I actually agree with the mainstream establishment narrative that it was indeed an anti-diversity document; except for one thing.
Like all reasonable people, I don’t believe an indiscriminate celebration of bourgeois ‘diversity’ is a good thing.
Diversity is an ideological legitimation for the agenda of the very same rootless globalist-humanitarianism crony-capitalism that has brought such horrors as Sierra Leone, the Afghanistan War, the Iraq War, the rape of Libya and consequent asylum crisis, rampant Serbophobia and Russophobia, and the racist ICC, correctly known to patriotic Gambians as the ‘International Caucasian Court.’ Essentially a club for hanging black political leaders for sub-Saharan Africa! Nowt much ‘international’ about that…
But let’s move away from the entanglement of economics and ideology for the time being, as this deserves a whole book in itself. We shall return! But for now, let’s look at the consequences of a purely one-sided, or as some might say, a radically undialectical (!) view of differences. A highly moralistic and sentimental vision of the purely abstract dichotomy of ‘sameness/difference.’
The UK and Europe have been “enriched” immensely by a fabulously flamboyant explosion of Irish Republican and Ulster loyalist terrorism, militant jihadist mass murder, FGM, pedophile marriage, classically patriarchal polygamy, urban gang rapes, marital rape, religiously-sanctioned wifebeating, sex/gender/disability-selective abortion, drug-dealing, racist pimping of children and teenagers, and whatever else.
I actually have no idea why people complain about this shit, I really don’t?!
You wanted diversity.
What you didn’t want was this:
A. Toleration for legitimate differences like chicken chow mein and reggae music, Sikh Gurudwaras, Advaita Vedanta philosophy, the poetry of Rumi, and great historical writings and writers: such as Ata-Malik Juvaini, Sima Qian, the Secret History of the Mongols, the Nihon-Shoki and Kojiki.
B. Intolerance for illegitimate differences like FGM, pedophile marriage and terrorism.
Of course, you say you are opposed to B. However, your consistency leaves very much to be desired. Because you wanted a highly value-laden term, ‘diversity,’ and various value-laden collocations: ‘celebrating diversity,’ ‘equality and diversity,’ ‘inclusion and diversity,’ ‘we are proud of our diverse workforce.’
You supported moral relativism instead of moral universalism; you made truth, and moral truth, a matter of subjective opinion, and not of objective right and wrong.
Such were traditionally the views of the deeply reactionary Counter-Enlightenment. But now, it is mainstream orthodoxy; even among many liberals and socialists.
To indiscriminately and one-sidedly celebrate diversity, instead of accepting some differences and rejecting others, means moral relativism. And now look at the consequences. Robert Southern is birling in his grave:
I told you so, you fucking fools!
You whinged at those of us who wanted to take differences on a case by case basis, and said, or even hinted, that this was a capitulation to the far right; when in fact, the far right hold to the mere opposite of your view. Pro-diversity and anti-pluralist kooks are mere opposites, and ultimately the same at bottom; insofar as they attribute a value judgment, in the abstract, to differences.
It’s just that the far right are anti differences, in the abstract; while the far center and far left are indiscriminately in favor of them!
Other than that, there is absolutely zero difference in the two positions.
Neither are dispassionate, skeptical, evidence-based approaches.
The UK has had enough diversity.
It’s time to junk diversity once and for all, and to take differences in context.
Some differences can be tolerated both legally and morally.
Some can be tolerated legally only.
Some cannot be tolerated at all.
So, if you’re pro cultural diversity, stop fucking crying about terrorism and all these other perfectly natural manifestations of cultural diversity.
Dry yer eyes!
You don’t have to follow the far right, but you don’t have to be their mere opposite either.
Nor do you even have to seek some kind of mediocre compromise in the middle.
What is need is to smash the entire false dichotomy itself:
The morally and civilizationally depraved false dilemma between indiscriminately accepting or even celebrating differences, versus indiscriminately hating and opposing them.
Will you stand with the cause of freedom?
This is something where there is no middle ground, and no third option.
What will you stand for?
Originally published: Universal Libertarianism.