The idea that diversity is one of our country’s great strengths—perhaps even its greatest strength—now goes largely unchallenged.
- Taylor, Jared. White Identity: Racial Consciousness in the 21st Century (p. 33). . Kindle Edition.Taylor goes on to show how instead of being an unqualified success and indeed our greatest strength, our forced and carefully crafted policy of "diversity" is actual one of the leading causes of friction, resentment, crime and violence in America. It is forbidden to say this of course because everyone knows that simply being diverse is always good and having more diversity is always better and that is a concept that gets far more airtime in our "education" system than outdated concepts like liberty, freedom, personal responsibility, etc.
Case in point. Fox News ran a story yesterday where the Army was congratulating itself for allowing Sikh men to wear turbans and beards and Muslim women to wear the hijab (after getting sued of course), arbitrarily modifying the U.S. Army uniform for their own comfort. I am all in favor of men having the right to wear turbans if they see fit and women likewise wearing a hijab just as I think Jewish men should be able to wear a yarmulke if they want and Mennonite and Amish women should be able to wear caps or headscarves. That isn't the point.
All well and good I suppose. I think the Army ought to be a lot smaller and should spend less time worrying about guys wearing turbans and trying to cook the books so women can qualify for combat roles even though our soon-but-not-soon-enough to be former Commander-in-Chief claims that "Women Are At Least As Strong As Men", even though when it comes to physical strength that is demonstrably wrong and more time worrying about actually defending America (instead of the rest of the world), like for instance the constant invasion on our southern border, but the trend of using the military as an engine for "social justice" and cultural re-education is a topic for another day. Instead I want to bring up a quote from the Fox News story:
"Military experts have always questioned why the U.S. military has restricted Sikhs from serving,” said Eric Baxter, Senior Counsel at Becket Law, which acted as co-counsel on Captain Singh’s behalf. “Our Army will be stronger and our nation safer with Sikhs serving alongside their fellow Americans.”
Ok. Why is that exactly? Who are these experts? Have military experts really "always questioned why the U.S. military has restricted Sikhs from serving". Always? I think most actual military experts are focused on more important topics like, you know, military stuff instead of social engineering on the tax-payer dime.
Based on my exhaustive research (five minutes on Wikipedia and a brief calculation using Excel), there are some 324 million Americans. There are around half a million Sikhs living in America. So it is critically important to make specific accommodations for a population that accounts for 0.15% of the entire U.S. population. Of those half are men so I think that means that 0.075% of the U.S. population are impacted by this policy change that undoubtedly involved millions of dollars and countless man-hours (oh so sorry, individual of indeterminate and fluid gender-hours) to respond to the lawsuit of one Sikh soldier, Capt. Simratpal Singh. Do "military experts" agree that this was a reasonable use of military resources?
Why exactly does having the military open to Sikhs wearing turbans make us "safer"? Do Sikhs fight better than Whites or blacks or Hispanics or others? Does having men with turbans give us a strategic advantage? Of course not. There is absolutely no tangible benefit to having Sikhs in the military and they are statistically insignificant as a population. Having a couple of guys with turbans is not going to swing the balance in a firefight. I don't think anyone other than SJW types, and certainly no actual military experts, believes that we are "safer" with the passing of this policy. I am not saying that is a good policy or a bad policy since I am not a "military expert", I am just pointing out that it does nothing to make the Army stronger or the nation safer to have a handful of guys wearing camo turbans serving in the Army.
The big picture here is that there are entirely too many opinion-makers and culture-shapers who think that any and all diversity is universally a net positive. Implied in this although not always said is that the opposite is true and that White European dominance is a weakness in any and all cases. More White homogeneity is always bad, less White homogeneity is always good. Pointing out that in spite of civil rights victories over the last half-century culminating in the election of a half-black President, life is not great for blacks and other minorities in this country is probably grounds for hate crime charges. But the reality is the reality. Ask blacks who live in Chicago how hope and change worked out for them in 2016 and with the sky high unemployment of black men throughout the Obama administration. "Sure we can drink from the same drinking fountain as Whites but our men don't work, don't marry our women and shoot each other non-stop!" probably isn't what Rosa Parks had in mind although many blacks in Chicago seem to think that Obama gave them "hope" which apparently is code for "lots of dead black men killed by other black men".
The more I go down the rabbit hole the more I see that this is not coincidence or an unintended consequence. The culture revolution is working as intended. Whites are headed for minority status and most Whites are terrified of speaking out for their own interests. White men are checking out of the work force, emulating black men. The wholesale replacement of Whites in America is continuing at break-neck speed via illegal immigration and low White birth rates and having White commit suicide or die of drug overdoses just speeds up the progress. The sort of politically correct nonsense that celebrates Skih men being able to wear turbans and beards as a quintessential American virtue that strengthens our nation and military is virtually unchallenged by anyone in the mainstream of American thought. The only question now is whether the intellectual counter-revolution will gain enough steam in time to stop the seemingly inevitable devolution of American into a Third World nation before it is too late to preserve our culture and heritage for our children. Personally I fear it is too late for America which begs the question, if not here then where can we go? More on that soon.