Diversity is a Weakness.
Steel is significantly stronger than iron. It is more flexible, less brittle, and can be engineered to withstand oxidation and corrosion. What many people don’t know is that steel is iron. Specifically, steel is an alloy that is roughly 99% iron and 1% carbon, depending on the type of steel. Iron contains many natural impurities within the structure of the metal which undermine its structural integrity. While this is fine for structures that don’t need to tolerate significant stresses, it is unacceptable for major infrastructure projects. During the steel smelting process, carbon is fused to the iron. This process removes oxygen from the iron, making it denser and realigning its molecular structure to be much stronger. The carbon molecules are layered within the crystal lattice of the iron, which keeps the iron molecules from slipping past one another. The resulting material, steel, is thus much harder and much more rigid. Other elements can then be added to steel, such as nickel and chromium, to make it resistant to oxidization and other blemishes.
Like steel, many people today believe that multicultural diversity is an alloy that makes our nation stronger. Only by fostering disparate world views, they say, can we become stronger. New opinions, which were formed by foreign influences, history, cultures, and religions, should be used to change and advance our society.
For the last 70 years, this has been the modus operandi of the West. Net immigration was intended to make us stronger, and trillions of dollars have been staked on this gamble. Like iron, however, this idea was never truly put under stress. The West enjoyed unimaginable prosperity following the collapse of the Soviet Union, and, since money is the great lubricator of all frictions, was able to ignore many sociocultural problems throughout the 80’s and 90’s. Now that the American economy and the dollar have declined in value, many previously-ignored issues have become as visible and dangerous as a rocky shoal at low tide.
For many Americans and Europeans, the concept of diversity is shockingly shallow. It consists merely of food, dance, dress, and language. These things are enjoyable on the surface but ultimately do not change nations or beliefs. However, when importing something inconsequential like food, you also import the ideals and beliefs of the individual who produces that food, which is much more important. You cannot import one without the other.
To return to our metals example, we must think of any indigenous population as iron. It is strong on its own, but contains impurities. These flaws can be fixed by alloying with other metals. However, it is crucial to understand that not every metal can strengthen iron. Sodium is a metal that is solid at room temperature, but so soft that it can be cut with a stainless steel kitchen knife. If it was possible to alloy iron and sodium, you would end up with a metal that could not even support its own weight and would collapse under the slightest of stresses. Now that the world is presented with significant economic and cultural stresses, we are finding out that diversity is not an alloy that makes us stronger; it has significantly made us weaker.
In the 1920’s, The U.S. enacted national origin quotas. Only 2% of the foreign-born population residing within the U.S. in 1890 was allowed to emigrate every year. In other words, if the U.S. based Vietnamese population in 1890 numbered 1,000, then only 200 Vietnamese would be allowed in each year. Because the original makeup of the United States was almost exclusively Western European, this quota system ensured that the ethnic makeup of the United States would remain Western European. When people say that America is a “Melting pot,” or “a nation of immigrants,” we must be clear what this really means. What they mean is that it is a melting pot of immigrants almost exclusively from Western Europe. It is not, and never has been, an ideological global cosmopolitan.
David Reed, a Senator from Pennsylvania in 1924, is worth quoting at length:
Until the years 1853-85 the sources from which the greater number of our immigrants came were the same sources from which our country was originally colonized, and as a result of this fact the immigrants were easily assimilated in our population upon their arrival here. Beginning about 1885, new types of people began to come. For the first time in our history men began to come large numbers from Italy, Greece, Poland, Turkey in Europe, the Balkan States and from Russia. As these new sources of immigration began to pour out their masses of humanity upon our shores the old sources in Northwestern Europe seemed to dry up, and whereas in 1890 the natives of Southern and Eastern Europe constituted about 8 percent of our foreign-born population, in 1910 they constituted 39 percent. This change brought new difficulties in the problem of assimilation. These new peoples spoke strange languages. It was not to be expected that they would readily fuse into the population that they found here. It was natural that they should not understand our institutions, since they came from lands in which popular government is a myth.
He continues
There has come about a general realization of the fact that the races of men who have been coming to us in recent years are wholly dissimilar to the native-born Americans, that they [are] untrained in self-government-a faculty that it has taken the Northwestern Europeans many centuries to acquire. Thoughtful Americans have been despondent for the future of our country when the suffrage should be exercised by men whose inexperience in popular forms of government would lead them to demand too much of their Government, and to rely too heavily upon it, and too little upon their own initiative. America was beginning also to smart under the irritation of her "foreign colonies"-those groups of aliens, either in city slums or in country districts, who speak a foreign language and live a foreign life, and who want neither to learn our common speech nor to share our common life. From all this has grown the conviction that it was best for America that our incoming immigrants should hereafter be of the same races as those of us who are already here, so that each year's immigration should so far as possible be a miniature America, resembling in national origins the persons who are already settled in our country.
The above quote represents a profound experience by a nation that had fully extended its arms to immigrants and received vexation in return. Contrary to all common-sense, the national origins quota was removed in 1965 by the Immigration and Nationality Act. During the signing ceremony, President Johnson said “This bill we sign today is not a revolutionary bill.” Senator Ted Kennedy said “it does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives, or really add importantly to our wealth or power.” I find these statements odd, as if they knew that they were a lie. Why else would a senator and president downplay the effect of major legislation? Why sign it in the first place if it wouldn’t have a major effect? Of course, both of these men could not have been more wrong, as I’m sure they knew.
The yearly average of lawful permanent residents increased from roughly 300,000 in 1965 to one million per year by the mid 2000’s. in 1960, 75% of migrants originated in Europe, 20% from the Americas, 5% from Asia, and functionally none from anywhere else. By 2013, only 10% of immigrants came from Europe while 50% came from the Americas and 30% from Asia. As of 2025, it is estimated that 15% of the entire population is foreign born. This equates to 46 million people, not including illegal immigrants that cross the border without being counted. Notably, only half (52.3%) of these immigrants have become naturalized citizens.
In the beginning of this essay, we noted that the intended outcome of immigration is to strengthen our society not only economically, but also culturally. The new ideas that come from non-European countries are supposed to alter and ultimately strengthen our culture and government just like carbon in steel.
This sentiment is difficult to quantify. Economically, it is well known that immigrants make up the majority of low-skill, low-wage labor. It is widely believed that without this labor, agriculture, tech, and construction industries would either collapse or become exorbitantly more expensive. However, the consistent presence of low-wage labor makes it very difficult for native-born workers to compete in salary negotiations and helps to keep wages stagnant. Likewise, the increase in population inherently drives up demand for scarce goods, most importantly housing. 15% of the population being foreign born is a 15% increase in people looking for houses in the same areas as citizens. While immigration is not the sole cause of housing shortage, it does increase competition, and thus prices, significantly. At a high level, immigration must be seen as net neutral on the economy in that it helps as much as it hurts.
More importantly for the conversation on diversity is what immigrants bring to the cultural and ideological table. Americans in general are not up in arms over what jobs immigrants do, but are instead more concerned with what immigrants think, how they vote, and what values they choose to promote.
To define what isn’t American culture, we must first define what it is. In 2020, the Smithsonian Institution attempted to define white culture. They state “White dominant culture, or whiteness, refers to the way white people and their traditions, attitudes and ways of life have been normalized over time and are now considered standard practice in the United States. Since white people still hold most of the institutional power in America, we have all internalized some aspects of white culture – including people of color.”
What was originally intended to be a hit piece against white culture ended up actually being a gratifying piece of literature by the Smithsonian. The major tenets of what they describe as white culture are rugged individualism, emphasis on the scientific method, protestant work ethic, religion, status, power, and authority, future orientation, time, aesthetics, holidays, competition, and justice. At first glance, one would think that this was a document applauding white culture. However, the inclusion of bullet points such as “enjoys bland food” and female looks must be “like Barbie” show otherwise.
Still, the document does a good job synthesizing Western European ideals. I specifically substitute Western Europe for white because many of these ideals, as we shall see, are not only applicable to white people. Notable highlights that stand out in the framework of ‘whiteness’ are self-reliance and a “get what you deserve” mentality, support for the nuclear family, independent children, rational thinking, cause and effect relationships, heavy emphasis on Greek, Roman, and Christian traditions, hard work as a key for success, the respect of authority and property, planning for the future, respect of the concept of time, win-at-all-costs mentality (highly disputable), and being polite. Yes, these are all supposedly crucial tenets of white culture according to its very own detractors. If these are the values of ‘us,’ then we must ask ourselves, what are the values of ‘others?’
The United States has had a brutal and protracted relationship with Africans and African Americans. This is perhaps the most telling case study as African Americans are not a foreign-born immigrant population, and yet there continue to be cultural clashes and increased tensions between black and white communities when we ought to expect decreases in tensions as the two communities theoretically homogenize (or, in the Smithsonian's words, “accept white culture”). Three supposed tenets of white culture are the primacy of education, rule of law, and support of nuclear family. Only 17% of black fourth graders scored at or above proficient in reading, with the number dropping to 14% for eight graders. 26.2% of black adults have a bachelor’s degree, lower than the 34.8% national average. In terms of law, it is an oft-cited statistic that despite making up only 13% of the national population, black Americans commit 50% of national crime. Lastly, it is postulated that between 50 and 64% of black children grow up without a father. If education, rule of law, and family support are core tenets of white society, it is no wonder that these two communities continue to be at odds with one another. However, it isn’t just white culture that is offput by society. Increasingly, black people also want separation from white society. According to a Gallup poll, 70% of black Americans said in 2001 that race relations with whites were good or very good. In 2025, that number has dropped to 45%. Increasingly, we see calls for black only spaces from black communities themselves. In 2021, a Denver elementary school hosted a playground night only for families of color. In Freedom, Georgia, 19 black families have begun construction on a black-only neighborhood. Western Washington University and University of Washington have created segregated dormitories for black students to have their own space. A quick perusal of “black only spaces” online will quickly show numerous articles titled “why people of color need spaces without white people” and “why there’s nothing racist about black-only spaces.”
I do not bring these topics up to condemn an entire race of millions of people. There are numerous exigent factors that have contributed to many of the statistics above, many of which are no fault of the black community at all. What is important to takeaway from these statistics is that both black and white people openly admit that they have different cultures despite sharing the same physical and geopolitical space. E pluribus unum, of many, one, is a phrase that has not fully taken place. Instead, we have two distinct cultures competing against one another for cultural hegemony. Most important is to bring attention to the fact that this trend is increasing, not decreasing. We ought to expect that, over time, our cultures would begin to meld and that old animosities would disappear just as it did for the Germans, Irish, and English, but the trend is proving the opposite: despite 80 years passing since Jim Crow laws ended, race relations have gained more animosity and have become less homogenous.
This diversity of thought harms everyone involved. As stated earlier, diversity is not superficial; it is not food, dance, or pop culture. Instead of rallying behind one common objective, a diversity of opinions forces infighting. Every year, Americans engage in caustic debates over the proper use affirmative action, food program spending, policing policies and funding, and housing demographic trends. These not only waste billions of dollars, they also weaken the moral fabric of our society. We begin to see our fellow Americans not as brothers, but as enemies. In the George Floyd riots, it was made painfully clear that black and white communities do not see one another as sympathetic communities, but rather enemies to be conquered. This is unsustainable.
When we apply this observation to other cultures, we find a worrying trend. Historian Tom Holland states” “People in the West, even those who may imagine that they have emancipated themselves from Christian belief, in fact, are shot through with Christian assumptions about almost everything. . . All of us in the West are a goldfish, and the water that we swim in is Christianity, by which I don’t necessarily mean the confessional form of the faith, but, rather, considered as an entire civilization.” If one acknowledges that disparate societies tend not to homogenize, then the rise of Islamic immigration in the west should be of utmost concern. Holland correctly states that western societies maintain a “secular” sphere — distinct from the religious — and that this is a uniquely Christian invention, born Jesus’ command to “render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s.” Islam possess no such distinction. Islam’s fundamental belief system does not allow for a separation of church and state, which was so important to the founding fathers that it became the first amendment to the Constitution.
Islam is fundamentally incompatible not only with Western government, but also Western beliefs. Islamic attitudes towards women, for example, are diametrically opposed to western feminism and ideas of liberated women. It is also incongruent with Western Christian teachings on family values and sexual tolerances. A study in West Yorkshire found that 55% of British Pakistanis were married to their first cousin, and an Oxford study found that number had increased from 37% to 59% in 2023. Michigan, home to the largest Muslim population in the U.S., has sexual assault rates that are almost twice the national average. These statistics occur elsewhere: The European Commission admits that sexual violence offenses have increased by a stunning 79% between 2013 and 2023, which corresponds strikingly with Islamic immigration. In 2010, 3.8% of Europe was Muslim. Today, it is nearly 7%, an over 100% increase. In the English town of Rotherham alone, 1,400 white girls were abused, raped and murdered by Muslim gangs over just a couple of years.
Aside from beliefs about women and sex, Muslims have made it clear that they will not tolerate secular governments. In England, frequent displays of intimidation occur when thousands of military-aged men march in the streets waving flags of designated terrorist organizations. These groups also routinely shut down church services with prayers of their own and stop traffic and pedestrian areas with calls to prayer, as well as harass pub-goes because drinking alcohol, a famous European pastime, is considered haram (forbidden). It is very clear that assimilation is not their goal.
Likewise, a common complaint of Indian and Jewish communities is that that they are extremely exclusive. They often prioritize their own people in hiring practices and ostracize members who aren’t part of the religion, family, or community. Whatever their primary unit of ‘inclusiveness’ is, the priority of the nation often falls far down the list. In fact, a 2021 study asked each race to rank the other races in terms of preference. All races ranked their own as the highest, and white as the worst. Except, of course, for whites, who ranked every race to be equal. It would be foolish to think that importing millions of people who openly hate you and your culture would somehow strengthen your nation.
The inability of disparate groups to homogenize has dire consequences for a representational government. This has been put on full and painful display in the US Congress. In 2023, massive eruptions over Palestinian and Israeli allegiances have rendered Congress borderline dysfunctional. Disagreements between Jewish, Muslim, and secular members has ground to a halt numerous critical bills, including the National Defense Authorization Act, appropriations bills, and more. In a representative government which requires majorities and consensus-building, a diversity of opinion is a weakness, not a strength. In our article titled “The Decline of American Institutions,” we present measurable and quantifiable statistics that show the decline in effectiveness of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court. We strongly encourage you to read these statistics to gain just a glimpse at how drastically diversity of thought and opinion is killing our representative government.
In political science, an indivisible issue is one in which neither party is willing to compromise. Increasingly, we are seeing that every cultural issue has become indivisible. A country that cannot or will not compromise will end up in a stalemate. The more opinions, cultures, and ideas we throw into the fire, the more indivisible issues we accumulate and the harder it is to move in one direction, or any direction at all. This is, by any definition, a significant weakness. It is political paralysis that leads to infighting, stagnation, resentment, and ultimately, conflict.
To conclude this article, I want to address a culture that hasn’t been mentioned yet: Eastern Asia. Eastern Asians have a literacy rate in the 90th percentile, a college degree rate that is twice the national average, and have a fatherlessness rate of about 15%, the lowest of any race in the U.S. They commit virtually no crime as well; Germany has 39,000 Japanese citizens, and only two of them were suspected of violent crimes in 2023. By contrast, of 25,000 Algerians in Germany, 1,729 were suspected of committing a violent crime.
Interesting.
When Dutch traders made first contact in Japan, they were enamored with the culture and economic prowess of the island nation. The earliest Dutch traders even brought back Japanese wives. In fact, they brought back so many Japanese wives that the Japanese instituted a law banning the practice as early as 1639. When European traders visited Africa, they brought back slaves. The reason for the disparity is that, without any prior knowledge or background, Europeans intuitively found Sub-Saharan Africa to be primitive while Japan was seen as a nation comparable to Western societies. Today, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, and other countries are ideologically and economically aligned with Europe. But how can this be?
If we use the Smithsonian definition for whiteness, then by every metric East Asians are better at being ‘white’ than Europeans are. They value very highly education, family, the law, and being polite. Asians are beloved by Europeans not because Europeans are racist, but because Eastern and Western cultures are highly compatible and show a high degree of assimilation. It is that simple.
Like a metal alloy, some combinations can make metals stronger, and some can make them weaker. Diversity for diversity’s sake is no guarantee of success; it must be intentional, ordered, and congruent. A random smattering of thoughts and ideas increases divisiveness which most certainly is a weakness. Similar to how we cannot build a foundation with sodium-iron bars, so too can we not build a nation on subversive and competitive ideals and beliefs. The more we add competing and indivisible beliefs to the same physical and geopolitical space, the most strife and conflict we will have.
There has not been one nation in human history that has succeeded in being functionally diverse without enforcing it at sword point. By this, I mean that there has never been a nation that tolerated high levels of diversity not just in ethnicity, but also religion, culture, language, and worldview without needing the threat of violence to maintain order. Diversity of thought does not work in the Middle East where various religious sects continue to try and extirpate one another; it does not work in the Balkans where only the threat of NATO bombings maintains an uneasy peace between numerous bellicose ethnicities and religions; it does not work in China where religious minorities are sent to re-education camps; it does not work in Rwanda, nor Russia, and not in the United States.
Migrants are often said to vote with their feet. By far and away, migrants exclusively risk their lives to travel to Western European countries. This is for a reason; the system we have designed is by far and away more prosperous and free than any other society in the world. We must maintain these ideals and not allow them to become diluted by ideas and cultures who would see us change for the sake of inclusivity.
