The Mad Idea That Diversity is a Strength, Rather Than a Weakness

In the last five years or so, the slogan ‘Diversity is our strength’ has become something of a catchphrase for liberal and progressive people in Western Europe and the United States. It is pithy and to the point, summing up in just four words a sentiment that many of us ardently wish to believe. Wouldn’t it be nice if diversity was our strength? Unfortunately, this rallying cry for our times makes about as much sense as the party slogans from Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four: ‘War is Peace’, ‘Freedom is Slavery’, and so on. If history teaches us anything at all, it is that, far from being a strength, diversity is a deadly weakness which contains within it the seeds of destruction for the society foolish and misguided enough to encourage it. 

The strongest societies and countries are those with no diversity in ethnicity, nationality, language, or religion. Stability and strength are most commonly found in nations that are homogenous, where every citizen speaks the same language, shares similar values, and belongs to the same religion. One or two examples of the problems seen in diverse, multi-ethnic societies in recent years should make this clearer.

The textbook case of a diverse society, one in which various ethnic groups and nationalities — many of whom spoke mutually incomprehensible languages, and some of whom were Muslims, while others belonged to various sects of Christianity — was, of course, the former country of Yugoslavia. On the surface, this nation appeared to be an admirable instance of how various groups could all get along together; a model of diversity, in fact. However, this was only possible because it was ruled by a dictator who was quick to suppress any signs of internal dissent.

When this man, Marshal Tito, died in 1980, the clock started ticking, and with the fall of the Berlin Wall, Yugoslavia began a slow-motion collapse into a series of wars between different ethnic and national groups marked by the most shocking barbarism. Today, what was once Yugoslavia consists of half a dozen separate countries, each with an individual and homogenous identity, and stability has returned to the Balkans.

The former British possession of Cyprus achieved independence in 1960. At that time, three-quarters of the population were Greek Christians, and the rest were Turkish Muslims. One might have supposed that this was the cue for a diverse and multi-ethnic society to flourish. Within a few years, however, the 25 per cent Muslim population had withdrawn to separate enclaves. There was sporadic communal violence throughout the 1960s and early 1970s, culminating in what amounted to, in all but name, a civil war in 1974, following which Turkey invaded the north of the island. All the Greek Christians fled south, and the Turkish Muslims headed north. Today, Cyprus is divided into two peaceful and separate countries; each of which is ethnically, linguistically, and religiously homogeneous.

It would be easy to list the countless similar occurrences to those of Cyprus and Yugoslavia, such as the partition of India into Muslim and Hindu countries. Of course, we must also consider the situation in Palestine, where Arabs and Jews have proved that it is impossible for them to live peaceably in the same territory. This is the general rule for societies, in all parts of the world and at all times in history.

Given this, it is not at all easy to understand how the idea has emerged that diversity is a good and desirable thing. This idea is officially promoted in Britain. In 2020, the Royal Mint issued a 50p coin which had emblazoned on it the dubious statement, “Diversity Built Britain.” This is of course wholly untrue. It was a white, Christian, and English-speaking people who built Britain, long before the experiment of a multi-ethnic society was launched in the years following the end of the Second World War. It is evidently important that even the coins we use reinforce the message that diversity is a strength.

What are we to make of all this? Various conspiracy theories are floating around the Internet, such as the Great Replacement and so on, which suggest that the constant exposure to relentless propaganda is part of some sinister agenda by entities like the WEF or other international agencies. A more likely explanation is that, having inadvertently created so many problems by implementing lax policies on immigration, European governments, including Britain’s, are trying to keep a lid on things and prevent outbreaks of disorder. One way of doing so is to persuade us that the things we observe simply do not exist. There is reason to believe that many young people, those with little knowledge of the historical precedents we looked at earlier, are seduced by catchphrases about diversity, and now believe them to be no more than the plain truth. This is alarming, for it means that the rising generation will see no reason ever to get a grip on, much less halt, immigration from Africa and Asia. For them, it is a natural and healthy process, one which, as global citizens, we should joyfully embrace.

There will, of course, come a time of reckoning, just as we saw in Yugoslavia and Cyprus, where the consequences and ill effects of a pluralist society became impossible to ignore. It can hardly be otherwise, for there is no realistic prospect of reversing the direction in which the countries of Western Europe have been moving for the last thirty years or so. In other words, the ethnic and religious minorities who have been invited into host nations are not likely to leave; what motive would they have for doing so? All we can do is watch anxiously as the tensions and stresses inherent in societies consisting of separate communities grow day by day. Sooner or later, we shall find out the hard way that chanting ‘Diversity is our strength!’ makes about as much sense as the citizens of Oceania in Nineteen Eighty-four claiming that ‘War is Peace’.