So-called diversity is creating an amorphous non-culture of homogeneous individuals where once stood a plethora of truly diverse and unique peoples. Before examining the real world causes, effects, and implication of such a bold statement, we should first look to understand diversity in a simpler simile.
The diversity of colors on a pallet can be seen as the diversity of peoples. While these colors are segregated in their individual pots, each retains its unique identity. If all of the colors are mixed together, a homogenized brown, drowning out each color's individual flavor, will result. If instead the colors are kept mostly separate as they are applied to a canvas, a painting will emerge with more depth and beauty than any of the individual colors could have ever conveyed. The colors are only mostly separated since they are allowed to blend slightly to produce chromatically varied hues not present in the initial representation of colors. There will also be the interplay on the edges where the colors have been laid down. For example the white of the clouds, which may have some yellow or red present to accentuate the effects of sunlight, and the blue of the sky will bleed together while still remaining quite distinct.
Applying this same kind of reasoning to human cultures, we can see that when you mix all of the races and cultures together eventually all of the unique traits will be bred out. Much like mixing all of the colors gives brown, mixing all of the races will eventually likely lead to a brown-haired, brown-eyed, olive skin ubiquity. Similarly, mixing all the cultures will lead to a corresponding assimilation into one global culture. If the premature global culture of today is any guide, the future probably holds something that will include a price tag on everything, technology that separates us while espousing connectedness, and the religion of science.
First let us examine these aforementioned effects on the black community, primarily from the perspective of the United States of America. To start, black is a horrible description of what was once an enormously varied group of peoples. African-American is more descriptive, but still too stymied and encapsulating to represent the vast array of potential lineages a black person might hail from. Africa is a massive continent and to believe that the historical tribes from North and South Africa had much in common is absurd. In modern terms it would be like saying that the people living in a Sudanese desert, the people living in a rainforest in the Congo, and the metropolitan people of Cape Town can all be categorized together. These places are no more similar than New York City and Lubbock, Texas.
While there is a fairly plain explanation to this loss of cultural identity, the slave trade, it is less plain to understand the effects such a loss creates. Today, how many blacks can name any African tribes let alone have an understanding of them? Most of the time you'd get, at best, a vague answer proposing some former great African culture that was destroyed by the white man with little or no recognition of the differences in the various cultures. Once this point of cultural loss is reached, it is much easier to herd black people. Their history has been replaced by a modern history of slavery and civil rights. They can't identify with their ancestors, so someone like Martin Luther King Jr., Rosa Parks, or Harriet Tubman acts as a surrogate. After civil rights, the black community is once again cast to the wind and spread across the USA. This diaspora of blacks was the second blow to their community, diluting them even further into the white communities while simultaneously acting as a catalyst for the deracination of non-black ethnicities.
Even still, the black community was beginning to recover until LBJ's Great Society program. One of the main prongs in this decline was the introduction of welfare leading to financial incentives for black women to have children but not husbands. A single black woman with a child was financially better off receiving welfare than being supported by a black man. This led to an ever increasing breakdown in the black family structure. This perpetrates generationally; when a child grows up fatherless, they are less likely to form a traditional nuclear family.
As we will see later, this destruction of the family is the goal of the oligarchy and the black (and later Asians in the internment camps of WW2) people of the USA were used somewhat like laboratory rats to work out how best to destroy the family.
The white community, like the black, is a ridiculous oversimplification of the classification of numerous cultures. European-American, like African-American, is more descriptive, but still too broad since, for example, the Spanish, French, and German cultures are quite distinct. Like the slave trade disrupting the ancestral connection of the black community, the migration to the new world had similar, although slower and less extreme, effects on the white community. Initially ethnic enclaves were established. These, like the colors of a painting, created a patchwork of cultures that worked side by side to create a larger environment where everyone could prosper. While you could surely find a lack of acceptance between the communities, it was seen more as looking out for your own rather than keeping the others down. Signs forbidding Irish or Italians entry were the equivalent of maintaining the separate white and blue colors of a cloud covered sky.
These ethnic communities still had pride in their heritage. You would insult any of them by calling them white. They were Italian-American, German-American, or similar. The dispersing of the black community into these ethnic communities, who didn't want the blacks there anymore than the blacks probably wanted to be there, led to what is commonly called white-flight. The wealthier moved away creating new communities not based on ethnic roots, but economic status. The desire for roots was still strong, and the ethic glue was replaced by a familial bond that presented itself in a tribal view of your extended family.
This migration away from ethnic communities accelerated at the close of the second world war. The baby boom supposedly made living conditions too tight and families dispersed into the World's Fair promoted suburbia. This suburban shift was the next rung in the destruction of the family by now separating even the extended family.
Like the blacks, how many whites can name their ancestors? How many can lay claim to a single, or even only two, ethnic roots? The numerous European-Americans have become nothing more than white mutts. Again, as with the blacks, history has been replaced by a modern history, that of the founding fathers, the melting pot, and the industrial revolution. We are taught that all of the migrants came to the USA for a better life and all worked together to build what we see around us today, but the extreme self-imposed segregation of the European ethnicities is quite absent from the modern myth.
The forced integration initially and the voluntary economic dispersion subsequently both acted as the thin end of the wedge portending a total societal breakdown. The first stage in this breakdown was the aforementioned loss of the ethnic community in the early part of the 20th century. This disruption was mitigate by a retrenchment into the extended family. This was short lived though, as the move to suburbia eroded the extended family within a generation. An entire generation, the baby boomers, were raised in this environment of flux, but were not instilled with the sense to preserve the extended family.
By the 1960s you had the beginning of extended families disintegrating when children would move across the country for careers. This accelerated for another two generations until the extended family was almost completely wiped out, relegated to a mere Christmas visit in many cases, in favor of the nuclear family.
These nuclear families did not have the traditional support structures to help care for children, who were often sent to day-care and later left alone as "latch-key kids". These generations, X and Millennial, often did not have as much of a connection with grandma and grandpa or aunts and uncles than they did with their peers and their technology. The focus continued to shift to career centric, even for women, income earning. College, which serves to further breakdown a family structure by moving children out of the parent's house into an often debauched environment (party schools?), became a step on the path for over half of the members of these generations. The costs of college increased which led to a feedback loop where more education costs more money which justifies more debt which required more income had through more education!
The individual then was left in a state where roots could not be laid down because one always had to be on the lookout for a better paying job, even if it meant moving across the country, or even the world, at any moment. We see the peak effects of this now with home ownership at near record lows, people adopting ever increasing mobile lifestyles as seen with such ridiculousness as the tiny house movement, and the so-called gig-economy where one has to juggle side- and contract-work just to make ends meet (with, of course, no pension).
The divorce rate was steadily increasing as individual desires overrode familial responsibility. Then, in the 2000s, we start to see the decline in nuclear families and a dramatic decrease in fertility rates. Today we see a decrease in families even being started and babies being seemingly replaced by dogs - often referred to as dogters (dog + daughter) or fur-babies. Additionally there is a meme that states: "you can either have a baby or a BMW." This kind of material thinking about children would have been unheard of only 2 or 3 generations ago.
Now that the ethnic community, the extended family, and the nuclear family are out of the way, the last bastion to be assaulted is the individual. The earliest phase of the degradation of the individual was the mainstream acceptance of the homosexual that began creeping its way into schools and pop culture in the mid 1990s. Over the last few decades this acceptance has grown into a celebration. You have everything from gay pride parades to the sheik representation of gays everywhere you look in the media. It should go without saying that gays aren't going to be starting families anytime soon. Even if they get married, there is that nagging fact that there is no way for them to have children.
Next we see the rise of so-called third wave feminism. Woman are taught that all men are chauvinist pigs who are out to rape them. They are taught that they are oppressed by glass ceilings and that they are the equals to men in all ways. They are taught that the life of a family woman, a homemaker, is a fate worse than death. This is simply not the case. Men and women are not equal, nor is one superior to the other, they are two halves to a whole. This female revolt has led, predictably, to a backlash by men. The Men Going Their Own Way movement takes the stance that women are the oppressors, or at least the beneficiaries, in our modern societal structure. This combination of resentment, this divide and conquer from both sexes leads to, you guessed it, less families and less children.
It all this confusion wasn't enough, it gets even worse. We have moved into an era where there are more sexes than I can count. The LGBTMNOP insanity is completely dissolving the idea of genetically determined sex and simultaneously conflating sex with gender. Gender being an aspect of grammar governing the agreement between nouns, pronouns, and adjectives. These disorienting beliefs have given rise to hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgery that are being made available to children at ever decreasing ages. It is becoming more common to find college student insurance covers so-called sex change operations and hormone therapy. This leads to a quandary for the confused student about to graduate: do I "take advantage" of my current insurance and get my sex change now, even though I am still confused, or do I risk not having insurance for this prohibitively expensive procedure later? This, child abuse as I see it, leads to one being uncomfortable in their own skin, drug abuse, and higher suicide rates. Oh, and less families and children.
For comparison, the general suicide rates are also exploding. The largest percentage increase is coming in the 10-14 year old female demographic (+240%). I am sure this has nothing to do with the poison that is social media though. Maybe the children are killing themselves because their future looks too bright?
We can already see the effects of this familial erosion in Europe and Japan. For years the EU has been planning for the population decline, that will undermine their social welfare systems; less young taxpayers to support a disproportionate elderly population. This influx of potential taxpayers is one of the stated reasons the EU has allowed the current mass migration to occur. Japan has been focusing more on automation and robotics to care for their elderly.
This idea of bringing in migrants under the guise of taking jobs no one wants and paying into the social welfare programs seems a little far-fetched when you consider the migrants, which haven't yet had the privilege of being brainwashed into not starting families, are given benefits based on how many children they have. How is this not increasing the social costs when it is being sold as the complete opposite? Look at the "constant working age" demographic predictions from the last page of the EU_population_immigrants_needed white paper. What jobs are all these people going to be doing? What would Europe look like with this many migrants? Could you even call them migrants when they may make up two-thirds of the continents population?
(The shaded area represents natives, the white area represents migrants)
In a few generations the migrants will overwhelm and mix with native populations, much like the mixing paint in my initial simile. Eventually the same family and child degrading propaganda will take hold on the 2nd or 3rd generation migrants and the deracination of the "diverse" population will continue until everyone is part of a global culture.
Conclusion and Beyond
This ethnic and familial destruction has been wrought by the politically correct language of diversity and radical inclusion that masks the slow genocide the west is undergoing. A straight line can be drawn from slavery and migration to LGBT and the modern isolated, anxious, and depressed individual.
I submit that this is not random, but a well thought out plan to bring about a sort of Brave New World. Here is a Planned Parenthood document from 1969 espousing the idea to curb population growth by promoting homosexuality, getting women into the work force, and even "Fertility control agents in the water supply".
What's next? The hypersexualization of children, again in a very Brave New World fashion. This will undoubtedly lead toward the acceptance of pedophilia. The media, which for years avoided such atrocities as the Franklin Scandal, The Finders, and the military pedophilia ring, is already changing its tune and grooming the masses with stories like the Penn State pedophilia ring, the Dennis Haskert case, the child trafficking expose on Dr. Phil, Hollywood's Open Secret, and the Jimmy Savile case. This topic was completely avoided in decades past but it now being, ever so slowly, insidiously oozed into the collective unconscious in much the same way homosexuality was in the 1990s. Eventually pedophilia will be see as a "way you were born" and then a lifestyle.
Where does it all lead? A sort of soft genocide with the aim of world population reduction. We've all heard countless times about how overpopulated the world is. War is much less acceptable today and charity mitigates all but the most extreme famines. What better way to reduce population by using the media to re frame families as out of vogue and have the youth "choose" to not have children? No war, no famine, no disease, no protests or outrage. Maybe the world does end with a whimper and not a bang.
Other than starting families, which aside from the social pressures against children one must contend with the economic hardships of today, I would say the first step is to get this madness out in the open. We must stop kowtowing at every claim of harassment or "hate speech". We must disengage the poisonous media, social and otherwise, that is filling our and our children's heads with false promises of a frictionless utopian world or a digitally synthesized AI eternity. We must recognize our differences and embrace the fact that an interesting picture can only be composed when our cultural paint remains distinct.