrate the fundamental importance of the question itself to America’s survival as a constitutional republic. This importance stems from two streams currently merging together for the first time in American history. First is the definition of the very term “diversity” as “population consisting of people with diverse RACIAL markers first and foremost, followed by national and sexual orientation markers, where the ideal condition is equal representation by each group and subgroup”. This is a new definition. America’s Founding Fathers, in adopting the “E Pluribus Unum”, from many one moto for their new country, obviously answered my question in the negative. They saw “diversity”, as in “from many” leading to, rather than being antithetical to unity. But what was the diversity they had in mind when they adopted this moto? Was it racial? Or national? Or sexual? Hardly. While 1776 America had a large population of people of African origin, they were not seen by the Founding Fathers as having anything to do with America’s founding or her future. The colonies were overwhelmingly English, Scottish, and Irish, so a small and insignificant degree of national diversity was included in the Founding Fathers thinking. As to sexual, the thought of normalizing anything but heterosexual orientation would have been utterly abhorrent to them. No, the diversity the Founding Fathers envisioned was very different from the modern definition of this term; it had to do with the fact that people in Massachusetts lived in a vastly different environment than their counterparts in the Carolinas. They had different climate, different ways of making a living (more industrial, less agricultural), different attitudes towards slavery, and many more distinctions of this kind. Thus the diversity, the “pluribus” at the time of America’s founding had nothing to do with skin color. Simply put, all people who counted were white. The pluribus of 1776 coinage was diversity of thought, of viewpoint, of economic conditions, of ATTITUDE.
The Hi-Tech Traditionalist: The Second War For American Independence Is Upon Us
Into the stream of diversity as a racial marker is now injected a strong additive without which it would not have been a big deal. This additive is dogma. It is now FORBIDDEN in America to publicly state that you may have the slightest doubt about the exclusively positive value of diversity in its modern meaning. If you venture to do so, you are branded a heretic, and as such worthy of any and all punishment. The First Amendment to the Constitution, forbids, for now, the bringing of criminal charges against anyone who may express feelings that are less than adulatory on the subject of diversity, but according to, for example, ex-CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien, loss of employment, public ridicule, and any other adverse consequence must be the fate of such heretics. Unless you are independently wealthy and in no way rely on interaction with the outside world, you may get away with it for now. Should the Supreme Court ever have a liberal majority, however, the First Amendment will be reinterpreted and you will be fined and/or imprisoned until you publicly apologize and recant.
Image by The All-Nite Images
So there you have it, folks, belief in the absolute goodness of racial, national, ethnic, religious, and sexual diversity is now required of all Americans. How about unity? Well, unity of course if a GOOD THING. United we stand, divided we fall. The faggot (a bundle of sticks) is stronger than each individual stick. Of course from faggot (fasces in Latin) comes fascism, but that’s ok. Faggots are proudly displayed in the US Senate just as they were in the Roman one. The American Eagle holds a faggot of arrows in one of its claws, and so on. No politician, regardless of party, is ever against unity. We must unite. Our Founding Fathers, on the other hand, were only so-so on the unity thing. They kind of preferred the stick to the faggot. But they faced challenges, from Britain, from France, from Spain, and from the native occupants of the North American continent. Challenges that they realized could only be overcome with the combined resources of all the colonies. I believe that their moto reflected wish more than fact, prayer, rather than belief, hope, instead of certainty. They HOPED that the colonies, endowed as they were by a large diversity of political and economic factors, could unite for a small number of clearly enumerated purposes, chief among them the acquisition and maintenance of economic might primarily via territorial expansion, supported as needed by the necessary military power.
Over the past two centuries their hope had been realized beyond their wildest dreams; it would be difficult to argue otherwise. America today is the premier military and economic power in the world. But now, the definition of pluribus has changed. No longer is it a difference in WHAT we are; farmers or factory workers, capitalists or socialists, it has now been redefined as the difference in WHO we are; black or white or the catch all for non-white – people of color. From a difference in attitude, in opinion, in experience, all things that may be changed over a person’s lifetime, the definition of diversity has morphed into a difference in skin color, gender, sexual orientation, all things that we are born with and can never change. Does the thesis that unity comes from diversity yet hold with this new definition? That, my dear readers, is the most important question facing us today.
Image by Till Krech
My answer is no. The thesis fails, unity cannot rise from racial diversity or any other diversity that involves innate characteristics rather than acquired ones. In fact, under the new definition of diversity, unity is inversely, rather than directly proportional to it; the more diverse we become, under this new definition, the less unified. As of now, diverse = divided. And divided we fall.
In proving my postulate, I begin with science. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy in the universe must always increase. In popular science, entropy is defined as a measure of disorder, but this definition is misleading. It would be more correct to say that entropy is a measure of homogeneity. A system that is completely homogeneous, a system in which everything is equally distributed across the entire domain has achieved maximum entropy; in a sense, in an echo of the more popular definition, this system has achieved maximum disorder. Such a system is, more than anything, dead boring. It can do nothing; it cannot procreate, it cannot consume or generate energy, it is dead in the most profound sense of the word. It is the ultimate loser system. In order to do anything of interest, systems must become less homogeneous; they must have boundaries. Boundaries between cells and boundaries between the various organelles within the cell and boundaries between different types of cells, and so on. In order to have function, any function, elements must be UNEQUALLY, rather than equally distributed. Bones have more calcium; mucous membranes have less.
The new definition of diversity recasts it as a measure of entropy, nothing more. It glorifies the homogeneous distribution of skin tones and genders and sexual orientations across the entire domain, in our case, the entire US of A. The ideal of the diversity pushers are large cities like New York or LA, where form a bird’s eye view the population is ethnically, racially, sexually, and religiously homogeneous. It is the Church of Diversity heaven. More diversity is thus more homogeneity, more entropy, more disorder. But what is the definition of unity in this sense? The Founding Fathers, as previously mentioned, saw unity not as an ideal in and of itself, but as a necessary means towards achieving certain quantifiable goals for their people. In other words, they saw unity as FUNCTION. In this sense, unity for a muscle cell is consuming glucose so it can contract when so ordered by an electrical impulse. That is its purpose. To achieve that purpose, the muscle cell is “e pluribus unum” of its nucleus, its membrane, its mitochondria, and more. The muscle cell is united in its purpose, but it is precisely not homogeneous, not “diverse” as measured by the new definition. It is, rather, a carefully organized system, a low entropy system.
Image by The All-Nite Images
Israel, in its public relations efforts known as “Hasbarah”, a modern coinage of the ancient Semitic root S-B-R (to explain, to rationalize, to reason), likes to describe itself as “diverse”. This is intended to counter attacks on Israel as a Jewish supremacist ethno-state. The new definition of diversity by skin color, a definition invented and adopted by the same “progressive” forces that attack Israel, plays right into Israel’s hands. By this definition, Israel is indeed diverse. It is chock full of Jews whose skin tone is as fair as any Viking’s and those whose skin is the darkest ebony. More and more, these Jewish Israelis are indeed homogenously distributed among all Israeli ecosystems; academia, military, government, the professions, etc. So how is Israel successful? How does it maintain a high level of function, a high level of unity? The answer is simple: in Israel this shallow skin tone diversity is simply not a thing anymore, or at least much less of a thing than it used to be. Israel is diverse in the real sense, the sense that the colonies were diverse. It has clearly defined communities of people who widely vary in their attitudes, but who are united around a single core principle: that the Jewish people have a right to exist, to be free, and to prosper in their ancient and only homeland: Israel. The moto “E Pluribus Unum” is realized in Israel every single day; messily, loudly, with lots of chutzpah, but also with lots of laughter and mutual love and mourning and above all, success.
Woke Lindsey Graham Is Right, The Democratic Party Is Nothing But Organized Crime On A Massive Level
American colonies succeeded because they were diverse. The Yankee machine shop owner did not typically harbor any warm feelings towards the Southern plantation owner. In fact, they hated each other. But they had unity of purpose, of belief, and thus of function. They believed, with all their hearts, that they had a manifest destiny to “tame” the wilderness of the North American continent. That there was a Creator from whom they inherited by virtue of their humanity certain unalienable rights, and that while they would unite for the purpose of realizing their destiny, they reserved the absolute right to be left alone, separate and different for any other purpose.
Image by Sailesh Patnaik
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that entropy must increase. That ordered, non-homogenous, truly diverse (in the old sense) systems, must trend to the homogeneous, the dysfunctional, the boring, in other words, the “diverse” in the newly minted definition. The muscle cell will die and give up its elements to be distributed equally into the environment. But there is a stipulation to this law. If you zoom in, if you manage to put a border around something, a subsystem perhaps, and if you work hard and smart and put forth your best effort, if you inject energy into this subsystem, then entropy magically DECREASES. From homogeneous wilderness, cities, pastures, and even strip malls arise. From calcium and hydrogen and oxygen and a few other elements Newton and Einstein and Washington are born. That is what those early Americans did; they defined their domain and they put all their energy into making it into the paradise that they bequeathed to us.
Order from disorder is the exception, not the rule. It requires constant input of energy to maintain paradise, lest it revert to the desert of the homogeneous. The wonderful, individualistic, colorful diversity of our Founders always wants to devolve into the nihilistic, grey, deadly diversity that is pushed by today’s “progressives”. Stopping and even reversing this decay is the work of every generation. Ours has come up woefully short.
