Strength is the Relative Avoidance of Diversity

Colin Liddell

Every now and then the blue check marks on Twitter pipe up with the mindless mantra that “Diversity is our Strength.”

Erm…yes and no.

What they usually mean is that America is the most powerful country in the World because it has the most diversity.

 Diversity isn’t *a* strength, Steve King. It is our greatest strength. It gives us an advantage over other countries.
 Viewed on a micro level—say, hopping in and out of Uber drives between visiting various eateries in LA or New York—that may very well seem to be true. But viewed on the macro level, it is quite another thing.

In fact, it can be said quite categorically that the USA is the most powerful country in the world because it was, and to a considerable degree still is, a unique machine of anti-diversity.

To put things in a nutshell: America is powerful—as opposed to strong (which implies health and future power)—because the diversities of other countries cancelled each other out.

Diversity when it exists in one state creates either hierarchy with tyrannical leanings or else it creates chaos—either leading back to a stronger form of hierarchy, tyrannical homogenisation, or bifurcation.

More typically diversity takes its natural form, namely a number of competing political entities. This was exactly the situation in Europe for hundreds of years, and while such competition can be good in raising the technological and organisational level of competing states, entities, or “diversities,” it can also be debilitating, as we saw in the 20th century, when the technological and organisational level of competing European states (or “diversities”) had been raised so high that they effectively cancelled out each other’s powers.

And you know who was reaping the benefits of all this competition without suffering hardly at all from the debilitating effects of its diversity for 200 years?

Yes, America!

battle_of_stalingrad_by_anandafauza-d7iaors-768x527 (1)

Some overseas diversities fucking up each other’s shit.

Set between two oceans, with no competing “diversities” on its continental land mass, America, in its period of great growth, enjoyed the most uniquely undiverse conditions in World history. Sure, a lot of people from a lot of countries showed up with interesting bits of tech, but America had three devices (and a fourth one which we will get to) for maintaining its strength through the avoidance of diversity. Let’s start with the obvious three:


The first of these was largely accidental, as like attracts like and early America was a place of hard work and no welfare, although at times explicit attempts were also made to maintain Whiteness, as in California and later during the Eisenhower government when mass deportations took place.

The marginalisation of religion meant that sectarian divisions, which had played such a big role in the destructive diversity of Europe for centuries, were to a large extent neutralised.

And then there was the English language, the ideal tongue for all Americans to unite through. One suspects that a Germanophone or even a Francophone North America couldn’t have pulled off this act of assimilation quite as efficiently as the blessed tongue of Shakespeare, Dickens, and Raymond Chandler.

“But what about the Blacks?” the blue check marks will object. “The existence of Blacks in America from the earliest days is proof positive that America has always been totally diverse, and that diversity is our greatest strength, yadda yadda…”

Well, how about “No!”

You see, when viewed rightly, the existence of a Black underclass throughout American history was actually a vital cog in the anti-diversity mechanism of American greatness. This is the fourth device to which I alluded above.

Blacks represented a “diversity,” but due to the great asymmetry of the difference, it could never challenge or compete with the White American “uni-versity.” Instead the existence of Blacks actually promoted assimilation by denying incomers the lowest rung on the social ladder—or stigmatising it, which is the same thing—forcing disadvantaged incomers, like the Irish and the Italians, to move on up into the American mainstream as soon as they could manage it.

The Irish are a particularly good illustration of this. Arriving impoverished for the most part in the wake of the Great Potato Famine, it would have been particularly easy for them to become the permanent underclass, with entirely separate interests, bloodlines, and resentment against the protestant majority; perhaps even pushing for independent enclaves and more and more gibsmedats throughout the 20th century. Of course, evidence can be found of the Irish doing just that, but clearly that is not the dominant strand in their story, because to do that would have identified them too closely with Blacks.

The 1863 New York Race Riots, when Irish mobs attacked Blacks in the city, can be viewed in many ways, but one way to view them is as a rejection by the Irish of such ultimate underclass status and even as an aspiration to “be White” or American.

In its essence, the raw, brutal message of those acts was a rejection of diversity and the indication by the Irish that they too were willing to buy into the great anti-diversity mechanism of America — all in the interests of collective and undiverse American global power.

Originally published at

Support us on Patreon and Hatreon