Once upon a time we were a more homogeneous people, a nation, yet now it appears that there are more than a few born outside our country who are now in public office, often holding important positions. It would appear that everyone who holds the power to appoint people to these positions has accepted the Politically Correct dogmas: ”Diversity is our strength”, “We’re all Americans, whether born or made”, etc. Everybody in the Western world seems to have surrendered, but is there any evidence to support these almost-religious belief systems?
Americans may or may not know that our Founding Fathers (who are in disrepute with the Politically Correct Herd now) warned us, their posterity, not to yield to foreign influence nor to place foreign-born people in public office. The book of Deuteronomy tells Christians that we are to choose from among our own folk when we choose a ruler or official. Somehow this is one of the lesser-known laws for most Christians.
The UK is also part of this quasi-religious belief system and has a mandatory ‘diversity’ edict, so that the people governing are not all of English (or British) descent. This is seen to be a good thing, something to boast about, just as in our country. But reality and the Holy Writ of the diversity cult are two different things.
At The Occidental Observer, there is a piece by Tobias Langdon about one of the public figures in the UK, namely Priti Patel, the Home Secretary. However, she is apparently British by birth if not by ancestry. Just as in America a first-generation citizen is considered to belong to the nation despite the fact that frequently, first-generation immigrants are still part of their ancestral culture and mindset; many are not acculturated until two or more generations have passed. Genetics is a big factor in identity, though this is not the mandated politically correct belief; the PC crowd believes in a piece of paper or an oath as being enough to make immigrants part of their host country immediately.
Langdon’s piece deals with Patel’s apparent affinity for Israel, and her subservience to that country, contrasted with her disregard, even hostility, to the country she now inhabits, in a position of authority. But he also writes about the unsuitability of different peoples as immigrants. In today’s anti-populist, anti-ethnocentric world, its crimethink to believe in loyalty to one’s own, or a healthy ethnocentrism or ‘nativism’ or or, in a Christian context, kinism. Those things are discouraged and condemned while an inverted preference for those who are emphatically not of one’s blood or genetics is considered not just praiseworthy but has been made almost compulsory.
Langdon’s reference in the piece to Rudyard Kipling is appropriate, as Kipling — also now in disrepute with the PC Pharisees — was an exemplar of a healthy loyalty to country and folk, and his body of work reflects that. How many people in Britain or anywhere in the Western world have views similar to Kipling? Of course in his time most people had feelings and loyalties like Kipling’s. Now those ways are seen as out-of-date. But should principles be out of date?
Langdon describes Kipling as a realist, and I think all of us with similar ideas are rightly called realists. It’s something of a crime to be a realist in today’s world; it may be that leftism and PC do ‘blind’ us, as Langdon suggests. I would say that leftism compels us to submit to lies and to speak lies, to live lies. We have to pretend that the things we are taught are true and good when they are counter to reality, and thus they are false. It’s insidious and anyone who is honest cannot maintain this edifice of lies.
When we put various peoples of vastly different backgrounds and cultures together and ask them to communicate and cooperate and above all to ‘celebrate diversity’, it can easily generate misunderstanding and friction rather than understanding and ‘unity’. Yet this is the way it must be, we’re told. Not all groups of people are compatible with one another. History has shown us that, as well as today’s headlines and the world we see around us.
This counterfeit ‘diversity’ is really a destroyer of real diversity; peoples have to live in their own territory, their own space, as a discrete group of kindred people. Throwing everyone together just makes a confused and disconnected jumble of peoples and cultures, and in cases where mismatched peoples in one (small) country are made to live together, it makes for a very troublesome situation.