DIVERSITY 

The Anti-Merit People 

John S. Bolton 

copyright 2003 ©

What is the meaning of all this clamor about "diversity" pitched at us from all sides?  

Why is it presented, not as something neutral, but as some kind of value of diversity? Why do  so many voices take up the cry of diversity, as if a new established religion had been imposed, which all must celebrate and none may publicly doubt the value of? Is something of great importance to our society riding on this diversity-promotion? What could account for the silence of the other side; surely there must be many who doubt the value of diversity? Why is the pro-diversity nearly all about races and breeds, when it is still not a crime to mention that diversity of political ideas, or even philosophies, is possible? Is there being agitated a hysteria against the possibility of disagreement on fundamental points? If so, must there be also a matching enthusiasm for diversity of racial and other physical differences, as if no other features could be more important?

What will shatter if we do not have 'unity' in pro-diversity? Is our culture now so weak that some few 'diversity-value'-doubting voices could plunge it into mortal conflict? If it could be that weak, is it conceivable that the pro-diversity is responsible for some large part of that?

The biodiversity is also being pushed to the forefront. What is the meaning of the exalting of the endangered species and breeds? Is weakness now an official value, such that the closer to extinction weakness drives itself, the more it must be held up and honored, and protected?

The diversity is said to exist relative to the dominants. The diversity is about two alternatives, one of which is the stronger, or the higher value, or what? Could the pro-diversity be in such self-contradiction as to say: identify which of these two is the higher value and the stronger, then choose the lower value? Can one really set higher value equal to lower value, and does pro-diversity have to do this?

What is the meaning of the emphasis on biological differences? Are the language differences celebrated as if they involved important differences of ideas, or as if they were like the diverse birdsongs of several species? What is the meaning of the hatred of clones that is so frantically promoted? One is not asked to hate identical twins, or fear them. Why are we asked to enthuse over ethnic cookeries? Why such a din of demands to prefer the illiterate or backward immigrant from the tropics? Is there some reason to hate the majority, if we are not minorities trying to get what is wrong to demand, and unlikely to be given in a democracy?

How is it that all these items fit together under the flag of pro-diversity; tropical rain forests, aborigines, disadvantaged minorities, rare species, tribal languages, racial quotas, departments of racial studies, third world immigrants, ethnic restaurants and the diversely handicapped? What exactly is going on with the pro-diversity agitation?

What evidence is there that diversity is a possible value for man? No doubt one may try to value whatever one pleases. Yet value for man is not really so flexible as this. Neither is value in general. The distinction here is between false values and those that really are good for the living beings in question. These lives have only a narrow ledge of conditions on which their survival can be maintained.

Pro-diversity asks for living beings to be made to lurch outside the range of circumstances in which they can live. If diversity is good in itself, then more diversity is better still. But more diversity, for a living being, means changing to the point of non-survival. Yet, if more diversity is not better, then it is not a value in itself.

Diversity-as-a-goal is used to explain endangered species protection, official enforcement of racial preferences in recruitment, and anti-merit immigration. Endangered languages and concepts are mentioned as deserving public aid because the diversity consists also of them. Yet pro-diversity seems to refer almost entirely to body-diversity. Then it happens that the endangered languages are mentioned as special units of diversity-as-a-goal. But are these rare languages then treated as fully mental, or only as tribal body excrescences? Likewise the cultural protected categories; does pro-diversity champion them as ideas or as instincts associated with some physical class of bodies? With the anti-merit immigration, is the pro-diversity attitude for them as diverse bodies, or as having different ideas, independently of their ethnic categories, or what?

In any case, there seems to be a definite tendency towards materialism in the pro-diversity. To treat the body differences as the important ones, as though minds couldn't exist, is an observable feature of government schools in their current pattern. No doubt they must take care to avoid establishing spiritual mysticism as a state religion. But is that any excuse for establishing a body-mysticism of race instincts and the like? Do we really have such a dilemma, with body and spirit mysticism the only alternatives, as if no science could ever have existed? Or, is it an artificial outgrowth of ever-multiplying public expenditures swamping the alternatives by overwhelming volume? Public subsidy for diversity is an important part of what is at issue here.

Diversity exists relative to a dominant type. This dominant (classification) refers to a species, a lineage, or a cultural element. In every case, diversity is merely relative to some dominant types - it is never absolute. Diversity is spoken of as if it were threatened, not by other diversity, but by some dominant types. The dominants are classified as such in relation to the diversity that they may tend to displace. Any mention of pro-diversity implies a dominant (lineage, concept, etc.) that it exists in relation to. Any advocacy of diversity implies a conflict of diversity with some dominant.

Why then, would the government take this up? In the name of diversity the government's schools are promoting racial hatred against the Caucasians; what is the meaning of this? Is any damage to a dominant now to be called value? Could there be a diversity-value of rare kinds of terrorism? If so, the bombing of the World Trade Center would be high value.

Do we really need to try to value all these ways of causing damage to a dominant, including even infectious disease? There are microparasites like the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) which mutate so fast that they have more genetic diversity than a genus with many species. To man this overflow of parasite diversity is an obvious evil. To the pro-diversity, however, it must be a desirable increase in the genetic diversity in the world. Worse, the damage it can do to a dominant species (humans) is itself helpful to the total genetic diversity of all species.

If one keeps in mind that man is dominant, it is clear that pro-diversity, as anti-dominant, is necessarily anti-human. Accepting pro-diversity as an object of value would allow for almost any reduction in human numbers to be a value. Any reduction, that is, up to the point where the humans are on the borders of extinction.

Experiments with the removal of predators (such as starfish) have shown that species diversity can be increased several times over by putting the predator back in. The same principle apples to parasites of all sizes. The parasite that reduces the numbers of the potentially dominant species, can do the most for the species diversity (of those species that tend to lose out to the dominant). If diversity were a reasonable value for us, then diversity of medical conditions would be a value also. This means: we are 'strengthened' by the arrival of leprosy, AIDS, multi-drug resistant tuberculosis and other conditions coming in from outside. There is medical immigration. Third-world countries tell their people that, if they can get to certain rich countries, their diseases will be treated for free. Pro-diversity says that we are 'enriched' by paying for more and more of these, but isn't that a contradiction-in-terms?

West Nile virus is another new disease brought in from overseas. It is the diversity; it is microparasite diversity, added on to what we already had. Therefore, it must have 'diversity-value', and so would any other lethal parasite that was brought in new (if pro-diversity is not to be called fraudulent). Leishmaniasis is surging in also, bringing its 'diversity-value'. SARS is something new and dreadful. These increase the diversity of medical conditions, therefore they increase the 'diversity-value' (if pro-diversity is not a false representation).

In a Russian germ-warfare program there was an attempt to develop a kind of smallpox that would kill, not thirty percent, but eighty or ninety percent on its initial spread. This might be what diversity as a theory of value would call ideal. If diversity of species and rare genetic types could be a value for man, then man could value a strain of smallpox that was contagious and lethal enough to wipe out more than ninety percent of the people. We could, in that case, not only value it, but rate it a very high value. The reason for that, is that man is the dominant species. Humans use a considerable portion of the total biomass production, and it's for one species with little genetic diversity. Also, human activities dictate what the overall level of biodiversity will be. But this is not true of any other species. If it were, then that species also would be a global dominant, along with man. If it is admitted that there are harmful species, how can diversity be held up as a value? Because these harmful species only cause damage to the dominant? There is a serious contradiction here, if the diversity also has its parasites.

Just as in the experiments with starfish, the re-introduction of predators (or parasites of any size) adds greatly to the diversity by reducing the numbers of the dominant species. The diversity is everything except the dominant, but that may compete for resources with the dominant. Pro-diversity may be then defined as anti-dominant. With man as the dominant species of the entire world, pro-diversity is to be defined also as anti-human.

How can the government (and its schools) expect to get away with establishing an obviously anti-human theory of value? It must be faith to believe in such contradictions and that is why the pro-diversity state-religion must be disestablished. What a contradiction-in-terms it is for pro-diversity to be anti-dominant, yet insist on its dominant (monopolization of resources) against any disagreement with its beliefs. How self-contradictory it is also to claim, as a possible value for man, this anti-human, anti-dominant faith that is pro-diversity.

But, as a faith, what kind of faith is it? If you have one deity, does pro-diversity then say two gods would be better, and three better still? Would this pro-diversity preference continue indefinitely, so long as each additional god is diverse? If it does, then the pro-diversity is implicitly pagan. But to have paganism imposed by the government; surely the people will rise up in revolt?

No doubt it is only man as a dominant species that pro-diversity would seek to overthrow and reduce. The human race has certainly survived in the (very primitive) past without just dominating, but being a small part of the diversity. Yet it takes tremendous evil to get back to that point, and pro-diversity would be for any and all of that evil.

Pro-diversity does not allow the furtherance of any dominant culture. If it is yours, then pro-diversity would require you to be for some other cultures and turn against the one you know. Thus, pro-diversity insists on a kind of traitorous character. To 'value' diversity from your values is to betray these values. Pro-diversity would then also destroy any community of values. The more widely shared some values are in a community, the more pro-diversity must be against them. But, many hostile camps, with the fewest shared values would be better (according to pro-diversity). Civil wars over some unimportant customs are thus rated superior to community of values. If pro-diversity is morally tenable, the wars in the Balkans would be idealistic.

***Chapter 2***

If language diversity could be a rational value, then a university where everyone speaks a different language is a possible ideal. But they could not have a common second language, or the diversity would be subverted, and 'monoculture' would steal back in. Only if no common language existed between any two of them could 'ideal' diversity be reached. Thus, the 'best' cultural diversity would be a total failure of communication. It would mean mass death for them, unless some monoculture intervened from outside to save them.

According to the economist Edward P. Lazear, for two groups differing in language, it is essentially impossible to get (positive) 'diversity-value' from the inter-group relations. In a model with ninety percent different information between the two groups, plus ninety percent relevance of the disjoint information, but only (a little over) half-fluency between them, the "expected value of diversity is negative". Also, "diversity reduces trade" (in Issues in the Economics of Immigration, Ed. G.J. Borjas,'00).

The more the different groups can communicate, the less chance there is for them to have something otherwise unavailable to offer. The less they are able to communicate, the less chance there is for them to convey whatever distinctive information there is which they may have. The use of translators and other intermediaries also eliminates the case for 'diversity-value' in a society. Such diversity exists at great distances, and across high barriers, yet our intermediaries are able to function without the diversity drawing any closer.

Advanced society of any kind requires a degree of monoculture that is really the opposite of what pro-diversity would attempt to bring in. Two languages in proximity tend to generate a pidgin which impoverishes both. Several languages in a small area will tend to have one as a bridge, and as a leading monoculture.

Yet the smallest portion of linguistic diversity (as such) is still not a value for a society (in which communication is a necessity of life). Private concepts have value only outside their diversity status. If you have a private concept that you never communicate to others, it will have value only for some reason other than its diversity from other concepts.

How could anything have value just by being different? Human beings have value because they're the same species, not because they're different. Languages have value because they are the same in allowing some thought and communication in concepts - not because of their differences. Some languages are more like stumbling blocks to thought and communication in more advanced concepts. To call these equal value with the more abstract languages, would be also to say that the population of the world should be chopped down to the level that could be supported by such languages (or such cultures) - if they are as good as any others. If a more civilized culture is not a higher value, then the thousand-times larger population it supports is not a value either, and may be removed as an obstacle to primitive society (and the kind of land-use it requires). These people will not just disappear because room is wanted for an authentic tribal way of life, they would have to be killed to get their land. The only way to increase (or even maintain) diversity of languages (likewise, cultures) is to have thousands of isolated tribes with no trade to speak of with other groups. This would also require the liquidation of nearly all the people in the world just to make room for language diversity.

If it is not believed that the pro-diversity would try to kill millions of people, one need only look at what is already happening, even though the diversity value-representation is new in the last few decades. Malaria is now killing millions a year, just so that we can save the diversity of species. The pro-diversity got people into a panic over the pesticide DDT. This compound tends to concentrate in the food chain, such that many predators, especially certain birds, seemed to be slated for extinction. The pro-diversity got DDT banned in a number of countries, even where malaria would be a problem without it. They used foreign aid policies to enforce limitations on DDT use in a large number of poor countries. But these lands are also the ones in which malaria has the potential to cause the deaths of millions. Now, the deaths from malaria have increased more than tenfold; and, in some countries, a hundred-fold. During its period of use, DDT saved twenty-five million lives. Now, millions die of malaria every year, because species diversity comes first. How can it then be said that the pro-diversity might possibly stop short of killing millions of people? It should be considered likely that diversity, as an objective, will continue to (directly or indirectly) kill many millions more.

How would this "ideal" of diversity be executed? Would tens of thousands of nuclear weapons be enough? Or, would germ warfare also be necessary? Suppose that a group of pro-diversity radicals were in possession of the nuclear weapons and germ warfare capacities. Suppose they had a population thoroughly indoctrinated to value diversity, and accept the war against civilization, even against subsistence agriculture, as a necessity or their 'ideals'. Suppose that they lived where they could reserve some of the industrial economy to serve diversity through war production.

If these enforcers of diversity released sufficient germ warfare weapons, while immunizing themselves and the most primitive tribes, they would perhaps be able to achieve the maximum diversity possible on a lasting basis. At a certain point they would have to destroy also their own society and turn its land back to hunter-gatherer reservations with borders defended by perhaps even radioactive materials.

Such war aims might envision even six-thousand languages protected on a long-term basis from a reduction in diversity. Human genetic diversity, and biodiversity in general, would be maximized also. This war would be the hugest crime, yet to wage it is what diversity as a standard of value demands. Therefore diversity as an objective is to be considered an evil to man.

There is no reason to make the world into a giant Jonestown just because some conspicuous altruists want to sacrifice the largest possible number. Further, the aggressors who, by mass-murder, established the diversity would also need some means to destroy any civilization that might re-emerge from the tribes. If it did revive, the more advanced society would liquidate diversity by expanding and absorbing tribal domains. That would be a clear evil on the basis of diversity as an objective.

With 'diversity value' we have a code that would kill, not millions (like the dictators), but billions. Such a policy would also equalize the races, for whatever that might be worth. This pro-diversity would give species diversity, too. Extinction of species would all but stop if logging, grazing, and agriculture were halted.

***Chapter 3*** 

Pro-diversity should also mean being for diversity of ideas. Though, one might ask: why not be for ideas or concepts that are true only? But this would bring human values back into the picture, while diversity-as-a-goal could tolerate no distinction of right or wrong ideas. If it could, how would the diversity be served; surely not by homogenizing the diversity down to the very small percentage of true ones? The number of possible ideas must be at least a thousand times greater than the true ones. Therefore to be pro-diversity (of ideas) means wanting falsehoods to drown out the true concepts by overwhelming volume. That policy would require the destruction of civilization also. No organized teaching of true concepts could be tolerated if diversity of ideas is the goal. But there could be computer-generated originality (of wrong answers) for some years.

Here are some examples of 'diversity-value' ideas from today's government schools: exterminate the Caucasians for racial reasons, turn hundreds of millions of acres back to the buffalo, wage germ-warfare on the human species, and reverse the development of technology, to give a small selection. Pro-diversity is meant to be comprehensive, and quite thoroughly so. So what could limit it to one sphere, when, in the nature of the case, it is all-embracing? If diversity can be a value, certainly nothing is to be excluded from the scope of diversity.

Diversity of ideas as an objective sounds tolerant, yet, in principle, a true idea is what the pro-diversity cannot tolerate. Where is the room for diversity of ideas, if, on a given point, there is only one truth? But if truth is not to be tolerated, what becomes of the accumulation of truths upon which it is possible to know how to support a large population? Even a small suppression of truths may cause civilization to roll backward disastrously.

Diversity of ideas (as a goal) has to mean the spreading of falsehoods greatly outnumbering the truths that might (incidentally) also be maintained. It is even true by definition, if diversity of ideas also means different from the true ones. It means diversity of ideas that contradict each other, and (especially) the truths that are to be buried under the diversity. There can't be a diversity of truths that contradict each other; logic doesn't allow for that.

The greater the diversity of ideas is on a given point, the greater the diversity from truth. Likewise the greater the diversity of cultures, the greater the divergence from culture (or from high culture). The greater is the diversity of values (including false ones), the greater the variance from value.

The 'richer' the diversity of (false propaganda-type) histories becomes, the greater the diversity from historical truth will become. The more the diversity of false sciences (like astrology) were to proliferate, the greater the divergence from science would be. The larger the diversity of contradictory 'logics' grows, the greater must be the variance from logic. The longer the list of anti-arts and their diversity becomes, the greater is the diversity from art. The bigger the diversity of theories of politics gets, the greater must be the diversity from political truth. The greater is the diversity of philosophies, the greater is also the diversity from philosophical truth.

In any subject the plea for diversity is a demand to choose the false, choose the non-value, or the lower value. Diversity as a 'value' is a contradiction-in-terms: value equals non-value, or higher value equals lower value. The appeal for diversity is a disguise for hatred against human values. Diversity advocates can hardly say "we are the anti-moral", but they can say that they 'value' diversity. Yet to try to value diversity is thus also to 'value' diversity from diversity, a contradiction-in-terms.

Pro-diversity has to mean diverse from the good. The bad (or not good enough) is avoided before diversity is introduced (as a pseudo-value), but not after. Why not have a diversity of spelling? The more diverse the spelling in use, the greater the 'diversity-value' has become. The most unintelligibly spelled writing would be in the highest class of diversity-spelling 'value'. Note how the introduction of 'diversity-value' turns the real values upside down.

Would there be value in a diversity of maintenance conditions for a motor fleet? If all are in adequate condition at the start, the only possible direction for increasing diversity is downward. Whenever a minimum standard is called for, and all meet the standard at the outset, the only greater diversity that is even possible is below standard. When a minimum standard is proposed, the diversity (from that) is immediately seen to be a downward move. The more pro-diversity one is, the less chance there is to retain some standards.

If the pro-diversity is accepted in one area of life, it will tend to spread to other areas even though it is not particularly wanted there. When we try to do away with standards, in order to make room for diversity, it turns out that there remain no alternative standards to keep it from going completely radical. The pro-diversity has no stable moderate position available to it.

Would a larger diversity of chemical poisons in the food chain be good for us? How is it that there will not be any pro-diversity agitation on their behalf? Is this because they are not living beings and can't be in competition with any dominants that the pro-diversity would want to overthrow? This is a real contradiction in pro-diversity attitudes; why are the new and rare chemical poisons not on the list of diversity items that are to be protected? The pro-diversity is really anti-dominant to such a degree that the diversity of poisonous chemicals can never be like a value to it, unless there were some way to make them harm the dominants exclusively.

But, at least you could have 'diversity-value' of styles, such as clothing fashions? Not if they were so diverse as to no longer be fashions. If they were diverse enough to destroy the industrial production of clothing, that would indicate also that there is no value to be gained by diversity in that department. Each increment in overall diversity would mean smaller production runs. At the highest level of diversity, each would be made by hand to a different design. No doubt some people can afford to pay ten or a hundred times more. But what about all the others, are they supposed to just die (for diversity's sake)?

Would the diversity of ethnic cuisines be an exception to this rule (of never finding diversity value)? No, because further diversity would require going beyond what the market could support in terms of new cuisines. Their being new would not allow for there to be appreciation of any culinary accomplishment involved. Public subsidy for restaurants does not sound like a worthwhile priority. Tax deductions for rich people to pretend to be gourmets of wide-ranging knowledge (of ethnic cookeries) would be a suitable program for the government?

In any case there would be a flight from value if diversity were the objective. The most marginal as businesses would be the most important for diversity. Those cuisines which were the least accepted by customers because they were the least sanitary (and the most likely to poison) would be indispensable for diversity. Would the government then have to exempt the rarest (because unhealthful) ethnic cookeries from public health regulation? Having done that, would lawsuits for food poisoning have to be thrown out of court for threatening the diversity of cuisines (in such cases)?

For the diversity, the national cuisines that caused the most sickness proportionally, and were the least popular because of it, are the most important to have represented. Diversity of salmonella species infecting the public would be something to work toward, on the pro-diversity premise. If health standards were allowed to suppress a cuisine that was rare, what would become of the diversity?

Why not be for diversity of behavior? If we are pro-diversity, mustn't we tolerate diversity of behavior, and of misbehavior, and even the diversity of actually subhuman misbehavior? The diversity of good behavior doesn't require tolerance from others. This indicates a bias towards the bad side on the part of the pro-diversity.

The dominant needs freedom from aggression, but the pro-diversity has to value freedom for aggression. If politics is the ethics of aggression, and the diversity-value is established politically, does this mean that the diversity value-representation is to be furthered by mere aggression? And, if so, why by aggression, unless there is no rational argument that could persuade anyone to it?

If a school wants diversity of background, why not recruit a diversity of criminal backgrounds? A murderer would bring in diversity of that kind, and so would rapists, burglars and muggers. The pro-diversity would have to call this better than homogeneity. To them, apparently rape is intellectual excitement, thieving is creativity, and murder is a guaranteed cure for ennui. It was that way for the long-term unemployed aristocrats of eighteenth-century France, who lost their special boredom, their ennui, when the reign of terror came for them.

Could diversity as a 'value' apply to stamp-collecting at least? Here you have the one area that could perhaps be able to properly value diversity. The ultimate objective might be to have one of each kind of stamp. But can considerations of value (other than 'diversity-value') really be excluded in stamp collecting? Are damaged stamps that, in good condition, would be high-priced rarities, still wanted for the 'diversity-value' that they bring to a collection? Or is it only rarity plus adequate condition by some standards, that allows for the higher value with stamps? Rarity (diversity) is never a value in itself, but only in the presence of some standards - even in the case of collectible stamps. To prove this, consider the way a stamp can be utterly unique, yet have zero market value. It might have damage that is unique. You could take a fifty-thousand dollar postage stamp, draw an utterly unique defacement on it, and have a greater rarity that is worth much, much less.

Rarity is never a value in itself because every object has some characteristics that make it really unique. What is unique in some ways (though not in others), has ultimate 'rarity-value'. So it is impossible for 'diversity-value' as 'rarity-value' to exist. The meaning that remains for 'diversity-value' then must be its diversity status relative to some dominant (lineage or cultural item).

When 'rarity-value' is said to exist in the case of an old postage stamp, it is, first, because it is an official copied engraving with some value assigned to it for the postal service it would buy. There is some value present in it before it becomes a collectible. There can also be value existing in (or with) art or craft objects that have no copies. But their uniqueness does not in itself create any value. They have value only for some reason other than the fact that they are unique. Also unique damage or flaws does not create value. Unique damage is very easy to cause. No two broken vases are broken in exactly the same configuration. But if 'rarity-diversity value' could exist (objectively), we could take industrial products, break them, and create 'diversity value' (since the damage would be unique in each case). With postage stamps it is possible to have a complete collection with one specimen of each type that was ever issued. What allows for something like a 'rarity-value' is the desire for a more nearly complete collection. Rare damage does not add to the collection's value.

Rare qualities that take away from an object's value obviously do not add to its value. Therefore, 'diversity-value' amounts to a contradiction-in-terms. It would mean saying that diversity-enhancing qualities that take away from the value of something can (at the same time and in the same respect) also add to its value.

What passes for 'rarity-value' is only a very small supply relative to a very large potential demand. The demand for the full set is the source of the valuation, not the rarity of the last items that would complete it. In the case of genetic diversity, there is no demand for most of the rare items in the full set of genetic diversity. The genetic freaks are actually disvalued (in nearly every case) both by the society and by natural selection, which must energetically guard against mutations. Natural selection has to suppress mutations as thoroughly as possible without being closed off completely from the (perhaps) one-in-a-million chance of a good mutation.

Dogs have more diversity of shapes and sizes than any natural species. If there is a diversity-preference operating in nature, the dogs could not be the most diverse in form of all species. Imagine a miniature breed of dog trying to impregnate a very large one; then consider if nature can have species with diversity like that (in its breeds). Human diversity-preference is not involved either; the dog diversity came from breeding for certain desired qualities in each breed, not for diversity as such. If genetic diversity could create value itself, there would be untold thousands of species with more diversity of form than the domesticated dog.

The biologist E.O. Wilson has offered a defense of the diversity value-representation. He claims that a 'biophilia' instinct exists, causing people to value life in its totality. This means: not just human life, but the entire sum of living beings. Wilson admits that the "evidence for biophilia remains thin…" (Naturalist '94 P. 362).

Is a further instinct required on top of this for bio-diverso-philia? Or, is this biophilia instinct already programmed to appreciate life of every kind, and somehow compelled to value species diversity regardless? If so, how could virus eradication campaigns have been carried on; by a perversion of the biophilia instinct? Yet an instinct that can fail so readily can't be correctly called an instinct. It only shows how very difficult it is to find an argument for 'diversity-value', if what was to be proven has to be just assumed at the outset, as an instinct or other arbitrary assumption.

Pro-diversity is also pro-deviant, and the rarer the deviance is, the greater the 'diversity-value'. Serial killers, mass-murderers, suicide bombers, gang-rapists, all of these (and more) are highly deviant and rare. Pro-diversity must be for all these, if the diversity consists also of them, and if they only harm a dominant. Pro-diversity is not on the list of classical values and there is good reason for this. The caprice of officials is not an adequate basis for the establishment of legitimate value for man. If no book exists that provides a foundation for the diversity value-representation, and undergirds it all across the range of subjects where diversity-value is today claimed, what basis can there be for it?

If the pro-diversity were strongly-based someone by now would have taken up its cause, as the general thesis of a comprehensive work. Do all the writers who could attempt it consider such a project so foolhardy? This also indicates that there may be no intellectual underpinnings to the pro-diversity idea.

If diversity could be a legitimate value, what would its corresponding virtue be? Certainly not tolerance, nor any such passive characteristic, when the pro-diversity is supposed to involve a call to action. The matching 'virtue' would be anti-merit activism (not passivity), in a word, injustice. The corresponding 'vice' for diversity-value would have to be justice.

In mathematics, there are not less than billions of diverse (or rare) incorrect answers to equations. No 'diversity-value' is to be allowed for an incorrect solution there. Likewise, there are thousands of diverse (and rare) ways of building a house that will collapse, none of which can actually create 'diversity or rarity value'. In politics there are thousands of ways of adding power to a government that result in a collapse into dictatorship, yet their diversity gives no value to them.

There are millions of species that are not being studied or conserved. Why doesn't 'rarity-value' or diversity partisanship create a demand for the exhaustive study and conservation of these species? Many of them are rare and endangered. 'Rarity-value' only means a high demand for a rarity. There are untold millions of rarities (or examples of diversity) that have no bidders. But if there are ten-thousand potential bidders for a rare stamp it goes to one of the richest in ten thousand, most likely. If there were millions of potential bidders, the rarity goes to a billionaire perhaps. But very few rarities have even one bidder, much less thousands (or millions) of them. What people want is something similar to their idea of what is acceptable, not what is different from it.

According to Daniel Akst, "At Intel, where the point is to turn out absolutely identical chips at the fastest possible rate, variation is like a disease" (

Standardized products and standardized services (like chain stores) have been eliminating diversity wholesale. They are doing this at an accelerating pace and have been for a long time now. It is only the lack of knowledge of how to implement more standardization that prevents it from proceeding further. Why not a standard acceptable form of government services to replace the diversity of personal dictatorships?

Standards and pro-diversity are in conflict because diversity is immoral to advocate; it is anti-value. To be for diversity is to be against standards (which must then be diversified away from). Moral standards are also diversified away from, if diversity is what one is for. Being for diversity is also irrational because it calls for diversifying away from standards of logic and rationality.

With the pro-diversity, six-hundred wrong answers are six-hundred times better than one right answer because each is diverse. Apply this to medicine; five hundred wrong drugs are five hundred times better than the one right drug because they all give diversity. Each additional wrong approach adds 'diversity-value' because it increases the total diversity. A series of dictatorships by the worst murderers in a country would add diversity value, at each new dictatorship's establishment, just by increasing the diversity. The more diverse the crimes they committed, the greater would be the 'diversity-value'. This does not happen when the right standard is selected, yet there is no diversity-preference in that decision.

Evil is also a way of diversifying away from the moral standard that is compatible with human life. Selecting for diversity is evil; it diversifies away from whatever standard is necessary for any good to come from anything (that is, selecting diversity for its own sake, as if it could be a value).

***Chapter 4***

If diversity were capable of being a value to man, then there would be value created in adding to the total of all species. One easy way to do this is to introduce new microparasites into species that have not had them before. More than a dozen simian immunodeficiency viruses have been discovered, on the basis of their similarity to the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). If new species diversity is a proper value, then these might be transferred into people. If some turn out to be very harmful, they only harm a dominant species, which is actually helpful to the biodiversity. The fewer people, and the weaker they are, the more room there is for biodiversity.

New species can also be created by isolating subspecies (races) and even artificially accelerating any tendencies towards speciation that they have. Pro-diversity would have to also be very much for this segregation of races that would result in new species. It would be especially pro-diversity to do this with people since man is a dominant species. Among human groups, the Basques are the closest to speciation, since they often form antibodies to outside types, resulting in miscarriages. If this tendency can be increased, it would be very much 'pro-diversity' to do so, no matter how intense the tyranny required. So long as they were viable, pro-diversity would say: do this to them. The pro-diversity is necessarily segregationist also because genetic diversity that is racial can be lost without segregation. But a new species that can be started from a race is clearly an occurrence that is pro-diversity.

New species can be started by setting up artificial boundaries to animal or plant dispersion. Land has been poisoned with anthrax before, and that could be very pro-diversity, if it contained a population that would become a new species. The salting of land could form a barrier that might allow the creation of new species of certain plants. With pro-diversity, the loss of land and plant productivity may be considered very unimportant compared to the gain of new species.

Genetic manipulation to make new species could be even more pro-diversity than larger-scale methods. One fairly low-technology method of speciation might involve introducing new species to islands that are far out to sea. If they are well enough isolated from their source populations, the introductions are essentially new species. For the pro-diversity cause, the island real estate that is least accessible to natural introductions would have to be rated very high in the scheme. Suppose that the best islands for speciation are already carrying the maximum number of rare species. If large shoals are available that can be built up into islands in remote enough parts of the ocean, wouldn't pro-diversity have to be for such projects? The cost to humanity is no object, not when man is a dominant species and whatever tends to cripple a dominant is pro-diversity.

Genetic manipulation for speciation purposes could give immediate pro-diversity results. Would this sort of project cost more than the food budget for the entire human species, before it ran into the limits of staffing an oversized science project? Would they use radiation to generate (speciation) mutations? On what basis would they anticipate value from new species?

The expected value of additional species is zero, by any economic calculation. Diversity value is then zero, or negative, if it costs us anything to accommodate one extra species. Therefore diversity-valuation in a larger sense, as where it was promoted by way of analogy to valuing endangered species, is also zero to negative. Likewise, the expected value of a mutation is zero to negative. Therefore, the expected value for diversity by extension to other fields, where the analogy to a good mutation was said to hold, is also zero or negative. The million least valuable and rarest species might be worth less than it would cost to study even one in a thousand of them. Yet pro-diversity assigns highest value to the rare species. This is a major contradiction: how can the half of all species, which are of least value to man, and which includes the rare species, be called higher value?

Yet species diversity is only a part of the total genetic diversity. Each seed that has a unique genetic program is a potential increase in the diversity on the planet. But hardly any of these seeds survive. How can it be said that any value is lost by the death of the unique genetic diversity, in the seeds that have it? If any such value could exist, how much would be wasted to preserve this diversity? If the seeds were planted on barren land or in the place of monocultures how much would this end up costing and who could possibly benefit? If the most productive monocultures were displaced, we can see who would lose. It would be the people who live on cultivated food, not hunter-gatherers.

If diversity could be a true value, then there should be value created by the planting and watering of genetically different seeds that would otherwise die. It would be value arising just from their uniqueness. But no one's interest could be served by paying for the water or minerals that would be needed to support the rare seeds. It is also clear that there is not room in the world for artificially supported diversity on this scale.

Nature generates diversity and then eliminates almost all of it. To intervene on the side of diversity of strains or individuals that nature can't support because they are superabundant would be clearly a disvalue to man. We do intervene to support people who are superabundant relative to what underdeveloped nature allows, but not because they offer genetic diversity. If they were identical twins or other clones, there is still the same value in them (as in the more diverse). This proves that diversity is not a value for man: the birth of identical twins (or other clones) would be a disvalue if it were. It would be a disvalue for no reason other than the increase of genetic similarity, or homogeneity, in the world. Pro-diversity has to say identical twins are evil because they take away from the diversity that would otherwise have arisen. However, those who deny the value of diversity do not need to believe that identical twins create value by increasing the genetic homogeneity in the world. Even if it was a requirement of some such theory, it is not certain that they would be wrong.

Suppose that most births were identical twins. Suppose also that it were then the custom for twins to marry twins. That is, not a marriage of four, but two marriages for the same household. If the compatibilities were so frequently present as to allow this custom, great efficiencies would follow. Three or four incomes for one house, perhaps, as against one (or two). One woman could have children with three incomes behind her. In any case, nature does not use this pattern with people.

The artificial cloning of people is essentially irrelevant to the value status of diversity. There is no reason to believe that it will ever affect the total human genetic diversity. What is relevant is the value status of identical twins versus fraternal twins. If pro-diversity could be right, then the comparison should be unfavorable for the identicals. A population, such as a lineage with a large percentage of identical twins, should be worse off than those without, if pro-diversity has truth on its side. A number of identical twin-bearing lineages might be compared with lineages having a high proportion of fraternal twins, and with the general population. The Aland Islands, (a region of Finland) have been found to have an uncommonly high percentage of twins, relative to the world in general. The people of this region are at or near the top level of the world for incomes, life expectancy and other indications of human well-being.

At the other extreme, nomadic hunter-gatherer groups traditionally could not support twins. One of the twins would have to die, if there were not another mother in the group who had just lost a baby and would adopt the second twin. Originally, then, having twins was bad for people, but not because identical twins take away from the potential genetic diversity.

Comparison of these extremes does not favor pro-diversity. It would perhaps, support a neutral or even anti-diversity position. Yet on the premise of pro-diversity, higher and higher percentages of identical twins should bring human living standards down. Founder effects, where populations expand after leaving behind a large percentage of the genetic diversity that they could have brought with them, would be an important cause of the genetic diversity reductions that have occurred. Natural selection could have the most population diversity-reducing effect of all.

***Chapter 5***

The spread of identical disease resistance alleles in the world decreases the overall genetic diversity. Pro-diversity would have to call that an evil. But it has been proven that identical disease resistance alleles are widespread and have been necessary for the survival of huge numbers of people. The identical alleles are mutations that make a standard variation that may change the gene's function somewhat. When these slightly changed genes are identical in a certain aspect it proves that they are all descended from a single ancestor.

When the common ancestor has multiplied in that way, spreading his allele of disease resistance, this expansion is against the diversity. Therefore, since this is the way genetic disease resistance spreads (by genetically homogenizing the population) the pro-diversity must be hostile to human survival. The malaria resistance alleles (such as sickle-cell trait) of the tropics increase the genetic homogeneity thousands and, in some cases, hundreds of millions of times over. What could be more anti-diversity than some of these? Yet tropical Africa (and other malarial regions) would be greatly depopulated without them.

Further, other traits besides the particular disease resistance mutation are inherited along with it, which also decreases the overall diversity. For example, if the founder of a malaria resistance trait had a certain shape of nose, and there are two-hundred million descendants, the nose shape may have a similar number today.

The spread of disease resistance alleles is associated systematically with the spread of agriculture and the displacement of hunter-gatherers. The descendants of the displaced hunter-gatherers are the repository of today's human genetic diversity, to a very great extent. Therefore the advocacy of genetic 'diversity-value' is shown to be hostile to human genetic disease resistance. If such traits can't spread much without displacing diversity, pro-diversity must be against them.

The delta-CCR5 AIDS-resistance allele of Europe has been determined to come from just one man who has multiplied a piece of genetic homogeneity more than one-hundred million times over. Clearly pro-diversity is dead-set against a large genetic homogeneity that is advantageous to human life. Diversity proponents must be especially against a mutation like delta-CCR5 with over one-hundred million carriers. It means that one man has over one-hundred million descendants. They didn't just inherit delta-CCR5 from him. They would have inherited a number of incidental traits as well. The more widespread a disease-resistance allele the more valuable it must have been. Diversity advocates say, no, the more widespread a genetic attribute, the greater the disvalue of it; everyone should have everything different that they possibly can. But the human species could never have survived that way, and neither can any other species.

Advantageous genetic homogeneity has to spread in the world, or mutations would destroy all life. Yet pro-diversity asks for differentiation from life's necessities regardless. Therefore pro-diversity is hostile to all life, not just healthy human life. There are many species that reproduce only clones. By pro-diversity, these are vermin and should be destroyed. Or, at least, those beyond the small number needed to maintain one additional 'diverse' species. What if most of the biomass-productivity, the weight or the bulk of life is clones? These clones (prokaryotes), of microbial activity, are all one species, in a very strict sense of the term. They exchange genes easily enough across their lineages' (agamospecies) boundaries. If the agamospecies are all one species in this sense, which applies to most other lifeforms, pro-diversity is surely their enemy. How could one 'species' of clones be allowed such dominance, when thousands of new species could use those resources, and be so diverse? Of course it is not known that alternative resource-users would appear in such enhanced diversity. But pro-diversity must be for antibiotics, not to help people, but to suppress the horde of microbial clones, just because they are clones. This would devastate the planet; to much reduce the clonal base of the food chain.

Potatoes are reproduced agriculturally by cloning, so are bananas and sugar cane (by cuttings). Take the tonnage of those away (not to mention others), and how much food do we have left? It would be mass murder to violently remove people's clonal food sources, yet pro-diversity holds that there is value created by suppressing a dominant species.

But what is the unit of diversity in lifeforms? Is it species, breeds, individuals, genes or alleles, or all of these and more? Does it have to be the smallest unit of genetic diversity that can exist even briefly, which would be the mutation? For pro-diversity, is the mutation the scale where 'diversity-value' lies? Must it be as large as the species unit, which would allow for rating breeds and races, and likewise basic mutations, as being of only potential 'diversity-value'? Yet species are only containers of diversity. They are barriers against further genetic diversity. Therefore pro-diversity cannot value the species barrier in every case. Likewise the race or breed categories are like containers for homogeneity, not just diversity. So the pro-diversity is for them as containers of diversity and against them as barriers to new diversity coming from outside.

Pro-diversity is, again, not a valid principle if it must demand both the closing-off and the opening of a genetic group at the same time. Yet it is perhaps not in the same respect that pro-diversity would require the simultaneously open and closed states of genetic groups like species, race and such. Perhaps it is only successful species (dominants) that it would require to be open to mutation. The failing species, that are almost extinct, would need to be kept closed-off for diversity's sake. This indicates the relevant unit of diversity would have to be the species. Since mutations are the smallest units of genetic diversity, but they should be excluded from an endangered species, the basic unit of 'diversity-value' would seem to be the species. Even so, the mutation is primary 'diversity-value' elsewhere.

Individual diversity can't be of any great importance to the pro-diversity. It allows no comparison between the dominant population and the diversity, since each individual is unique genetically (except for identical twins, or other clones).

If the individual is the relevant unit of diversity-value, then every country, and every college, is already at maximum (genetic) 'diversity-value' for its size, since each individual is genetically unique. It has long been this way. But this maximum 'diversity-value' leaves no opening for the racial diversity objectives. Yet if the pro-diversity were an honestly held belief, and not just a cover for racial-conflict incitement, the government, and its unpaid agents, could accept the genetic diversity of the individuals as sufficient, without referring to race.

The individuals' genetic diversity would not be less important than that of races. Diversity of family and other middle-sized lineages is also discounted by the pro-diversity. Since genetic diversity consists of mutations and of individual and small-lineage diversity even more than it does of the genetic diversity of races (and species), a monstrous official fraud is revealed. The pro-diversity is essentially concerned with the races even though the actual genetic diversity is to be found at every other level more than that of the races. At this point, let it just be noted that the pro-diversity arbitrarily exalts the genetic diversity of races, and treats as non-existent or irrelevant the genetic diversity of individuals.

If the pro-diversity wants endangered species to be protected from mutations, then the species is the relevant unit of 'diversity-value'. The species (or local breeds) that are closest to extinction are the ones that could be suffering from inbreeding depression. These could benefit from becoming less closed-off genetically. Therefore pro-diversity is also in self-contradiction because it would destroy species on the verge of extinction by insisting that they be kept closed-off genetically. It is actually happening politically in exactly this way. Yet endangered species are a value perhaps only to those who believe in 'diversity-value'.

***Chapter 6***

The opening-up of successful species like humans to outside genes is a requirement of pro-diversity if this is at least technically possible. Therefore, pro-diversity would demand that the genes of sub-human primates (and others) be introduced into the human species. There is diversity to be gained, and no endangered species to be lost, this way.

Pro-diversity would have to be for the breeding of chimpanzees with humans. If it requires technological interventions, then these should be developed if diversity is a value. In terms of gaining diversity, chimp-human hybrids don't need to be viable. They could be maintained artificially just to serve as a diversity conduit, or as carriers of experimental diversity. Since they are hybrids, they are significant carriers of diversity in themselves. There have been intermediate species between chimpanzees and humans in the past. Diversity has been lost by their extinction. Now pro-diversity requires that intermediate forms of this kind be created and maintained artificially. It would be a most significant increase in genetic diversity, that could be won that way.

It would be significant diversity, because the human species is a dominant one. Also, because the human race is very uniform genetically (compared to other primates), as the term 'human race' would seem to imply. Another reason is that these species are extremely well studied, compared to almost any others. The determination of the diversity gained is relatively easy with humans and chimps. More important, the life requirements of the two species are relatively well-known. Human diseases are comparatively well-studied.

If diversity can be a proper value to man, then human diversity, and its potential for increase from the outside, is not to be disregarded. But the hybrids between human and ape are the way to get the most significant increase in genetic diversity for man, by crossing the species boundary. Admixture has long occurred within the human species such that diversity can hardly be acquired from inside this species. Therefore, it is only an outside influence (except for internally generated mutations) that can give additional diversity.

Admixture within a species, that contains many subpopulations that were once isolated for long periods, is also a destroyer of actual diversity. The rare recessive alleles are maintained with the capacity of occasional _expression only in the sub-populations. This kind of isolation, like racial segregation, only more extreme, would be a proper value to man if diversity could be such a value. Therefore pro-diversity is for a kind of segregation above and beyond the call of racism. Yet pro-diversity calls itself anti-racist, and has for an 'argument' against its doubters, that they must be the racist politicians. But ad hominem abuses cannot substitute for an argument. The genetic diversity of the chimpanzee has been found to be five, or even ten, times greater than amongst humans, by scientific investigations. Therefore pro-diversity requires that the hybrids between the two species be made. It would call this 'riches of diversity'. Human wealth would be 'enriched' by chimpanzee genes, or so says diversity as a value for man. If 'diversity is our strength' then chimpanzee-human hybrids would be 'our strength', in the nursing-home prisons where they would subsist on a chain.

How can pro-diversity ask for less, unless it is not a value at all? Can we be too 'rich' with diversity? Can we develop too much 'strength' of genetic diversity? If pro-diversity is subordinate to some superior representation of values, why must it be? Can one believe that diversity is a value for man, but only when it is not inconvenient? If diversity is part of a value system (which subordinates it), how can it ever be a standard of value? A standard of value would have to be an end-in-itself, not an instrumentality subordinated to the real value. As an instrumental value, pro-diversity is, in any case, not compatible with real values. It can't be paired with any value (for man) because as soon as you have something good, pro-diversity says change it, we need diversity instead.

Pro-diversity does apply to the human genetic inheritance also, if it applies to anything. Pro-diversity, then, would give us ape-men (if it can be done at all). How can the pro-diversity tolerate this species being kept walled-off from a potential ten-fold increase in diversity? The diversity that could be contributed by diverse chimpanzees is known to be compatible with higher primate life. Not all the diversity harbored by the chimpanzee would cause mental retardation below the threshold of humanity, only some very small percentage would do that. In any case, diversity-as-a-value for man does not allow us to believe that genes causing such mental retardation are bad, if they increase the diversity.

If a homogenous genetic attribute had spread to millions of people, but caused mental retardation it would be bad for the diversity, but not because of the retardation. If a disease-resistance allele had spread to billions of people, it would be disastrously bad for the diversity. If such a mutation had spread to hundreds of millions of people, it would also be most uncommonly bad for the diversity. Yet such a genetic attribute could only have been of enormous value for disease protection, if it had spread that far. If disease-resistance genes had spread to tens of millions, that would still be uncommonly bad for the diversity. If one had spread to millions, this would be a great threat to diversity, even though it only protected one in a thousand against just one disease.

A disease-resistance allele that is found in only hundreds of thousands in the world, is not the most likely to be of great value against the disease, but would still have to be considered bad for the genetic diversity. One that exists in thousands (or tens of thousands) of people, globally, is more likely to be the result of founder effects than any obvious selection value. Natural selection would probably have multiplied it further, if it had any noticeable disease resistance value.

Yet a genetic attribute of negligible disease-resistance character, that only dozens or hundreds of people carry, is to be accorded 'diversity-value', it is almost extinct. Further, it is more valuable the rarer it is, the fewer people it protects, or ever could protect. The less chance a disease-resistance mutation has to spread, the more value it has according to pro-diversity. If it can't spread because it has so close to zero value of disease resistance, it has nearly maximum 'rarity-diversity' value. If it can spread to thousands of people over centuries, and is locally concentrated, it may still be just about neutral for the diversity. But if a disease-resistance allele can spread to millions (because it is highly protective) it becomes a clear threat to diversity. If it is so protective that tens or hundreds of millions will carry it, this has become a huge and obvious evil to pro-diversity.

Large scale evolutionary success of any kind is evil by 'diversity-value', except perhaps for that of certain parasites. Certainly it is an evil to the diversity; if it reduces the diversity. Therefore pro-diversity is opposed to life, because the existence of life in the world now does require some large-scale evolutionary success. But this was the argument for diversity; that the requirements of life could be fulfilled, by furthering the diversity. Biology cannot believe that diversity is a value in itself, or can't be convinced of it. Science can't be made to believe the diversity value-representation. It needs human success, not diversity. But, the success of the human race is an enormous evil to diversity; it allows billions, of the same species, to trample diversity all over the world.

Pro-diversity has been advertised as being for the diversity of genes; including those of disease-resistance. Yet the genetic attributes of disease resistance are destructive of diversity, if they have any great value. If they are not so valuable now, they can become so when their chance comes. At that point, pro-diversity must turn very sharply against them. You would not likely find genetic disease resistance spreading out, unless the incidental traits go with it, too. These, much more numerous, incidental genetic attributes are those that were present in the first person who had the resistance mutation. The resulting population becomes very uniform-looking because of the reduction in (potential) diversity. Pro-diversity is decidedly against this sort of population, at every step of its expansion (beyond the first few hundred, when the trait under selection is still endangered or rare). A 'diversity-value' that would much reduce this uniformity in the population, would be mass-murder beyond the capacities of the biggest murderers in history.

The chimpanzees have five or ten times more genetic diversity than humans because the human race expanded, and has come to live in villages and cities where infectious disease would have destroyed the population. It would have destroyed the people, if it were not for the anti-diversity of disease resistance alleles. To be against this process of increasing genetic uniformity, is to be for mass-murder, in effect. Today's adaptations of genes have expanded at the expense of the diversity.

When a sickle-cell trait spreads in the tropics, it brings along with it many other traits. The disease it causes (sickle-cell anemia) spreads with it. This shows how nature makes you buy the package genetically. You can't just pick the desirable trait and reject the rest very likely. When the cystic fibrosis gene spreads in Europe, perhaps because it protects from salmonella infection, other traits that go with it spread as well. If it were not so, how could there be genetic diseases so strongly associated with disease-resistance mutations as some of these?

The human species has already lost eighty or ninety percent of the genetic diversity that the chimpanzee is still 'enriched' with, and there is no end in sight. Pro-diversity is necessarily against this manner of expansion (of genetic disease resistance). Therefore, pro-diversity is against widespread genetic disease resistance. But this was once the argument for diversity: that more variability would allow many disease resistance alleles to survive.

It is true that pro-diversity favors the emergence of new disease-resistance mutations, but only so long as they are so rare as to be in danger of extinction. As soon as they multiply beyond a few hundred specimens of rarity, pro-diversity turns against them. Pro-diversity is thus really against all genetic disease resistance; it favors only the kinds that are doomed.

***Chapter 7***

Within a species, pro-diversity wants segregation to maintain sub-species (races) for the most part. If this is doubted consider how many Indian reservations (or other such restricted tribal preserves) it would like to abolish. Not only does pro-diversity not want to abolish any of these, it wants to establish many new ones. The Amazon basin is an area where pro-diversity is trying to get tribal reservations established.

Yet there is an exception to this segregationist code of pro-diversity. Disease-resistance alleles may often require both parents to have had them in order to have any noticeable effect. In this case, admixture would frequently be causing the loss of these attributes before their protective effect could be identified. If it only shows up when both parents have the protective genetic attribute, only relatively isolated groups will likely maintain it in identifiable form. Yet these factors may be needed in the future, either directly, or indirectly, as models for drugs. Therefore, public intervention for greater admixture can jeopardize the health or even survival of the human species.

Pro-diversity says save these groups if they have, and only if they have, nothing of value genetically that could one day spread (and reduce the diversity). But if some of the relatively unmixed groups have a trait that could be of great value and thus be able to spread in the world, pro-diversity wants government to intervene against it. It is then a threat to the overall diversity and it should be suppressed through admixture, causing it never to be present in both parents, and thus never be identified in the offspring.

If epidemics were to arise that require the disease resistance of populations that also expanded for that reason in the past, these same groups could expand again and reduce the total diversity. Advocates of diversity have a special regard for aboriginal groups of precisely the sort that declined in numbers (often by more than ninety percent), after contact with Europeans. These astonishingly disastrous declines were caused by infectious disease against which these aboriginals were genetically very weak. Pro-diversity favors these populations, not in spite of, but because of, their weakness versus infectious disease (in the past).

Does it follow that the pro-diversity must hate the Europeans, who imposed (and expanded into) the downfall of diversity in these aboriginal populations' territories? Would it also follow that pro-diversity in power would try to impose handicaps on Europeans, not to avenge ancestral harms, but to prevent a potential dominant group from sweeping the field? Even though the circumstances with infectious disease are much different today, must pro-diversity want to kill the Europeans just because the aboriginal diversity could be again cut down in much the same way as before? If so, is this not a violation of their rights, to establish it as state religion that one race should be pre-emptively killed off, because they might win a competition of disease resistance? If government schools are, by their very nature, unable to rid themselves of such a doctrine (advocating mass-murder) then they deserve much less support.

Is it necessary for those who doubt, or deny, the value of diversity to prefer cloning? Do they want the human race to be replaced by a race of clones? Of course they can't want a cloning program that is, in any case, absolutely impractical. The fertility by such methods is so low that it is unable to compete. If the entire species were from one person, they would be committed to reproduction by cloning.

If all were from one clone, lethal recessive mutations would appear so frequently that sexual reproduction would be disfavored. Or, at least, it would be disfavored relative to cloning, if the clonal reproduction on a large scale was practical. If there were hundreds of clones, then sexual reproduction could operate without widespread lethal disadvantage. But doubting or denying diversity-value does not set up a human clone, or group of clones, as a value. Why believe that it is more than a false dilemma - 'clone-value' versus 'diversity-value'? Neither is credible, as a standard of value.

The pro-diversity would have to prove that it is more than a false dilemma: 'cloning-value' (by similarity) as against 'diversity value'. Our unwillingness to value clones to the exclusion of diversity is not proven to be in contradiction to our unwillingness to value diversity as such. Rejecting the pro-diversity idea does not lead to clone idealization or even to inbreeding advocacy. Life as a value for each organism, whether it reproduces by cloning or sexually, or uses inbreeding, never sets up cloning, inbreeding, or diversity as a standard of value.

But this false dilemma proposed by pro-diversity does set up the alternatives that are relevant. Cloning plus inbreeding, on the one hand, versus mutations, is the relevant comparison. Mutations are poison if mutagens are correctly regarded as poisons. Some small percentage of mutations, like one in a hundred-thousand mutations (to functioning genes) might be considered good. 'Clonigens' or 'inbreedogens' might be considered poisonous also, but not in the same degree.

'Clonigens' and 'inbreedogens' do not sound like very menacing items. Research now indicates that, in people, there are factors that pro-diversity might call 'inbreedogens'. These would cause people to prefer to mate with the genetically similar (but not too similar). This may explain the high correlation for a number of physical traits between parents. Now, compare the fearsomeness of 'inbreedogens' with that of mutagens, carcinogens, and teratogens.

Regarding human cloning, suppose that there is discovered a drug which often causes identical twins to be conceived, and call it a 'clonigen'. Would we call this a poison, or fear it to any great extent? Pro-diversity would have to call it a poison, and more poisonous than many mutagens. Therefore, pro-diversity reverses the priorities of human values. Identical twins are not a disvalue.

Carcinogens are pro-diversity. They can cause mutations which allow cancers to develop. Pro-diversity is pro-carcinogen, therefore it is not a proper value for man. The genetics of cancer have now been studied to the extent that the mutations needed for a cancer to start, and to become malignant, are often known in advance. Each new mutation in a person is pro-diversity. If it does not introduce diversity, it is not a mutation. Pro-diversity must then be pro-cancer, and for malignant cancers, in people if mutations allow for cancers to grow.

The deformities and other birth defects caused by teratogens are examples of human diversity. How can pro-diversity be against the divergent forms caused by teratogens? Is it possible to be too 'rich' with diversity? If not, then pro-diversity is also pro-teratogen. Mutagens, carcinogens, and teratogens are all pro-diversity. Mutations are the engines driving genetic diversity.

Again, the rejections of clone-idealization plus the rejection of pro-diversity are not mutually exclusive. It is certainly not proven that we can't reject both at the same time without contradiction. Further, we can reject pro-diversity, clone-idealization, and inbreeding as standards of value (or as high value), all at the same time without contradiction. It has not been proven that we can't reject pro-diversity, pro-clonism, and pro-inbreeding, all at the same time without any inconsistency or contradiction.

It is true that the pro- and anti-diversity can be represented as very far apart. But how can they be proven to be in such relation as to allow only pro-diversity on one end, and pro-clonism (plus pro-inbreeding) on the other, with no other alternatives possible? The spectrum with pro-diversity on one extreme, and over towards its opposite position (not pro-diversity), is broader than we've been led to believe.

To prove this further one might consider the Mauritian Kestrel, a species of bird that was so endangered that only one breeding pair was available. In order not to lose the species-diversity of the bird, a breeding program was set up. Starting from the one breeding pair, the species has been artificially brought back to a reasonable number. But this involves the use of inbreeding, which pro-diversity said its detractors necessarily favor. How can being pro-diversity be called necessary for being against inbreeding, when pro-diversity uses inbreeding to save endangered species? The principle would apply far beyond this one species of bird. Therefore, it is proven that to be against inbreeding it is not necessary to be pro-diversity, not if mutations and species are the relevant units for pro-diversity.

The pro-diversity were saying that their doubters must be for human inbreeding. Yet, the pro-diversity is also for diversity of cultures and customs. These include the practice of inbreeding, as with first cousins, or closer, even by arranged marriages of minors. The pro-diversity asks us to tolerate, or even value, customs of inbreeding. This is a very serious contradiction for the pro-diversity; how can they then also say that inbreeding depression is evidence in support of their case?

The pro-diversity have referred to the marriage of people of the same race as inbreeding, in the case of a race that they consider to be dominant. At the same time, groups that they call the diversity, can breed half-siblings even, while the pro-diversity response is to speak of tolerance, not inbreeding depression. The fear of pro-diversity is that dominant populations will use something close to literal inbreeding to create a super-dominant group. Yet this is the pattern that nature uses with people; the tendency is to breed close to the threshold of literal inbreeding (but not beyond it, see one page back. )

Pro-diversity, as anti-dominant, wants those groups who have the most to lose, and the least to gain genetically, to go for 'new blood'. In Donald A. Levin's "Hybridization and Extinction" (

An endangered species is to be protected from hybridization, when 'diversity-value' is sought, up to and even beyond the threshold of inbreeding depression. According to Levin (p.257) "the fertile hybrids provide pipelines for the movement of genes from the abundant species into the rare one, contaminating its gene pool. Soon all of the rare organisms are tainted with alien genes, and eventually the rare species no longer exists as such. It is first mongrelized, then fully assimilated." To the pro-diversity, an endangered species (or sub-species) that is even suffering from inbreeding depression, would be "mongrelized", contaminated, or "tainted" by compatible outside genes.

For a dominant, that is in no real danger of succumbing to inbreeding depression, the pro-diversity can recommend only the very unlikely possibilities of 'hybrid vigor'. It would seem that taking advice from the pro-diversity is probably hazardous to the dominant. Doesn't the pro-diversity have to be anti-dominant?

Examples of pro-diversity being for inbreeding can be found in almost any endangered species. The pro-diversity does not want to sacrifice any rare or endangered species. When a closely related species is available to contribute genes that would reduce the inbreeding of the endangered species, the pro-diversity is against that approach. The protection of endangered species is so large a part of pro-diversity as a representation of value that the pattern of accepting inbreeding must be pro-diversity (in rare species at least). To be against inbreeding it is most certainly not necessary to be pro-diversity. It might even be necessary to be against the pro-diversity, if one is also to be against inbreeding.

To be against 'diversity-as-a-value' does not set us against life, but rather keeps one well in line with its requirements. No runaway cloning-worship would follow, not by the logic of opposing 'diversity-value'. But pro-diversity consistently goes against life of every kind, and can't be moderated by real values, not without renouncing the pro-diversity. If diversity-as-a-value is renounced temporarily, in order to make room for life as a value, why should the 'diversity-value' come back in? Because "variety is the spice of life"? But diversity is also the poisoner of life, the mutation that destroys, the weakness that corrupts, indeed it is an anti-value. Pro-diversity harbors backwardness, requires special favor at the expense of success, and tries to make an object of value out of mistakes. If there were a rule of the mutagen, a mutagenocracy, wouldn't this be pro-diversity more than any alternative?

The growth of diversity is like the growth of mutant cancer, or can be. Genetic mistakes cause damage because a given life operates with a very specific identity. Life processes can't be run just any new way, as though diversity could be of value to life. There would also not be so much energy expended on the prevention and repair of mutation-damage, if diversity were a proper value for life.

Sexual reproduction can also be seen as a means of eliminating mutation-diversity that would be irremovable in a clonal lineage. These mutations can exterminate the clonal lineage, both being sealed off together. If mutations are genetic damage caused by radiation, biological copying errors and the like, then always the mutation is damage (to functioning genes). It is only in the very rare instance that this damage can still be advantageous to the one in which it arises, even though it must be damage at the outset. The difference is between damage, and net damage, in the long run (to a lineage).

An advocate of diversity would have to tell a couple, about to conceive a child, to spend time in a radioactive mine (or cellar). That would increase the chances of mutation, of genetic damage and the chance for diversity. If this were not enough, then they would need more radioactivity to cause more damage more consistently. If diversity could be a proper value, then more genetic damage, especially that of a lasting kind, is more value.

But perhaps no one is supposed to take diversity seriously as a value. Mightn't one just toy with it and not see where it leads? That might be a popular attitude, don't take it seriously, it is only for entertainment, for cookery ideas and new slang-words, styles, and taking care of minorities in trouble. But, if so, how could it be a serious offense (or problem of any kind) to be against the diversity?

If there is commonly said to be any serious offense involved in being against 'diversity-as-a-value', then pro-diversity is a serious matter. There are, in fact, statutes against destruction of diversity with serious penalties. Endangered species are thus protected. There are also officially established penalties against failure to promote genetic, and even linguistic diversity, on the staff of companies. This all goes to show that 'diversity-value' is not to be ignored for having no serious consequences. It is not a matter of ethnic restaurants, foreign phrases, styles and charity for the diversely disadvantaged. It is much bigger than those minor themes, and has been for a long time now.

***Chapter 8***

If diversity is not good, how could there be millions of species? Perhaps, because new species are not that diverse genetically, they're just closed breeding groups. Or, because the evolution of life proceeds by adding new value, not 'diversity-value'. Plants have only slowly colonized the land, adding value at each major step, but never 'diversity-value'. They bring new value by adding life to places that couldn't accommodate as much before, not by adding new species. Isolation can cause new species to form, but that does not add value.

Actually, a small new species is a terminal accumulation of mutations with no chance to dispose of them outside its little group. Sexual lineages both receive and discard diversity, but in some ways, they tend to lose diversity. This is why diversity can be used to show how archaic a sexual lineage is, the diversity can accumulate only slowly, in some lineages, while the newer lineages of the same species are losing diversity. The diversity, then, will be a curiosity collection of the lineages that were unable to become a large-scale dominant.

As to the long-term evolutionary advantages of sex over cloning; Wolpert and Szathmary (Nature 12-19-02) say there "is no way that the genes in the huge number of cells involved in budding can change at the same time, and mutations in individual cells mean that they no longer share the behavioural rules of the majority. It is only through a coherent developmental programme, with all cells possessing the same genes, that organisms can evolve, and this requires an egg." These advantages, by which more complex organisms have evolved, don't come from diversity, but from homogeneity, as in the uniformity of the egg. If not, then why is one cell a million times larger than the others? If 'diversity-value' could be involved, then what could explain the giant uniformity of the egg? This all goes to show that there is, and can be, no diversity-preference in the evolutionary process that leads to species diversity. A new species' emergence is not a favorable event very often. It is caused by some kind of isolation, not by the new species having anything better. The diversity of species is an _expression of weakness, more than it is of strength. The strength of new life forms lies in the advantages that have caused some to expand and reduce the total diversity that would otherwise have existed.

High diversity of species may also represent the time (and large area) needed for intensity of damaging parasitization to turn less virulent, and even into symbiosis. Biodiversity can also register the time needed for weaker competitors to be pushed towards islands or distinct climate zones on isolated mountains, and the like. Very small isolated populations may partially escape their specialized predators and parasites by becoming too endangered to support them.

But more likely, perhaps, would be the evolution of the specialized parasites and predators towards symbiosis (or to low net damage). In that event diversity could compound upon diversity. The weaker competitor, pushed to a marginal isolated position, is less and less able to support its specialized parasites, which are themselves pushed towards reduced virulence. This grants a respite, within the small refuge it has left, for the weaker competitor to subsist, when otherwise it would have gone extinct. This assumes the parasite can adapt to the endangered status of its host species.

The stronger competitor is subject to attacks by parasites that are under no such obligation to become much less virulent. All this requires enormous time, so it will happen more in the areas where climate has been much more stable. It will be least likely to be found in areas that were under glaciers, off and on, or which had periodically become deserts.

Tropical humid areas are found to allow the greatest increase of parasites that are unable to live in the winter or in a prolonged dry period. They may depend on insects for transmission. The insects can multiply enormously when there is no chill or drought to suppress them. Intensity of parasitization is favored by constant warmth and humidity, but is suppressed otherwise. According to S. Stanley in Children of the Ice Age (p.22) "Predators, disease or environmental disturbance keep populations of the superior competitor in check" and "heavy predation alleviated competition by suppressing populations of potentially dominant species". To value diversity in this context is to value parasitization, both directly and indirectly. The biodiversity of the tropical rain forests (as elsewhere) consists largely of parasites.

Setting up intensity of parasitization and predation as a value sounds very questionable. Is there any reason to suppose that the pro-diversity would not apply this to people? If you can't have too much diversity, and 'heavy predation' is the way to get it, why wouldn't they? Also, it is not only species but dominant lineages that are suppressed by predation. The "populations of the superior competitor" can be species, races, and smaller groups.

Intensity of parasitization maintains the diversity, allowing the weaker competitors a prolonged respite, or a chance to subsist in a refuge. The dominants might otherwise out- compete them all the way to extinction, even in their last refuges, but their specialized parasites must let up on them before then. Or, at least, those that survive would tend to do so. The retained diversity will contain larger percentages of symbiotic former parasites. This may allow higher productivity sometimes, in spite of its origin in intensity of parasitization. Insects and microbes multiply exponentially as the growing season lengthens.

The length of the growing season is the variable that connects equatorial rainforest diversity with the high bio-mass productivity of such regions. It is not the diversity itself that would explain this relation. According to Mooney and Gulmon " productivity is independent of species numbers". They conclude also that "above-ground production increases with time but this is unrelated to the changes in species numbers". According to Loreau, et. al. (Science '01) "the most productive ecosystems are typically characterized by low species diversity;" and "we cannot reject the hypothesis that a few dominant species suffice" for highest productivity.

Monocultures of certain species have higher productivity than the equatorial rainforest. If diversity caused productivity this could not happen. Pine and eucalyptus plantations have surpassed the productivity of high-diversity tropical rainforests. But these are very low diversity, they involve even the use of clones. Productive agriculture almost exclusively uses monocultures. The net production of some of these monocultures is the highest to be found anywhere. Sugar cane can easily surpass the productivity of plant material in the equatorial rain forest. Yet pro-diversity predicts the opposite result. Zero diversity should not out-produce high diversity.

According to S. Hubble in Natural History (10-01) "everyone agrees that preserving the natural diversity of apple trees should be a high priority". This is not true, and would not be a valid argument for 'diversity-value' even if there were a pro-diversity consensus. Hubble also mentions that the diversity of apple varieties planted in the United States has gone from thousands down to dozens. Yet apple productivity is much higher, not in spite of, but because of this fast-declining diversity. But pro-diversity predicts the opposite case; declining diversity (especially if it is rapid) should cause (rapidly) declining productivity.

This pattern holds across the entire field of highly productive agriculture and forestry. The original diversity of a crop is reduced by ninety percent or more. The diverse breeds are dropped from cultivation at the same time that the productivity of that crop goes way up. Pro-diversity predicts the reverse, and it says: "save the endangered cultivated breeds", because the genetic diversity consists also of them.

In the case of wheat, where it is most productive, over ninety percent of the strains existing before the large increase in yields of the past century, are gone. The genetic diversity of cattle has declined rapidly while productivity has increased greatly. It is the same pattern with chickens and hogs. Open-pollinated corn has declined almost to zero acreage in the countries with uniformly high corn yields. If pro-diversity could be correct, then open-pollinated corn should be able to out-produce the low-diversity kind.

A larger pattern of this holds all across the planet. High-productivity areas use low diversity methods to get high yields. Countries that retain high diversity of breeds of plants and animals in agriculture have very low yields. Further, the lower the diversity of lineages under cultivation (within a particular species) the higher the yields. When countries switch their agriculture from high genetic diversity to low, yields go way up. The faster they switch, the faster their yields go up. But pro-diversity predicts that productivity should decline as the genetic diversity goes down. A fast decline of diversity should mean a rapid downfall of yields, if 'diversity-value' is a valid general principle.

According to R.M. May in Science '01, " In 1973 there was a widely cited belief that more complex or diverse ecosystems - more species, or richer web of interrelationships - were thereby better able to resist disturbance. I showed that there was no such arbitrarily general rule. Quite the contrary …". So if diversity is not to be assumed to be good for the stability of biosystems generally, and it is not associated with higher yields more than lower, what is it good for? Is genetic diversity not good for more than its own subsistence? Pro-diversity would need to prove that it is good for something beyond one lineage's existence being just good for itself, no matter how rare it is.

Some pro-diversity writers have mentioned estimates of 'ecological services' supposedly provided by diversity, that could be worth trillions of dollars annually. Whatever these are worth, there is no reason offered why they should be believed to be provided by diversity, and not by biomass. Is there some reason to believe that we can't reduce biodiversity by ninety-nine percent, and lose any such valuable services?

Protection of watersheds by trees requires little or no diversity. They could be all junipers of one lineage perhaps. Or, if not, then of some very few species, all propagated by cloning. Pollination, other than to serve diversity itself, does not require more than one in perhaps a thousand of the current pollinators. Commercial pollinators use less than one in a thousand of the available pollinator species. Decomposers, being mainly prokaryotes, might have their function performed by very few species, or even by just one species. If the definition of species as a closed breeding group were applied to bacteria (prokaryotes), then there is only one such species. Fodder for grazing animals needn't be diverse. Trees for logging could be of very few species, perhaps one species in a thousand of the existing diversity. Pro-diversity would need to prove that the diversity of species itself, not the biomass productivity, could contribute the values claimed. It is not known that we need more than one in a thousand of the species that exist. If they believe that many millions of species exist, then let them hand in the list of thousands of species whose functions (of general benefit) cannot be performed by dominants.

It doesn't seem likely that anyone would propose deliberately eradicating 99.9% of the species that exist. It is hardly even possible to do that. But an experiment of the trend in that direction is possible. Take a tract of high-diversity tropical rain forest and randomly eliminate one species after another, but allowing for the (less diverse) pioneer species to take their place. Then determine if the overall (leaf-fall) productivity is falling, unchanged, or rising. The species to be eliminated would be those such as plants that can be removed (and not just migrate back in). Considering that more than half of all species are parasites, the removal of such species should bring higher productivity.

If pro-diversity is correct, though, productivity is enhanced by parasites and predators. They allow for more diversity by suppressing the dominants that would otherwise pre-empt resources from the diversity. Pro-diversity would predict that systematic removal of species would bring productivity down. The suggested experiment has, in a way, been done with certain tropical tree plantations, and the monoculture yields can be much higher.

If only one species in a thousand has any economic use then how can biodiversity be considered good for man? Would the diversity be an esthetic value? But diversity as an esthetic principle would be the same as saying no identity is important over against others. Yet without some identity being considered much more important, no fine art is possible. Therefore diversity as an esthetic theory is self-disqualifying. As a self-disqualifying theory of taste, it cannot inform other fields, and it cannot suggest values to them.

***Chapter 9***

If diversity could be an economic value, then using a larger percentage of species should make us better off economically. If tropical hunter-gatherers have used the highest percentage of species, they would thus have increased the per-capita economic output of the world. Their economy would have the highest species-diversity, so how could it not be richer? Tropical subsistence gardeners in the rain forest, who also use hunting and gathering wild species, have the greatest genetic diversity in their economic resources used. These groups are the poorest in the world. If diversity were a proper value for man, these tropical subsistence groups in the rain forests, who use the largest percentage of species, should be rich.

At the other extreme are the monoculture farmers of the high-latitude regions, who are often a hundred times richer than the tropical subsistence diversity-users, and are sometimes millionaires even. If diversity were a proper value, these monocultures should cause poverty, not wealth and exportable surplus on such a large scale. The greatest species-diversity-users should also not depend on international relief from the monoculture-users, but they often do. A reliance on a larger amount of species diversity seems to indicate a weakness; it is a failure to find the most productive species for that area and learn their requirements well-enough.

The species-diversity can't be a real value either, because, if it could be, then corporate seed collections would be maintained for more than one species in a hundred, but they're not. Publicly subsidized seed collections hold much greater diversity, but they are maintained at a loss. The revenue they could charge if a valuable item is found, is negligible in comparison to the costs of collecting, saving and studying all the others. If a valuable trait of disease-resistance is found in one crop's wild relative, this does not indicate the existence of any 'diversity-value'. If one species (or strain) suffers from disease susceptibility, then another can take its place. The multi-billion dollar value claimed for certain crops' disease-resistance, is really land value, labor and mineral applications. The land could be used for other crops, or the same species - with different traits of disease resistance.

What percentage of cultivated species market value is attributable to the seeds that are to be planted? It will not often be more than a very small percentage. And of that percentage what portion goes for inbreeding, and how small a share for collected diversity? How do these costs, if they don't cancel each other, compare to all the other costs of producing seed for planting? Could they often be more than a small percentage?

If several such percentages are multiplied together, do we have more than the millionth part of the total economic production (i.e. not just agriculture)? But if it does amount to more than that, on what basis can it be assumed that this economic value is attributable to diversity, and not to inbreeding (and its close relatives), or cloning even?

When producers buy seed, and there is a corporate seed collection behind it, are they paying for the diversity or the homogeneity? If both, then is the diversity separable as a possible value in itself, or does it appear economically only as a small component of an overall homogeneity-value?

Often, the diversity will come from a publicly-subsidized collection where the one piece of diversity (out of thousands or millions) that is actually wanted, will be part of more than just its own cost of collection. If the pro-diversity were to believe their own propaganda about 'diversity-value', would they invest heavily in 'bio-prospecting', and at their own risk? If they know better than to risk their own money on it, can they succeed in duping the public into supporting a bio-curiosity project on the scale of billions or tens of billions, and return none, or very little, of this?

Low-diversity equatorial reed-swamp species can produce more than the tropical rain forest with all its genetic diversity. Even the low-diversity northern forests, can produce more plant material than the equatorial rain forests, on a per-day-of-growing-season basis. But then, how to explain the overall gradient of species diversity and biomass productivity from the poles to the equatorial rain forests? First, the polar regions are extreme deserts and they are very lacking in solar energy input. Few plants can live in those conditions. Equatorial deserts are also very low in biomass productivity. The formerly glaciated areas to the south of the north pole would need a lot more time in a warm period to acquire much species diversity. Yet they are quite productive regions for man in spite of short growing seasons.

Sunlight and rainfall are much reduced in the temperate regions, compared to the tropical rain forests. But agricultural land prices are often a hundred times higher there than in the equatorial rain forest zone. Irrigated croplands in the low-diversity temperate zones, using monocultures, have shown higher biomass productivity than the highest diversity tropical forests. The leaf fall in winter or fall, with insect and decomposer activity suppressed, allows for very large regions of rich soil accumulations. They are rich with nutrients and suitable textures, not with diversity.

Sub-tropical regions, with their extensive deserts, have low-to-moderate biodiversity. But it is here that Monterey pine and eucalyptus plantations have shown, using monocultures, productivity well beyond the equatorial rain forests. Irrigated corn in this climate zone is also at the top plant productivity level. But pro-diversity would predict that monocultures should never be in the top productivity levels. Yet this is what the data show, our best monocultures are more productive than any natural forests, no matter how much water or sunlight the rainforests sometimes have available.

The tropical rain forests have very low land value. When they are logged, the soil remaining turns out to be so poor that only very low-value rangeland is obtained. This may indicate that the species diversity gradient between the temperate zones and the equator may be somewhat exaggerated. If the undiscovered or unclassified species are soil-dwellers for the most part, then our species diversity gradient may hit a fairly high level before it even reaches the sub-tropical zone. The tropical rain forest diversity (above ground) may be matched by an only moderate species diversity in their thin and nutrient-depleted soils.

In any case, the biomass productivity gradient has been shown by scientific studies to be explained by light and water availability, plus sometimes mineral nutrients. This leaves no additional productivity for species diversity to 'explain', or not any significant amount. If this were not true, the productivity of tropical rain forest per day of growing seasoning would not be lower than that of bracken in Scotland, rice in southern Australia, nor than sugarcane, yet that is what the studies have found.

Diversity tends to mean something left over from the past, something backward or bypassed that languishes and is preserved on an island or isolated circumstances. At the same time, natural selection operates ruthlessly in the main field of competition, tending to generate uniformity. But the odd pockets of diversity subsist in their refuges and accumulate steadily, while new dominants take over in the main field of contention. The old dominant is not always exterminated, but often finds a refuge protected from competition or from circumstances that favored another type. The more such diversity has accumulated, the more time (it may be inferred) has gone by.

If genetic diversity generally means antiquity, it should have no current function (of value) that could not be equally well (or better) replaced by the current (dominant) alternative. Natural selection leaves many backwaters; it is not an efficient process for eliminating the last few pieces of diversity. There could then be a law of diminishing returns that says: there is less and less to be gained by a successful new attribute as it approaches total saturation of its potential spread.

A new dominant may acquire specialized parasites that it did not have before; its parasites can afford to become more virulent. The refuge-entrenched diversity needs its parasites to become less virulent, perhaps. The more generalized parasites miss an opportunity if some of them do not become better adapted, or even specialized, to the new dominant. If dominants replace each other without the new one being superior in any way (other than being relatively undiscovered by parasites), this could be the 'mechanism' by which the cycling of dominants occurs.

Each turn of the cycle can turn an old dominant into a refuge specialization, where parasite-virulence reduction saves it from extinction. The left-over diversity is not 'strength' or 'riches', but protected weakness and pockets of poverty sustained on a relief 'program', so to speak.

Some experiments have proceeded on the idea that diversity is strength, and that more species might generate more life on a given plot of ground. But, it has been pointed out, they would have to show that a much more diverse collection of species would do better than the most productive species would do separately. The naturally more diverse tracts get that way because the conditions favor first one, then another, species in a cycle of drought, fire, frost, infestations and so on.

The diversity is the residue of past advantage not yet exterminated by the circumstances that favor the leading current types. It is not likely to be the most productive for the current state of affairs. If this were not true, agriculture would not surpass wild productivity, and planted forests would not out-produce the high-diversity rain forests.

Some trees that are rare have been found to reproduce more heavily than the more common species around them. But their sparsity could require this. A much smaller percentage of their seeds can find a place than those of the neighboring more common species.

With rice blight it has been found that alternating two varieties of rice helps to slow the spread of the disease. But this is rather negligible diversity - using two strains of rice where nature would have allowed hundreds of different species. It might be considered a very small variation on the theme of extreme monoculture, rather than an instance of 'diversity-value', the planting of two varieties of rice. If 'diversity-value' were operating in this case, three rice types would be better, four better still, and so on. But there are no indications that this diversity would have any net benefit, if pursued further. Diversity, if offered as a possible value, should mean many alternatives, not just one.

Diversity makes life more complex (in some ways), but productivity may require a simplicity that focuses on the value to be won. Diversity is like an old-growth forest full of hollow rotting giants, that survive by monopolizing the resources. It focuses on preventing the establishment of new efficient types by reserving resources, as to those that shade out the new, or drop flammable materials on them, while remaining above the reach of the fires.

It is that way to such an extent that scientists can, by finding more diversity in a lineage, be sure that they have found a greater antiquity. This being the case, doesn't greater diversity have to mean the survival of the less competitive? It can be deduced that the greater diversity is achieved by reducing the field open to competition. Diversity persistence also means closing off fields from competition to such a degree that it has to mean also stagnation.

Writers on natural selection have often said that this process allows no stagnation. Actually, it does allow quite a lot, and diversity is the marker of that. If there is no strong tendency to improvement of life, then stagnation is the rule rather than the exception. Diversity then has a good chance to persist that much longer.

In any case, diversity is not to be associated with progression of life forms, but more with preserving their unchanging characteristics. Yet diversity and mutations are the same. This is not a contradiction, however. Genetic diversity is the long-retained mutation that brings no improvement of function sufficient to make it into a dominant. That is, where we have the diversity on one side and the dominants on the other. The difference is just that between accumulated diversity and new diversity (new mutations). So there is no contradiction between diversity as the unchanging rarity and diversity as the new mutation. Both are something different that is distinct from the dominant.

Diversity is not associated with strong growth, but with stagnation protected by anti-competitive factors. This is true by definition also: a new expanding type necessarily expands at the expense of the potentially retained diversity. What it means to 'spread' is necessarily 'at the expense of' the diversity that would otherwise exist. The facts are more than sufficient to justify the account that the 'spread' of a lineage by natural selection is 'at the expense of' the diversity it displaces (the potential of).

It follows that diversity of itself cannot be a value to organisms. Natural selection is a value for organisms, therefore pro-diversity, being opposed to it, is not, and cannot be. Would this same argument apply to cultural diversity?

A cultural type that 'spreads' does so 'at the expense of' the cultural diversity that would otherwise exist. What it means for a cultural type to 'spread' is, by definition, 'at the expense of' the cultural diversity that would be there if not for this 'spread'. Therefore, any cultural type (or idea) that spreads in this sense is an evil according to the pro-diversity. If an idea spreads because it is of superior value, pro-diversity must call it bad because it spreads 'at the expense of' the diversity. This entails a contradiction-in-terms for the pro-diversity: good equals bad.

Pro-diversity must also be against the idea that is still rare, but through superior value, has the potential to very widely spread and do great damage to the diversity. Therefore cultural diversity, as a value representation (i.e. pro-diversity), is an evil to man. The history justifies this conclusion perfectly well. The spread of advanced cultures clearly is at the expense of the cultural diversity. The long decline in the number of languages, sovereignties, legal systems, local weights, hunter-gatherer societies, and so on should be seen as proving this point. The demise of cultural diversity at the hands of expansionary advanced cultures is a very dominant pattern in history.

Diversity needs some kind of reservation to protect it from a spreading dominant. Heavy predation or parasitization is like a border defense that kills (or severely weakens) a dominant which has crossed the line into the diversity reservation. It can also be deduced that this must be the case. Where diversity is high the potential dominants are also known to be intensely parasitized or preyed upon. The diversity (not unlike the dominants) can also make a 'reservation' by pre-emptive use of resources. The big trees of the tropical rainforest are said to keep the soils of those areas very thin and poor, by holding the resources inaccessible in their great bulk. Competitors for sun, water, and minerals get a chance when the big trees come down. Other places go back to bare dirt every year and receive a new monoculture. But on which of these places does human life really depend, the food-producing monoculture, or the protected diversity area?

According to Zimmer's Evolution, ninety percent of agricultural output comes from twenty plant and six animal species. Millions of species are known, and there is a good possibility that tens of millions exist. How is it possible that our food comes from perhaps less than one part in a million of the genetic diversity in the world? Pro-diversity would predict that productivity would be greatly reduced by such low diversity. Yet, actually it has been rising rapidly even as the genetic diversity in cultivation for food has fallen to extremely low levels. Doesn't this prove that diversity is not a proper value for man?

It has been discovered that the genetic diversity declines greatly along the line of species that leads to man. As the brains get bigger, the genetic diversity becomes less and less. But pro-diversity predicts the opposite of this; improvements of function should not (on this theory) be associated systematically with less tolerance of diversity-mutations. The human brain being more complex than others, shouldn't this species be less tolerant of the genetic diversity of mutations that are more likely to compromise its complex functions?

***Chapter 10***

The diversity of antibodies that the immune system makes examples of, is a diversity of billions. But this does not indicate any 'diversity-value'. It is an anticipation of diversity damage. The microbes could use their capacity to mutate to 'surprise' the immune system. So the antibodies, responding to diversity as though towards an evil, generate an anti-diversity, or a counter-diversity.

If one could want to see examples of diversity used as if it were a value, lethal microbes are where these can be found. The microbial cause of African sleeping sickness uses its power to generate diversity-mutations to avoid the immune cells' anti-diversity action. The human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) uses its destructive ability to create mutant diversity to stay ahead of the immune system's anti-diversity function. Influenza uses its capacity to mutate to avoid immunity in the population. Vaccines for it have to anticipate the leading new diversity (of influenza mutations). If diversity is like a value for microbes that cause the most damage to life, it is still not a value for life in general.

When the immune system develops billions of antibodies of ultra-diverse types, it mimics the diversity of microbes. Or rather, it goes beyond that genetic diversity. It does this by copying the method used by microbes in general to generate lethal diversity. It takes a relatively small number of basic units, but tries out all of their combinations systematically.

The immune system uses its diversity of antibodies to try to anticipate every possibility of attack by diversity. It does so only to attack diversity coming in from outside as fast as it can. An exception might be cancers which have become, in effect, outside agents of diversity. The cancers are not totally foreign, but represent a diversity, a diversification away from the established genetic program. If this were not so, immunosuppression would not allow cancers to grow, but it does. Nor would it tolerate the diversity of pathogens more easily, when the immune system is at lower strength. Pro-diversity is also pro-immunodeficiency. To kill a dominant with cancer or parasite diversity is certainly pro-diversity.

The immune system is not so much 'self vs. foreign' as it is 'original genetic program' versus 'diversity'. No aspect of the immune system is an argument for diversity, when, in its totality, and upon its foundational principles, it is (and must be) anti-diversity. The antibody collection is never assembled for its own sake, nor for any reason other than to counter any diversity away from the self-identical state (homeostasis). Serving the integrity of the body, resisting any intrusion of diversity, these are the tasks of the immune system. Colonization by pathogens introduces diversity if it is not kept under attack.

Suppose that a great diversity of programs were set up that, in their totality, were aimed at exterminating thousands of rare species. Each uses a different species or, some kind of biodiversity, to drive to extinction some thousands of rare species in total. Even though this program uses a matching diversity to destroy other biodiversity, it must be called anti-diversity in its totality. Likewise the immune system can rationally only be considered anti-diversity in its overall aspect, regardless of what antibody diversity it creates.

Pro-diversity, being anti-dominant, is against an open field of competition. The reason for this, is that competition allows suppression of diversity. Diversity advocates oppose merit competition and try to get 'representation' for groups that tend to lose in an open competition. But to be against successful life, is to be also against the success of life. With pro-diversity advocates this would be an across-the-board principle, evidently. Their principle would be opposition to successful life, whether of human or other living types. If the aggrandizement of successful types is undesirable (because it brings down the total diversity) then the success of life is opposed. This is the meaning of pro-diversity as anti-dominant.

Those who disbelieve the 'diversity-value', however, can easily be for the aggrandizement of successful life. They can be for open competition, not fearing that a successful type will take over. They don't have to value a defunct species because it is dying out. They don't have to be concerned that one group would tend to win a competition, that is not a problem to them.

Pro-diversity is also a kind of pro-weakness. It is for the weak, not in spite of, but because of, the fact that they are weak and losing, or dying to such an extent that their lineage seems doomed. But to say that whatever is weakest, and closest to death or extinction is the good, would also be to believe that death is the good. Values like that would make Hitler and Stalin out to be morally superior; didn't they cause the most death? Pro-diversity politicians are for the protection of the weak from the competition from the strong. They use aggression to take from the strong and give to the weak. Their attitude is to take strength away from the strong and use this to intensify weakness amongst the weak, but to do this by means of official acts of aggression. From someone who is having a little success in life, take his money by official aggression and use it to increase the rate of alcoholism on an Indian reservation, or a diversity program of whatever kind.

'Diversity-as-a-value' just means different from successful existence. Must not this hostility to successful life rebound upon the pro-diversity also? Won't they also be against the successful life of the diversity idea? Or, perhaps, it could be that successful life is not necessary for the spread of an idea that can propagate like a virus, (parasitically) always damaging life?

In either case, pro-diversity is a contradiction-in-terms, and therefore obviously not a true concept of value. If it can spread much, it is an enemy of the overall diversity of ideas and thus of itself also. The more it spreads the more it would have to be against itself. If it is said that pro-diversity is an innately weak idea, that might sound as if it could avoid the contradiction. But if it is naturally so endangered and rare at the start, how could it ever grow? Would it be only under governmental aggression that it can spread?

The pro-diversity idea has grown enormously. It has spread out to cover more kinds of diversity. It has grown so much that it looks like a substitute for philosophy in its wish for comprehensiveness. Yet, it destroys moral evaluation and justice where it multiplies, as its theory requires of it.

Pro-diversity remains in self-contradiction: the further it spreads the less likely it is to accuse itself of reducing the diversity of ideas. The more that the pro-diversity (anti-dominant) idea comes to predominate, the more it actually tries to silence any anti-diversity ideas. Concepts that oppose the pro-diversity value-representation are now all but taboo in the government schools, even though it is impossible to have standards without them. To quote Peter Schwartz in Return of the Primitive: "Diversity is invoked always to undercut some value, never to strengthen it".

Try to state diversity as a value and it can be seen to lead to an infinite regress: 'having value by being diverse from … having value by being diverse from having value…' all the way to absolute non-value. Logically, then, pro-diversity embraces for itself the entire field of non-value. If truth-value is included, then pro-diversity endorses very possible lie. Pro-diversity also praises every possible act of brutality, which need only be seen as 'having value by being diverse from… having value by…' any standard.

There is no immorality so low that pro-diversity cannot approve of it, provided only that it is diverse from some real standard of value. There is no lie so abysmal that 'diversity-value' cannot find it to be desirably diverse from a rational standard. With 'diversity-value' we have an idea that can plumb the depths of evil and falsehood and call it value. At any rate, such is the result if pro-diversity is taken at face value. If pro-diversity is translated into 'anti-dominant', won't the same conclusions still follow?

Pro-diversity as a universal is also in self-contradiction for that reason. If it operates as a universal across the entire terrain of values and truths, it is imposing a uniformity of approach that pro-diversity must also damn. Yet it can't be less than universal without adopting some standards that would limit it, and that would be against the diversity, and necessarily so. Therefore, pro-diversity always contradicts itself. It needs to be universal, and at the same time must oppose all universals. What is universal is surely against the diversity, if anything is.

Any concept (universal) of pro-diversity also denies all concepts (universals) including its own. What pattern could be more dominant with the pro-diversity agitation than a hostility against universal standards? These are the special objects of hatred to such an extent that one may conclude that the pro-diversity advocates must fear that they can't measure up to any universal standards. And, as pro-diversity advocates, they are in fact unable to maintain any universal standards.

Yet the pro-diversity quite often holds positions of intellectual and moral leadership. This threatens to cause a thorough collapse of community of values in the society, which means also: civil war. To again quote P. Schwartz in Return of the Primitive, pro-diversity, or rather, multiculturalism "can mean only one thing in practice: full-scale tribal warfare leading to wholesale extermination…". This result is not only predictable, but it must be the purpose of the pro-diversity agitation to promote precisely this disaster.

The pro-diversity world of tribes with greatest diversity and least 'dominant' civilization allows perhaps five million people and six-thousand languages, and extermination for everyone else. The world just before the first agriculture (or even fishing settlements of a certain level), is the preference of the pro-diversity. All but one in a thousand must be killed, if 'diversity-value' is to be realized. What would we think of a disease that could, in the extreme case, kill all but one in a thousand? If it existed, and was starting to spread, wouldn't a good number of the smartest people in the world dedicate great efforts to its suppression? Therefore, we should ask that this be done: devote considerable intelligence to keeping down the propaganda for 'diversity-as-a-value'. It really requires the closure of the government schools (as such), to suppress it now.

If the premise of aggression for the support of ideas is tolerated (for a long time) it tends to develop its principle (of 'legitimate' aggression) to the limit. 'Diversity-as-a-value' is perhaps the culmination of this process. If 'diversity-value' does mean (in its fulfillment) the mass-murder of all but one in a thousand, yet is called moral idealism, anti-racism and tolerance, what is left culturally?

***Chapter 11****

The Nazi culture, in 1942, featured a new book by W. Schoenichen which is pro-diversity in a general way, encompassing the conservation of species, races, tribes and indigenous cultures. Saving endangered species in the world is seen as part of a larger program that protects endangered cultures, tribes and nationalities from the cosmopolitan tendencies. This was a time and place where those classified as cosmopolitan were being murdered by the millions. Pro-diversity was projecting a further development of these policies in the name of "conservation of native peoples in their native habitats". This conservation was seen as being naturally well-suited to enforcement alongside endangered species protection. The reservations set up for one kind of diversity are what is needed to protect the other kinds as well.

Schoenichen's native areas provide for the "development of indigenous peoples according to their own racial heritage". This involves official prohibition of immigration, emigration and even tourism; native areas are "not zoos". Policies of this kind were a sensitive area for National Socialism; they bear on the future of the ethnic and racial types.

These Nazi plans include a policy of restoring extensive lands to a natural state, even for long-settled areas. They were not afraid of the implications in terms of mass murder. With Schoenichen, the pro-diversity value-representation shows up rather clearly in the function of native reservations that double as endangered species preserves. They are emphatically "not zoos" and are not to receive tourists. The diversity of species, plus the genetic and cultural diversity of the resident tribes, is to be conserved for its own sake. Humanity in general is to get no benefit; no aesthetic or touristic appreciation or economic advantage is to be accommodated. If it is doubted that pro-diversity would support mass-murder in actual practice, this historical circumstance should be noted.

According to pro-diversity in more recent times, those who disbelieve the 'diversity-value' are the neo-Nazis. Those who uphold cosmopolitan values, and cannot see any 'diversity-value', would also somehow be the mass-murdering anti-cosmopolitans? It should be clear that the pro-diversity are characterizing their opponents in such a way only because there is no argument that can support 'diversity-value'. They would have us believe that Nazism wanted to homogenize the planet in the image of Europe. But Schoenichen shows that their plans were pro-diversity and, of course, violently anti-cosmopolitan. What could be more cosmopolitan than a tendency to make the world over to a single, or a greatly less diverse, pattern? The city universal is not thousands of tribes in thousands of international war parks.

To say that only a Nazi would deny the diversity value-representation can't really succeed in wiping out the history (of such politics). National Socialism existed also in relation to International Socialism (Communism). One of these wants the same socialism for every country, regardless of local cultural diversity. With a radical international socialism, national diversity is more like an obstacle to the achievement of a uniform political order.

The national socialism accepts the diversity of national traditions, even when these are an obstruction to the socialist model's realization. The pro-diversity is also for cultural diversity, therefore, its affinity is for Nazism, rather than the homogenizing Communism. The pro-diversity also can't choose capitalism or democracy; these allow the property-holders or the majority to overrun the diversity. The diversity value-representation can favor monarchism and tribalism, however. Yet tribalism on a larger scale (and modernized) plus monarchism with no royal family, but only a dictator, may be set equal to fascism and Nazism. Therefore the pro-diversity must favor national socialism, above all other classes of politics, if these are the alternatives.

Yet the pro-diversity say that everyone is a Nazi, except those who agree with them. But, to say this, is not the same as having a valid argument. On the contrary, to fall into the ad hominem fallacy, indicates a serious poverty of available arguments for the pro-diversity. As believers in the diversity value-representation, can they disapprove of Hitler's policies? And if they can, do they wish that he had killed more people, or fewer? The pro-diversity, as such, must be for any reduction in human numbers, large or small, that would aid the diversity of species, languages, and cultures in holding out against the dominant.

The pro-diversity is following the Nazi plans for the world. They are calling for almost everything Schoenichen placed a high priority on. The only difference is that they do not pick out one ethnic group as the leaders and enforcers of the pro-diversity program. Yet the pro-diversity, in power, enforcing a global program would, coincidentally, be perhaps every bit as white, and Germanic (in the larger sense) as a victorious Hitler-Schoenichen empire would have been. But that possibility is irrelevant in any case.

What matters is the identity of premises between the big killers of yesterday and the pro-diversity leaders of today. Schoenichen spoke of even glaciers as having rights over against human rights. National Socialist politicians had a priority of getting 'animal rights' established. One of their first programs was the suppression of the use of experimental animals. Hitler, and other Nazi leaders were celebrated for their vegetarianism. Their procedure was to have 'animal rights' cancel out human rights. The concept of (human) rights gets conveniently wiped out by setting it equal with animal (and even glaciers') 'rights'. The purpose would not be different today.

If one were to ask how could decent soft-hearted people possibly support a pro-diversity agenda that is ultimately about killing people on the scale of millions; this history shows us how. In Germany, kindly little old ladies who were impressed by certain Nazi issues, such as Hermann Goring's proposals to spare the laboratory animals, were induced to support Hitler. Such supporters are not recruited for any actual violence, yet they were instrumental in putting the killers into power. As to the capacities of violence in a population, one should not look to the average, but to what could be coming out of the prisons, to determine this. There is always a possibility for such elements to rise to the surface, as German history should always remind us.

The Nazis were consistently against individual rights, as (of course) they needed to be. The pro-diversity attitude of more recent times is likewise hostile to individual rights. These are not to be allowed to destroy the rare species 'right' to exist. Individual rights must also not have standing against the 'right' of rare cultural collectivities to have their survival enforced. Jared Diamond, in "Deaths of Languages" (Natural History 4-'01) says that ninety-seven percent of the world's six-thousand languages will be extinct by the end of this century, leaving only two-hundred languages in existence.

High extinction rates are also reliably projected for species in the world. Therefore, pro-diversity must regard the present human population as dangerously large and disastrously rich. The draw on natural resources must (by 'diversity-value') be considered an extreme danger to the diversity. A ninety-seven percent downfall in a century (for tribal languages) is, to the pro-diversity, like genocide, or five-thousand-fold genocide, not just because of the loss of languages, but also because the ethno-genetic characteristics are evidently to be lost in the same process.

The civilization that pro-diversity evaluates as ultragenocidal includes even the subsistence cultivators of the tropics, or nearly all of them. The Polynesians, as they expanded across the Pacific, caused thousands of species, including a fifth of the bird species in the world, to go extinct. These events occurred without the use of modern technology. The primitive agricultural populations are some of the effective agents of the five-thousand predicted 'genocides' and associated species extinctions. Therefore pro-diversity as an ideal cannot tolerate any human population beyond the pre-agricultural level. This is also proven by the determination that primitive human groups are quite capable of causing surges of extinctions when they move into new areas. If all but one in a thousand of today's population has no right to exist, what conclusion is there other than that pro-diversity is not a fit entry into the list of human values?

Yet pro-diversity is not just an unfit 'value', it is a kind of malice against all values. A society which upholds diversity must lose community of values. Such a country kills people,

unleashing murderers and ethnic war. Then another such country intervenes, not to stop the killing, but to protect an endangered shrub or insect rarity.

Pro-diversity is not for the protection of rarities as such, it is for the conservation of weaknesses. The rarer the weaknesses are, the closer to a high risk of extinction they are, the more pro-diversity is for them. Yet rare strengths are opposed by pro-diversity because they have a good chance to grow or expand their influence (to the detriment of the diversity).

***Chapter 12***

The most relevant 'experiments' for observing the effects of human genetic diversity at its extreme point now must be investigated. There are some women who have the greatest genetic diversity in their mother-and-children group that exists in the world. They have a number of children, each by a different father. In some cases there can be found mother-and-children groups where each child is of a different genetic type. There are genetic groups that are ancient lineages defined by mutations, the branchings-off of which delineate the entire human family tree. Each of these is a genetic group that is much more precisely defined than race, nationality or many other such classifications.

Now find the mother-and-children groups with the most genetic (ancient-lineage) diversity. If science is afraid to find them, how bad is the condition of those most-diverse households?

It is not true that extremely poor conditions in those most (genetically) diverse households, which are natural units, would prove that genetic diversity is necessarily bad for people. Yet pro-diversity predicts that more genetic diversity should improve people's circumstances. For this reason, it does not dare to look at the lives of the populations with the most genetic diversity.

These most diverse natural groups are also households with extreme disadvantages. The mother is most likely a prostitute, and a very poor one who cannot afford abortions. She can't afford condoms or refuse the men who won't use them, most likely. Her children are much more likely than others to be sent out to beg. They live in a poor country which is also one with a higher genetic diversity than many others, most likely.

In order to increase the chances of getting the largest number of such ancient lineages in one such household, they almost have to live in an area like southern Ethiopia or Kenya where the largest number of these can be found in proximity. It must be a poor country also, or the mother could avoid having so many children. So a mother with five or six or more of these primary genetic types in her children living with her, but not adopted, is almost certainly one of the poorest (and most diseased) households in the world. The population of such households would not likely have an average life expectancy of more than thirty-five. Their average income per-capita would not likely be more than one-percent of that of many wealthy and low-diversity countries. If genetic diversity could be good for people, the highest diversity mother-and-children groups would not be in the bottom one-percent on any indicator of human well-being (that is objective). Yet there is no reason to believe that such a population is much better off than that.

An anti-diversity policy is also not called for. We don't need to raise money to pay women to get sterilized who have rare genetic diversity status and were discovered in the Turkana basin of northern Kenya, for example. But if such a policy were to attract private donors and willing diversity-carriers there is no reason to be especially against it. Unless, that is, such people have value for study of human origins and the development of the species. But, if they do, that is another way of saying that the diversity-rarities of that kind are considered the primordial and backward, more than others.

Now, the relevant 'experiment', but (in this case) involving artificial insemination, must be considered if pro-diversity is true. Seeing that a number of professors, students and government officials are conspicuously pro-diversity, could any of them be interested personally in a sperm bank which contains rare genetic diversity specimens? The samples are drawn, if possible, from the groups that have the most genetic diversity. These would be the Bushmen of the Kalahari desert, the Pygmies of Central Africa, the Turkana of Kenya, the Oromo of Ethiopia, and a few others.

Can we then find any of the pro-diversity promoters who would like to do this? Obviously only a few would be in a position to do so. What if some of these women would do it? Would good results be expected, or not? Pro-diversity would have to say that the women, who are uncommonly intelligent, would get good results with ultra-diversity offspring. But this is so very unlikely happen, and that is what explains why no very smart women would volunteer for such a project. It demonstrates also that pro-diversity is a dishonest belief. If it were honestly believed then we could find at least hundreds of bright women who would seriously want to receive the genetic diversity for the benefit of their (unconceived) children. If diversophiles cannot, any of them, want this diversity personally, why should anyone else?

A similar project may be proposed for cultural diversity. Children can be adopted from uncommon language communities overseas, in groups such that a rare language (or even a very rare new creolized language) is established on a different continent. Would anyone actually want to do this in the sense of maintaining the language? If no one, not even the most pro-diversity, could want to do it, how can they say cultural diversity is a fit value for man? No doubt they are willing to ask others to maintain a rare language in a new viable colony, but if they are honest in their pro-diversity, how can they be themselves unwilling, every one of them?

Further, who would expect that a rare language colony would do better than the major language community of an advanced country? Yet pro-diversity predicts that it would be that way, not just in some odd instance, but consistently so. But the facts indicate the opposite. America is known as a 'language graveyard' for that very reason.

It can also be observed where language diversity is highest and noted whether the predictions of pro-diversity fit the facts. The island of New Guinea has around one-thousand languages which are full languages, not dialects. Can this really be any help to the development of that island? Some of the highest murder rates in the world are found there.

Does diversity of languages on New Guinea reflect the persistence of Stone Age technology and other customs of that vintage? Does it mean also that no roads had been built into the interior of the island, until recent decades? Would other places, believing that diversity is strength, demolish their internal road networks in order to gain the linguistic diversity that New Guinea has? If it took a long time for that to happen, would they not be willing to invest in diversity long-term, assuming that they do believe that diversity is strength and a value to be won even at high costs?

Tropical Africa has fifteen-hundred indigenous languages spoken. Does this factor strengthen or weaken that region? If pro-diversity as a value were true then tropical Africa would be above the world average, not the poorest of all large regions. The difference between the high diversity regions and the other extreme is on the order of a hundred-to-one in favor of the low diversity. These are not exchange rate anomalies; health indicators show the same pattern in the world. Several examples of low-diversity countries are: Japan, Finland, South Korea, Iceland, Uruguay, Ireland and Norway. India, Nigeria, and the Congo each have hundreds of indigenous languages spoken but their per-capita income is less than a dollar or two a day. Why can't diversity uplift these countries?

The same pattern holds in the case of genetic diversity. Tropical Africa has the greatest human genetic diversity, as shown by the number of divergent ancient lineages. This diversity is especially concentrated in the Pygmies, Bushmen, Turkana of Kenya and the Oromo of Ethiopia. The low diversity end is represented by countries like Japan, Iceland, and others such as those mentioned above for low indigenous language diversity. If pro-diversity is a proper value for man, the comparison should be favorable for the high-diversity, but it isn't.

Here are some correlations of high diversity regions in global comparison: least life expectancy, lowest incomes, lowest literacy rates, highest death rates from infectious disease, least years of education, most inadequate housing, most widespread exploitation of child labor, least transport, greatest intensity of parasitization, highest infant mortality, least freedom of speech, least indoor-plumbing, highest malnutrition rates, lowest stature, highest rates of physical handicap, lowest intelligence quotients, plus others too numerous to mention. If pro-diversity were a correct value-representation, these problems would not be found to be at their worst where genetic (and language-cultural) diversity is highest.

***Chapter 13***

There is a gradient towards the equator along which diversity of species, language-and-cultural diversity, and human genetic diversity all tend to increase towards their maximum on the equator. M. Huston in Biological Diversity ('94) mentions that "countries with high GNPs and high standards of living tend to be in the upper latitudes, where diversity is lower than in the tropics, where GNPs and the standard of living are generally lower". And "If one examines the relationship between latitude and agricultural productivity, which is the ecologically relevant component of per-capita income, one finds the same positive relationship". Huston concludes, because of poor soils and other factors leading to less competitive displacement of diversity, that "In general, land with high plant species diversity is not a good candidate for profitable agriculture or even for productive forestry". But pro-diversity predicts the opposite of all this.

One possible explanation of this increase of problems towards the equator is intensity of parasitization. Suppose that human life in Equatorial Africa has required a genetic adaptation that specializes towards reacting to parasites. Assume that the human immune system can emphasize only one or the other of two specializations genetically: immediate hypersensitivity or delayed-type hypersensitivity. The immediate kind is best for reacting to parasites, the delayed type is superior for long-lasting infections of virus and bacteria. The specialization for delayed-typed hypersensitivity is assumed further to have become possible (and advantageous) only with populations which have escaped numerous parasites, by having moved far outside the tropics. Yet, in doing so, they had become more vulnerable to infectious disease, as they began to live with herd animals, and then in towns and cities, in such a way that the genetic specialization to delayed hypersensitivity became more intensified. All through this process the genetic diversity declines further from its peak in the equatorial region (to continue on these assumptions).

Consider that the newborn infant, while lacking antibodies (immediate hypersensitivity), is able to be immunized for tuberculosis, which requires delayed-type hypersensitivity. The stronger genetically the infant's delayed-type hypersensitivity response, the better it can control the infectious agents which colonize it at this time. Fevers, illnesses of little consequence to an adult, can be damaging to an infant and especially to its rapidly developing brain. On this theory, then, a population which escapes the diversity of tropical parasites, and loses the human genetic diversity that it would have retained by staying on the equator, is not a loser, but may gain greatly for it.

On the basis of the genetic diversity value-representation, though, we should expect to find the next great geniuses among the Bushmen, the pygmies, or in southern Ethiopia. It is in those populations that the greatest genetic diversities of humans are to be found. Yet, by all the most objective standards, there has been no appearance of great genius out of the high-diversity populations. In the low-diversity populations, however, the great prizes keep piling up. If the pro-diversity were an honest belief, colleges would be sending scouts out to the equatorial strongholds of high genetic diversity with offers of rich scholarships to be won. They would never doubt that their best students would come from those fastnesses of human mutational diversity.

These small high-diversity groups aren't accused by the pro-diversity of practicing inbreeding. But it has been suggested that groups as large as races are 'inbred'. Here the pro-diversity, as anti-dominant, seeks to promote admixture, hoping to eliminate traits that they consider to be dominant. Since inbreeding is neither good nor bad in itself, it depends entirely on what is inherited, pro-diversity can be for inbreeding in groups that are weak. At the same time, this anti-dominant value-representation can condemn marriage between people of the same race, no matter how large it is, and call it 'inbreeding' even, so long as that race is what they would consider dominant.

But the real threshold of inbreeding is at the level of first-cousin marriage, not second-cousins, and most certainly not on the level of races. People of the same race might have a common ancestor, but he is thousands or tens of thousands of years back. These 'dominant' populations are the ones that would have genetic attributes that are advantageous to the future of the species more than others. Yet whatever tends to cripple a dominant population is pro-diversity.

Now compare the attitude of pro-diversity towards the weakest high-diversity populations. These are to be 'protected' from admixture by any means up to, and even including, literal inbreeding. The rare mutant recessive trait is the genetic diversity (that is to be protected by inbreeding). The use of first-cousin breeding, or even closer than that, allows more than a thousand-fold increase in the chances of maintaining the trait in a pure form. The fact that these rare recessive mutations (to functioning genes) are to be considered harmful is no object. Whatever tends to harm a dominant species is pro-diversity. Further, there is no degree of inbreeding that pro-diversity could oppose, so long as it serves the maintenance of rare human genetic traits in a population that is least capable of becoming dominant (i.e. relative to other human populations).

Therefore, it is proven that pro-diversity has no basis to accuse its detractors of being for human inbreeding. Pro-diversity is, and must be, for inbreeding, but those who do not acknowledge any diversity-value don't need to be. In fact, they can easily be against human inbreeding because the rare mutant recessive trait is the diversity that they have no reason to regard as a value in itself. They have no reason to value the inbreeding that would bring out the rare mutation.

With plant and animal breeding, considerable inbreeding is used to obtain the desirable trait. Then other extremely inbred lineages are mixed in, to get relief from the inbreeding depression that has set in by then. The 'hybrid vigor' refers to this small step away from the extreme inbreeding that is used in the same lineages. 'Hybrid corn' comes from this extreme process of inbreeding that is almost the total opposite of open-pollinated corn (in terms of degree of inbreeding). The inbreeding can be good or bad depending on whether a desired trait or a harmful piece of diversity, such as a lethal mutation, is present.

Those who disbelieve the diversity value-representation are not known to be for inbreeding programs for people. No matter how desirable a human trait may be, it is not known to be practical to breed for it deliberately over the many generations necessary. The existence of human volition makes impractical any such plan. There is no reason to believe that those who do not see the 'diversity-value' are also inclined to set up a desirable-traits' human breeding program. But even if some of them were so inclined, it is not certain that they would be wrong, if it were possible to recruit one generation after another for it without compulsion, and avoid other drawbacks of it.

Pro-diversity is against such a program, not because it is impractical, but because they feel that it threatens to set loose new dominant populations over against the diversity. Yet, in order to be regarded as a threat, it must first be shown to be practical. The use of inbred or cloned (or low-diversity) agricultural species does not in itself result in the extermination of their wild ancestors. Such a result is even less likely in the case of human beings. Child bearing has a significance to a couple that is quite apart from the wish for desirable traits, or diversity for that matter.

Pro-diversity may value any method, including extreme inbreeding, to get (or preserve) genetic diversity. In this connection, consider that there is a recent development in science called 'lethal mutagenesis'. It uses mutagens to push, for example, a colony of viruses over the threshold where they can no longer reproduce, because there are so many mutations. But mutations are new diversity and would be a value (if diversity can be such). Therefore, pro-diversity cannot be opposed to the use of lethal mutagenesis against any species or breeding group that is not rare or endangered. Consider the blacks as a breeding group; can pro-diversity be against the partial sterilization of most of the blacks by lethal mutagenesis? If it increased the diversity, but greatly reduced their total population, on what principle could pro-diversity oppose this? Certainly not by saying that pro-diversity applies to one large race but not another.

This proves that pro-diversity is morally compatible with the most extreme forms of racial violence. Not only could pro-diversity have no objection to such a racial mass-murder plan, it would have to call it good, if it increased the diversity (by mutagenesis effects persisting in the survivors). This also proves that pro-diversity is not anti-racist, although it has often been presented as if it were.

***Chapter 14***

Pro-diversity advocates have been asking for conservation of breeding groups like races, not just endangered species. According to R. Vrijenhoek in Ethics on the Ark "… mixing may lead to outbreeding depression". Also, "…we don't know if the striping patterns on the bodies and tails of tiger subspecies… might be correlated with differences that are of adaptive significance". On the other hand, "if we do not have sufficient space in zoos to preserve genetic variation in all five sub-species of tigers, we might consider hybridizing the sub-species to create an archetypal tiger. This strategy would potentially maintain the total genetic diversity".

The objective would seem to be conservation of total genetic diversity, not necessarily races (as such). The breeding group is a container of diversity, not a value in itself. Therefore pro-diversity is not against the destruction of those containers if the total diversity were to be increased, or better maintained, thereby. But if a species (or race) is a good protector of the total diversity, then pro-diversity must defend it. Therefore pro-diversity is not against the segregation of races, if this is the means of furthering the total diversity. Yet pro-diversity has been presented as the anti-racist value-representation that we simply can't do without.

Those who are not pro-diversity, who would insist on universal standards (regardless of the effects on particular races) are said by the pro-diversity to be the racist types. Disregarding the racial characters, then, is what a theory of racism would ask for? Yet, now it is clear that pro-diversity can easily endorse segregation of races, and quite often does. In Biodiversity Crisis, Ehrlich and Levin say "biodiversity (genetic diversity) within a particular species helps it survive or evolve into one or more new species" and "biodiversity sometimes refers to the number of geographically separate populations of a particular species".

For pro-diversity, then, race is important and race is a value; sub-species does equal race. "Diversity-value' is about sustained genetic diversity, not so much the fleeting diversity of individuals and short-term populations. The only way to preserve diversity is to preserve the relatively weak that would otherwise lose out. Diversity has to mean diversity from strength or from long-term viability (in the context of pro-diversity). This is why pro-diversity never asks for protection of real value. Instead it offers things that are becoming rarer (for a reason) as if weakness or failure could be a value. The failing is set up like a value, while the success is denounced as a threat to diversity. But people don't commonly value diversity as such and should not permit their governments to act pro-diversity. Since the governments don't own the people and the planet, it is not their right to favor diversity.

Yet the governments are moving defiantly pro-diversity, as if the increase of weakness in the world were their ruling principle. Anti-merit policies are so subversive and so widespread, that it seems we must soon have to pay a really fearsome price for them. The spread of AIDS also in the world could be a foretaste of what is to come. It is not by diversity of weakness and failure that we are able to counter threats of this kind.

What would this mean in the economy? Does pro-diversity also have to try to value diversity of technology, regardless of whether it is productive or not? Must we have wooden water mills alongside power plants, and hand-looms, and pony-express mail delivery, and so on, all subsidized for the sake of diversity? A diversity of medical technologies also would seem to be required. Witch doctors drilling holes in people's skulls would have 'diversity-value'. So would the idea that sex with a virgin cures AIDS. A hospital could improve its standing by 'diversity-value' if it gave some people animal sacrifice rather than necessary drugs. These examples represent the diversity that has been used, or is even still out there.

But diversity need not in every case make us poorer. Sometimes increased diversity is caused by the wealth of a society, or by a more abundant environment. Yet one does not speak of a society as being rich with a diversity of jewel-thieves. It has become common for diversity to be called a kind of 'riches'. No place is literally rich with a diversity of false ideas or congenitally disease-susceptible physical types. But, if it is rich, a country can support more of these for longer than a poor country could. The luxury items you spend money on don't make you rich. Likewise the diversity that a society supports doesn't make it rich. It impoverishes that society, the more diversity it has just to support. The pro-diversity is also for socioeconomic class diversity. If a locale has a uniformly prosperous population now, accommodation of diversity from that will necessarily bring the average standard down. But if an area has an unusually low average class level, who will ask them to change their policies to accommodate the dominant, the pro-diversity?

The term 'diversification of investments' does not refer to diversifying downwards. It means balancing one risk with a similar risk in a different direction. It might mean balancing the inflation risk of bonds with the business cycle risk of stocks, or real estate. It doesn't mean diversifying by going below investment grade, or imagining that risk is reduced by buying a large number of different bankrupt companies' paper. The more diversified the portfolio, in the literal and unlimited sense, the larger the proportion of defaulted bonds and defunct companies stock it must contain. So the analogy with 'diversification of investments', as supposedly supporting the diversity-value representation, does not follow at all.

In the nature of the case, diversity 'value' has to mean diversifying towards lower value. If this were not so, it would not need to be 'valued' for diversity's sake, it would not need to be supported, protected, or especially tolerated. Yet diversity is offered as an object of special consideration, one with needs and claims even beyond all others. It is offered in this way precisely because such diversity requires support and, indeed, the special tolerance. Diversity is presented as if it could be an end-in-itself precisely because it then means weakness, it means anti-merit. If the public does not become much less supportive of this, they will grow 'rich' with very destructive parasites.

But diversity is the spice of life, it is said by almost the entire government professorate and regulated media. Variety could easily be the necessary spice of decadent life, but pro-diversity is the subversion of life's progress. Further, spices in greatly excessive quantities are like pepper-spray weapons. This analogy with spices doesn't prove that any 'diversity-value' can exist. It doesn't prove anything, any more than the analogy with the pepper-spray weapons proves that diversity is necessarily an evil. Pro-diversity is like the exoticism that drives intercontinental sex-tourism, it has that level of moral advancement.

Pro-diversity is an excuse for choosing what is below standard. The diversity-value representation also sets up a false value by which mass altruism can be promoted. It is derivative of altruistic moral theory, while being in a way independent of it. The pro-diversity value-representation appeals to biology to some extent for its justification, unlike the traditional altruism, which would derive from a mystic sense of duty. Its politics is implicitly totalitarian, everything that even slightly reduces the diversity is a crisis requiring compulsory interventions by the government. Pro-diversity looks like an attempted justification for the establishment of dictatorship. Even if there is a rain forest crisis, or a black-race-crisis how could it justify the resort to dictatorship, which has only mass-murder to its 'credit'?

***Chapter 15***

The chief use of the term 'diversity' presently is racial and ethnic diversity in employment, school admissions and the like. It means not only that diversity is a possible value, but something further. It means that some racial or other genetic characteristics bring something of value to a place that uses anti-merit policies to bring them in. Diversity as a value-representation, in this case, means also that ideas can be transmitted genetically and in a racially patterned way. This, however, is the proper definition of racism. Governments do not hesitate to establish this as state religion. Yet, these same governments, and their unpaid agents, also insist that race is not an important attribute.

If race is unimportant, then no 'diversity-value' of race is possible. If ethnicity is unimportant, no ethnic 'diversity-value' is even possible. If ethnicity is language, race and customs, can there at least be 'diversity-value' of customs? Not if diversity of customs includes all sorts of evil customs such as: slavery, cannibalism, suttee (wife-burning), human sacrifice, torture, foot-binding, mutilations (like clitorectomy), despotism, pogroms, untouchability, forced conversions, religious wars, terrorism, bribe taking, lynching and omerta. If, the greater the rarity of such customs, the greater their 'diversity-value', they can't be dismissed as irrelevant, marginal elements of diversity.

This contradiction-in-terms blazes out from the pro-diversity: race is unimportant (and so is ethnicity), so let's have less prejudice. At the same time, the pro-diversity insists on the importance of race (and ethnicity), since racial and ethnic 'diversity-value' are asserted. Race can't be irrelevant if 'diversity-value' of race can arise at all. Further, this implies the inheritance of racial mentalities, since the pro-diversity can see no need for a test of the presence of these racial (and ethnic) mentalities, they are automatically assumed to be present.

The professorate, in the pay of government officials, has not seen any need to offer evidence or argument for this position (that ideas are inherited genetically and racially). They see no need to argue (against the evidence) that ideas are not too numerous and complex to have any chance of being carried by the genes. They find it convenient to play along with such an establishment of state religion and just make ad hominem accusations against any dissenters. Different races have different ideas because they have different genes, or so claims the state religion of pro-diversity. Different ideas are said to be of value because they are different, not because they are better by any standard.

So, pro-diversity as a general 'standard of value' is involved. But it is also specifically about biodiversity, the diversity of genes and the racial patterns of genetic difference. These differences matter because they are said, by the pro-diversity, to program racially differing ideas genetically. No loyalties or convictions are chosen (on this metaphysics), they are biologically programmed.

Yet, if ideas are programmed, how can it be in any way unfair for one biological group to have more (or less) than another? Here the official line calls for a further act of faith. Even though ideas that are just programmed biologically (if they could be such) cannot be said to matter, the idea that each group should get its quota some how does matter, and has magical truth to it.

Pro-diversity advocates often say much about equality, by which they mean that all groups are equal, especially biological groups. To the state-religion of diversity anti-merit policies working against an individual are perfectly fair and just. What matters to them is that the biological groups come out equal. Pro-diversity is collectivistic in its metaphysics and in every other way. The species and race groups are what they believe really exist, not the individuals. Knowledge is to them a property of the biological groups, something like a 'race-soul', and so is morality. Politics and even artworks are made out to represent these groups, but not the individuals.

Pro-diversity also implies diversity from individualism, which this state-religion considers a racial property that certain minorities have no right to assimilate towards. The pro-diversity apparently believe that certain racial types have individualism, and refuse to tolerate such attitudes amongst the minorities that they classify as genetically programmed to be collectivistic.

Pro-diversity also means being for what is diverse from such rationality that allows only one right answer, in order to allow for the full diversity of irrational answers. Pro-diversity then means also to choose the irrational. It would even include the overt contradiction-in-terms of saying it is rational to choose the irrational, since the diversity consists also of that. Where there is only one correct answer for X, pro-diversity says we must choose any number of different values for X, regardless of the effect on truth. The wrong answers can't be criticized as wrong, but the one right answer can be criticized as hostile to the diversity. Therefore, necessarily, pro-diversity is opposed to all truth and all rationality.

This being the truth, how can it be expected that pro-diversity in recruitment will allow for a rational environment in workplaces or schools? If one person is chosen, not because they're better by any objective standard, but because they are different from those who have performed well, what value can come from that? It is a case of pro-diversity-in-action to choose an applicant who is sub-standard because he is from a different background (than those who would meet the normal standard). The below-standard applicant is said to bring a different experience, a different background or pattern of ideas. He is known to be different, but in what way? The sub-standard applicant is known to be different in that he is below the standard that is required of the 'non-diverse' applicants. By definition the 'non-diverse' are those who meet a standard that does not apply to the 'diversity' applicant.

When a universal standard applies to all applicants no one is accepted for their 'diversity'. 'Diversity' as a goal therefore has to mean that one group has a lower standard to meet than another. Therefore, also, a pro-diversity society is an anti-merit society. If diversity could be a value in choosing applicants, then value could be added by choosing those who were below the standard of the single most productive group. If the single most productive group means those who met the standards that are to be diversified away from, then going outside that group (to acquire diversity), is necessarily to bring the standards down. In any case, value is not going to be added by bringing the standards down.

Yet Bowen and Bok, in the Shape of the River, say that there is a "pressing need for greater diversity at all levels of responsibility" and that "evidence of this recognition is provided by the actions of leaders". But if the actions of leaders are evidence of the acceptability of a policy, then political leaders (such as dictators) who practiced mass-murder policies have by such actions proven the acceptability of their crimes. 'The leaders are getting away with it', is not a moral argument. Apparently, one is supposed to be intimidated that they are leaders and you, perhaps, are not. But if we have moral principles and the 'leaders' do not, there is no reason to grant moral authority to them. If such leaders who act pro-diversity still deserve our respect for other reasons, it might be noted that they could be acting under compulsion from the government. Likewise, it is not a moral argument to say 'everybody does it'. If it is not literally true, or needn't be, then it is anti-moral to say 'everybody does it, why can't we?'

Diversity of race is not diversity of ideas; only racism (strictly defined) would make ideas out to be genetically coded by race. In any case, ideas are not better by being different from one another. But those who are for diversity in employment say that this diversity can be of great value to help to "understand the markets in which many companies sell", to quote Bowen and Bok again. Does this mean a company would be right to reject a non-diverse applicant because he might be assumed to be racially unable to "understand the markets", which have the characteristics of diversity? Pro-diversity often insists that there are 'race-souls' that supposedly also can govern market conditions. The candidate of greater merit, then, can be assumed to be racially unfit to understand a market that is outside of his own background. To the pro-diversity, racial bias is quite acceptable, so long as it is anti-dominant.

Pro-diversity in employment also has to mean diversifying away from productivity. If diversity-representatives were on the same level of productivity there would be no need to promote them on the basis of their 'diversity'. It is only if they are inferior on the basis of any relevant standard, that they could be needed just for the sake of 'diversity'.

This can be seen in practice through the government policies that reject any standard by which certain racial and ethnic groups might differ. According to the government, any standard that generates what they call 'disparate impact' must be rejected in favor of racial preference. If literacy beyond the fifth-grade level is absent in half of one racial group, but in only fifteen percent of a 'dominant' group, then that literacy standard is illegal, and must be replaced by racial preference (for the diversity). The requirements of the position are irrelevant, according to these mystic officials, only race exists.

If this is the attitude of those who are pro-diversity doesn't it follow that the diversity value-representation is subversive of all standards, even the lowest? Without universal standards, what do we have but double-standards and, in effect, no standards at all? Thank goodness most people are in defiance of this tendency of pro-diversity which would turn the entire society into a raging bedlam of murder and looting. The courts that dreamed up these policies must want exactly that sort of war, and that degree of damage. They are not, even remotely, the most mediocre people ever to enact public policy, but little intelligence is required to see the ultimate result. Therefore, those who set up these policies of racial patronage and pro-diversity must want the race war that is so likely to follow. It sets up conflicts which no concepts or principles can resolve, being below the level of concepts.

On the premise of multiculturalism, according to Peter Schwartz in the Return of the Primitive: "If a community decides it does not like a certain jury verdict - or a supermarket's price of milk - what course of action will it pursue? It will see only that one tribe has been aggrieved by another and will choose violent retribution as its response". Because, "if reasons, arguments and logic are 'cultural biases' - then all human interaction reduces ultimately to the wishes, and the weapons, of one tribe versus those of another". The above arguments demonstrate that numerous government officials are trying to foment a race war.

If 'affirmative action' means alternative welfare for racial-patronage quota placeholders (though not necessarily in every case), does pro-diversity really have to call for this? If it doesn't, why is the term diversity used to mean programs that bring in people who would not be accepted on a universal (merit) standard? The government would have us believe that racial conspiracies are what prevents 'disadvantaged minorities' from getting their quota. The courts then are guilty of establishing this state religion; that racial conspiracies keep minorities down. It would have to be conspiracies doing it, otherwise how would giant corporations maintain secret policies to reject minorities? The government requires only that this be alleged, once it is shown that a minority is below quota, no proof at all is necessary. The conspiracies are just assumed to exist, on faith, by government decree. This should be considered a clear-cut case of establishment of religion.

Yet the courts also say that they reject quotas. By this, do they mean that they do not intend to have government officials staff the personnel and admissions offices directly to administer quotas? Or do they mean that places are getting away with not filling their quotas, so that there is no enforcement going on to the extent that they would call it quotas? If a place tries too hard to fill its quota, are they also in any real danger? Are they in danger of more than having to suspend their quotas long enough to become vulnerable to a lawsuit by the minorities? One wouldn't say there is no speed limit on the road just because it is not strictly enforced. The failure to catch every murderer does not mean that there are no laws against murder. Places that violate their racial quotas can get a 'ticket' in the form of a lawsuit, and sometimes more than that. Therefore the quotas are in effect, just as the speed limits and laws against murder are.

This is the point where the pro-diversity idea comes in, as an official doctrine. The courts said that diversity is a legitimate value for an organization, and for the government to enforce. Diversity, they established as a new state religion, is a value that allows also for the selective enforcement of racial quotas. Yet the enforcers of the quotas can themselves also be penalized for the over-zealous enforcement of them. No proof has been offered of what pro-diversity is able to achieve (beyond its own actualization). It is considered quite enough to say that diversity is desired by the government.

Diversity as an anti-merit policy is to be regarded as good even though it directly contradicts a real value; human merit. This is why, also, it may be called a state religion; it sacralizes a contradiction. To state it directly; that it is a human value to be against human value. Or, more generally; that being different from having greater value is the same as having greater value. It must be that way, because 'diversity-value' is only needed to justify the case where greater value (or even equality) cannot be claimed.

Abstractly, the relation is that between value and anti-value, with pro-diversity in the role of anti-value. Pro-diversity is about the relation between two alternatives, one of which is the higher value. The establishment of pro-diversity as a state religion is also the establishment of an anti-merit society. No society can be anti-merit in the absolute sense, it would fail to survive in that case. But how bad can it be and still survive?

One of the landmark cases of pro-diversity and the anti-merit society's establishment is that of Bakke in 1978. This is the case where the Supreme Court established 'diversity' by decree as an official 'value' and supposedly also outlawed racial quotas in the United States. Bakke sued a state medical school because he was better qualified than some minorities who got in. He won the case and was accepted. But there was also a black student accepted, named Chavis, who had taken Bakke's place on a racial preference basis, and who became a physician from that school. Chavis' career, serving a minority area with few physicians, was made a symbol of how affirmative action quotas can achieve results that an all-merit system would never be able to accomplish.

But then the Medical Board of California had to suspend his license to practice medicine. Chavis took a course to prepare to practice liposuction. When patients had uncontrolled bleeding from liposuction apparently having been done improperly, Chavis would hide them in his home or office, rather than let them go to the hospital. One patient lost more than two-thirds of her blood before she was allowed to seek competent medical care at a hospital. Chavis left her to bleed for almost two days before acquiescing to her hospitalization. Apparently Chavis panicked that other doctors (at the hospital) would discover his incompetence. Another patient had the same experience, and also somehow survived it. But a third patient who came to the attention of licensing officials, died of massive bleeding, having been left unattended by Chavis for hours, while he evidently ran out in a panic, fearing that his inability was about to become widely known. The victim's husband had to find her and take her to the hospital, but her heart had stopped and she was dead before she got there.

A doctor who had worked with Chavis turned in tape recordings of patients screaming in pain while Chavis accused them of lying about it, and tried to shut them up. Instead of the victim's suffering, his concern seemed to be only whether people would find out how unworthy he was. This was a physician who had been celebrated in major newspapers, and in the United States' Senate as the proof of success of affirmative action and 'diversity-as-a-value'. Chavis was supposed to be the selfless ghetto physician, the diversity success-story. A merit system would have spared us the death and disasters he caused.

But how many other Chavises are there, whose names, never having been celebrated in the first instance, are less likely to come to the attention of the general public? Pro-merit says we should expect many more Chavises than pro-diversity would. Pro-diversity would seem to be unable to hear the screams, or see the blood, of Chavis' victims. It is not embarrassed by the injustice done to Bakke, but would seem to be saying: just don't make it too obvious that you are using a racial quota. If pro-diversity is moral at all, how could it so cynically cover-up for these outrages? Yet here is the exact case, Bakke (and the class of Chavis), where diversity was officially set up as if it could be a reasonable value.

A list of hundreds, or even thousands, of Chavises would not really show us how pro-diversity operates in the more typical case. Therefore, we must turn to the statistics. From Herrnstein and Murray's Bell Curve: "At ten highly selective law schools… the average black was in the bottom 1% of the white distribution". In medical schools they find "the average entering black medical student at the 8^th to 10^th percentile of the white distribution" of scores. For graduate school applicants taking the Graduate Record Examination, they found "blacks at the 10^th to 12^th percentile of the white distribution". For twenty-six top colleges, they record the "average black at about the 10^th percentile of white students". Also "universities today cannot publish the data on their admitted students and hope to persuade the public (or specialists in education) that their policies are reasonable".

If these are not the marks of an anti-merit society, what would be? Still, one could say that test scores might not be so meaningful. If they were not, though, then IQ scores should also go sharply up after severe brain damage, not just decline. Large groups of young children would sometimes get higher average raw scores than adults, when both groups were representative of their age groups, but that never happens. IQ tests would have no use in medicine for determining the extent of dementia. Tests of AIDS patients would as often show IQ's going up from HIV damage (as going down).

Children with physical indications of Down's Syndrome (mongolism) would as often be above average on IQ tests, but that doesn't happen. Also the age gradations would not smoothly rise for each year on the tests given to children. People who are drugged in a mentally incapacitating way would not get consistently lower scores.

Likewise, the measured conceptual ability is not social rank resurfacing in a different form. If it could be, brain injury as from a permanently damaging blow, or a life-threatening infection, or a temporarily drug-induced state would not bring it down. The newly-brain-damaged do not acquire new parents or backgrounds by that means.

The conceptual ability when correctly tested is a measured biological faculty, arising from its own internal program of development. Lead poisoning would not cause IQ's to decline more than it would cause them to rise, if no significant biological attribute were referred to by IQ. Low-IQ mothers would not be five times more likely to give birth to low-birth-weight babies than high-IQ mothers, regardless of the background socio-economic status of either. Also, low-IQ mothers would not be ten times more likely to have a child in the lowest ten percent of IQ's than high-IQ mothers (almost) regardless of the background socio-economic status of either. Young men who have been in prison would not be a dozen times more likely to be of low IQ (than high) regardless of the background (parental) socio-economic status of either. IQ's would not accurately predict college class ranks or job success, if it were not a meaningful measure. Parents with money would be able to buy education sufficient to put their low-IQ  children through college, at a similar rate as the high-IQ students, but they aren't really able to, to any great degree. Twins would not turn out duller or brighter according to which was lighter or heavier at birth. Also, fetal alcohol and drug syndromes would not be found together with low conceptual abilities (more than the opposite case). Deafness in infants would not be associated with low-IQ more than high, in later years. The low scorers would not be much more likely to be left back in school than others, but they are.

If diversity were a reasonable value-possibility, then a company could recruit a diversity of intelligence levels, including the lowest, in large numbers, and not suffer for it. Yet as David Hu, in Asian Week, asks: "would you fly in an airplane from a company whose motto is, 'we put diversity first?' " If pro-diversity were valid, the less community of language in a place of business, the better off that business would be. A school would still have applicants willing to pay, even though no two students spoke the same language, if pro-diversity were valid. They could also have all levels of IQ that are found in the general population represented, even the rare ones on the low end, and be better at developing the intellects of their students for it. Or, at least they could have the diversity on the low end, but the high end might become very quickly unavailable to such a school.

If diversity is a legitimate value, more diversity is better, is it not? Less diversity would be worse, and least diversity, such as everyone speaking the same language at a school would be worst of all. If something like racial quotas is necessary in a multiracial society, as the pro-diversity is inclined to say, then diversity is bad for that society (which can't get by without such aggression by the government). This involves a contradiction for the pro-diversity, how can diversity be both good and bad in that sense?

Yet affirmative action also calls itself 'diversity-management' as if diversity could be a value for a human institution (as such). They do not mean diversity is to be managed in the sense of limiting the diversity. What they mean is more nearly the opposite of that. Anti-merit is so obviously a rejection of values that it needs a cover-name like 'diversity-management'.

Pro-diversity sets up diversity of disability as a value. Ability is dominant, disabilities are the diversity, and pro-diversity has to be anti-dominant. Dominance is about ability to dominate even more than it is about the actuality of dominance at one time, according to the pro-diversity. Therefore, necessarily, pro-diversity is anti-merit and pro-disability.

Pro-diversity does insist that government must intervene to keep employers and schools from rejecting diversity. This could be taken as an admission that genetic diversity is not good for those places, but must be forced on them (likewise in the case of cultural diversity). Isn't this an establishment of religion, for the government to impose genetic diversity as a (false) value on employers? If there is no rational basis for it, and it is implicitly admitted that genetic diversity is not good for those who have it forced on them, what else could it be?

Employers are not zookeepers, so on what basis could genetic diversity on their staff be a value to them? If the government's objective is to set off a race war, such racial preference policies are an efficient means of moving towards that goal. Another possible motivation could be that it allows the government to enlarge the alternative welfare caseload. Yet, like street crime, the costs are not very evenly spread, but are concentrated on certain slower-moving victims. That effect alone can push business expansion towards low-diversity areas.

If the parasitization on employers is heavy in the high-diversity area, and much lower in the low-diversity area, and the employees' pay is a sizable percentage of the total costs, mustn't this drive the expansion towards the low-diversity region? Won't this cause an increased reliance on public subsidy in the high-diversity district? Can't such a process even snowball and lay waste to one jurisdiction after another?

But pro-diversity (anti-merit) people say move the affirmative-action cases out to where the jobs are, or force corporations to expand towards the diversity, or both. Yet, if diversity could be a value to employers, why the desperate measures by government to bring diversity-carriers and employers into a relationship? If the employers have no reason to run away from the diversity, why would government officials want to run after them with guns?

How could the market conditions 'conspire' to reward the firms that flee fastest from the diversity and punish those who are stuck with it? Isn't it an establishment of religion to try to enforce the premise that such market conditions do involve a racial conspiracy? If an idea has nothing but government money behind it, yet has courts and legislatures intervening to impose it, is that establishment of religion or not?

How can there be a rational argument to support the belief in the (conscious or unconscious) racial conspiracies? Such conspiracies would not be demonstrable aggression either, if 'racial boycotts' is what they mean. What would the act of aggression consist of, the spreading of words of disvaluation on the subject of a racial group? But such words cannot be shown to be the cause of any physical damage. Some of the words that are said to be 'aggression' in themselves may be true.

Problems associated with 'diversity' are not state secrets, and should not be treated as such. If the problem is aggression, this is necessarily a public affair. It is not an area of privacy, when, by definition, the area of aggression is the public realm. It is not aggression to carry out a boycott. No one's property is damaged by a boycott, so long as it is not enforced by acts of demonstrable aggression. The willingness of the general public to deal with you is not your property; if it could be, how could anyone prove that?

Racial boycotts are the same as any other kind regarding the possibility of damage to property that someone actually owns. Yet the governments are proceeding as if it had been proven that such damage occurs, and that it causes the below-average condition of various (physical) populations. On the premise of diversity as a 'value', the populations which contribute diversity should not contribute also much more than their share of 'disadvantage'. If it nevertheless happens that they do, it only means that they are 'conspired' against, if diversity would create such 'value'.

With the pro-diversity, it becomes necessary to assume that the diversity-bearing populations, which are also poor, or economically 'disadvantaged', must be conspired against. If this is not assumed, what could explain their 'diversity-value' not expressing itself economically? But this assumption is dangerous to promote, not only because it is false, but because it leads to conflicts up to and including race war.

Yet such dangers do not stop the governments from promoting such conspiracy theories. On the contrary, they rely on them as state religion, knowing that the result could be massively violent racial conflict. Likewise, the diversity-bearing populations which are culturally or educationally 'disadvantaged' are conspired against (on the pro-diversity premise). If it is not so, what could account for their "diversity-value" not expressing itself educationally (or culturally)? For a step in the direction of rationality, the pro-diversity offers that the racial conspiracies can operate in an 'unconscious' way. By this they mean that it is not deliberate and planned, but that dominants communicate and conspire without any known means of human communication. Therefore no argument or evidence is needed; the failure of "diversity-value" to express itself in cultural or economic advancement is enough to prove that the dominants in some way conspire to keep down that performance.

This follows necessarily from diversity-as-a-value: that failure of diversity to express its 'value' is caused by the dominants acting as if with malice aforethought, to suppress this 'diversity-value'. The diversity and the dominants, are, by definition, in such relation that any failure of the diversity to gain competitively on the dominants is caused by the dominants acting against the diversity. If this relation does not hold, it means only that the dominants and the diversity are not correctly so classified in that comparison. This is the theory of the anti-merit programs; a population that is not dominant (the diversity) would be on the same level as the dominant if it were not for the competitive-exclusion activities of the dominants against the diversity. With nothing but government money behind it, this theory is just established as state religion.

How could it ever be proven that the diversity and the dominants are equal, without the exclusionary activities of the dominants suppressing the diversity? Lamarck's theory of inheritance of acquired characters is not even true in biology, so how can it be applied to people? The diversity, if given a respite from the supposedly suppressive exclusionary activities of the dominants, will not inherit any advantage. Nor will it inherit any relief from the 'disadvantage'. Any policies based on that assumption are guaranteed not to work.

Pro-diversity's claim of equality of all cultures is implicitly a contradiction in terms. It is not an example of superior culture to say that there are no superior cultures. Whatever suppresses the performance of the undeveloped cultures, it cannot be proven to be the existence of the dominant cultures magically suppressing the undeveloped. Conspiracy theories of underdevelopment do not prove that the dominants cause the underdeveloped state of diversity.

Pro-diversity in recruitment also means excluding people because of their race who are better able to contribute to important lines of development. This proves that pro-diversity militates against the progress of civilization. An all-merit system in recruitment would operate in the opposite direction, accelerating the progress of all-civilization.

Pro-diversity says there can be too many of one type recruited, not just too few. Yet, if someone is rejected because the quota open to his race is already filled, he necessarily is rejected because of his race. Pro-diversity necessarily excludes people because of their race, 'too few' of one kind has to mean 'too many' of another classification.

Likewise with school busing for racial integration and such programs: 'too few' of one race means excluding others because of their race and nothing else. Racial busing and its equivalents are racial quota systems that pro-diversity also has to be for. For the pro-diversity, there can be 'too many' of one race at a school, and it doesn't even matter how that happened. What matters for the pro-diversity is to get quotas for that school. Such racial preference policies, imposed by official aggression merely, are certain to cause intensifying racial conflict the longer they are held onto. The fact that young children are involved intensifies the provocation; with no outlet or catharsis available, the pressure just quietly builds to the point where it explodes. Those who set up these racial policies (through the courts) are perfectly aware of the explosive charge that they are causing to accumulate. They know it, and they want it, because it allows for the establishment of dictatorship (that supposedly would be needed to control a national emergency). Officials have chosen race, rather than some other point of division, not in spite of, but because of its high potential to set off internal war. The groups are thus already organized for war; they have on the uniforms that they can't take off.

People can change their religion, or their class or their political ideas, but not their race. When race is chosen by officials as the line upon which antagonism and war is to be developed, this maximizes the possibility for a lengthy and escalating conflict. The groups stay polarized because they can't change their race. On this observation, it would seem that officials have chosen the approach that will give them the most war for their money, or for their tyranny.

To quote the Ayn Rand Letter of April 8^th 1974: "The inversion of all standards - the propagation of racism as anti-racist, of injustice as just, of immorality as moral, and the reasoning behind it, which is worse than the offenses - is flagrantly evident in the policy of preferential treatment for minorities (i.e. racial quotas) in employment and education…" and "If there is a quicker way to destroy people than by preaching brotherly love while spreading blind, interracial hatred, you name it." Pro-diversity does, and must practice all these methods.

Then there are those like Stanley Fish, who claims that "diversity is not a condition that anyone actually desires" (New York Times 12-28-02 p.89). Does this mean that pro-diversity has to involve a dishonest covering-up of its actual goals? There are reputed values like peace, love, brotherhood, equality, altruism, diversity, tolerance, openness, candor, charity and compassion which one could say are never really valued in their literal or extreme meanings. Who could want absolute peace, or pacifism, such that any aggressor would meet with no resistance? How many could desire absolute 'love', as in a radical condition of free love, and all the lethal diseases that would take over along with it? Who could wish for a 'brotherhood' that included even perfect solidarity with the most evil?

Equality is also not likely to be wanted, if it would mean a situation like the Khmer Rouge, in Cambodia, shooting everyone with eyeglasses, just because they might be unequal. And worse: there are further egalitarian policies to be pursued beyond that. Altruism would be mass suicide if taken in an extreme direction. Tolerance, taken to the limit, would have us tolerating anything, no matter how bad. Openness would cause us to be open to any and every evil, if it were practiced as value without limitation. Likewise, candor, charity and compassion can be radicalized into absurd excess. Yet untold millions believe in all (or some) of these doubtful values. They do not believe in them in a radical way, and must often resent any attempts to push them into absolute openness, equality or all of the above. The situation with pro-diversity is the same. Many are willing to say that they value diversity, yet are highly resistant to anyone's trying to push them much further into it.

It follows that pro-diversity does exist, in the same way that pacifism and egalitarianism are said to exist. It is not necessary for there to be any significant number of people actually practicing, or pining for, an absolute pro-diversity. If there can be an egalitarian movement, or a pacifist one, then pro-diversity is not impossible (as a movement in which hypocrisy is permitted). Are there not a great many wealthy and prominent altruists, in spite of the ease with which they can be identified as hypocrites? Don't we have egalitarians of wealth and influence, and who also hold conspicuous titles of distinction?

If there are pacifists who incite riots, then the pro-diversity can also exist. It can still be present, even though, as has been pointed out by scholars, no one can really want it in the literal and unlimited sense.

Given that the pro-diversity can exist at all, the tendencies towards a more radical pro-diversity should be understood. The relevant question is, how do we know that a moderate pro -diversity regime can't snowball into a more radical one? When they have it set up like a value, the necessary result is to say that more of this is better. More altruism would be called better, more equality, more pacifism, more openness, more tolerance, more compassion and more diversity would all be called better. Yet all of these can go to excess with disastrous results.

One group in power can force further moves towards these absurd excesses while remaining more secure than the others within a fortress of hypocrisy. Since they don't have to pay the price themselves, but just force it on others politically, they don't need to care what happens to those who are sacrificed. This is how pro-diversity also can move towards a more radical program; the people who force others towards the pro-diversity goals are not necessarily the same as those who are made to pay the most for it. This possibility introduces a serious instability, one group (the pro-diversity in power), can afford to be as irresponsible as their caprices would ever lead them to be. So long as the false value is not rejected, the tendency is all towards further excesses in the name of the misvalued item. When political power is used, the false value can be refuted ever so thoroughly, yet the political establishment can hold on to it regardless. Government schools are in a position to ignore any refutations of their false values. They can proceed as if not a word had been said against them with nothing to fear except that their funding might be taken away.

If the majority should find such false values are set up over against them, their recourse is only to cut down the political funding of these. There is no need to fear the loss of education, if it is not being given because research and the diversity come first. The less is given to the majority, the greater they should feel the incentive to withdraw support from that which misvalues the diversity. It should not be expected that such cultures will spontaneously change. No refutation is likely to be sufficient to induce a change in a cultural regime that feeds on government. No absurdity is too great for the misvaluers of diversity, so long as they can put the costs onto others. No degree of damage is too devastating, so long as they have it borne mainly by others. Irresponsibility is the privilege of the pro-diversity in power, or in a position of influence. They answer to no one, and especially not to the majority; not when the majority is the dominant that is supposed to be overthrown (in the name of diversity).

If diversity is said to be good for students, then how is it possible for Nobel prizewinners in science to come from schools with no diversity to speak of? If less than half of these prizewinners went to school with students of a different race, how can diversity be considered a value for schools to pursue? The top performers should be most affected by the absence of a necessary ingredient for high achievement. Likewise a desirable or advantageous component should most affect those in the top-performing levels, if it is missing. But if higher education is mostly self-education, as if often the case, then diversity among the students is of no assistance. This is most of all true of those on the highest levels, since those who are behind them can't be their teachers (on this level). Many of these may cultivate a humble and egalitarian style, and will say on questionnaires that they learned as much from the dullest and most drunken of their classmates as from their professors. But these statements are not an appropriate basis for public policy, as comical as they may sometimes be. They are especially not to be relied on when the facts support the opposite conclusion.

What portion of the great works of literature, art or architecture was created by someone who had ever met an Asian or a black, or an aboriginal of America or Australia? May this proportion be assumed to be more than a tenth? If the great works of genius were almost all created without any encountering of diversity, such as that of the races, how can this diversity be called cultural value? Because you can't live with what you don't know? But we can live with the exotic; otherwise diversity would be an evil to us. Those who made the greatest works of human achievement did not know or attend school with people of other races, or very few of them did. If this was no hindrance to them, how could it be one today? Because the facts of history have no bearing on what is willed with all the heart - of government officials?

There are countries in Asia, such as Japan, which have had Nobel prizewinners in science. But there is no diversity (that would be counted as such in the United States today) in their schools. No one would suggest that universities in Japan, South Korea, Taiwan or China should recruit African or Latino-indian students on a racial basis and reasonably expect this to cause their institutions' performance to rise. The pro-diversity would have to ask for precisely this sort of policy. Therefore, they cannot do so reasonably. Yet the pro-diversity in the United States has got such policies enacted; as when students are recruited on a racial-diversity basis. The same is true with companies. Many large corporations in Japan, Taiwan and other countries do business with hundreds of foreign countries, yet have no diversity on their staff. The pro-diversity, apparently believing in mystic race-souls, is bound to say these corporations can't function without the diversity, but they can and do prosper. If zero diversity can surpass high (or higher) diversity, then there is no reasonable argument for the pro-diversity.

If the highest levels of achievement have been found in the context of zero diversity; as in the case of zero racial diversity in cultural and business settings, then it must be even less likely to be important for the middle ranges. The moderate levels of achievement must have lower requirements for value-enhancing circumstances than the highest. Therefore, what racial diversity is required for achievement; doesn't it have to be zero? But it is true that achievement in the study of race would perhaps require some racial diversity. Yet our culture must be more than this; the racial studies encountering their objects.

If we are to have a decent future in terms of race, then the racial studies must be become a smaller and smaller part of our culture. Those that remain must be more and more objective, more scientific and more biological, not less so. The alternative would be to racialize the culture up to and beyond the point where no community beyond race is allowed to dominate. The government and its schools would have us wage race war, even though diversity is not known to be needed for achievement in any area other than the study of racial-genetic diversity itself.

How could the racial diversity cause achievement? If it can, this must mean that the races are fundamentally unequal. If race itself can contribute to achievement, then the races must be unequal in this way. To be pro-diversity , as in the promotion of racial diversity in recruitment, necessarily involves believing that the races are basically different. They must be considered to be unequal in the sense of having different ideas, that are transmitted genetically and through racial channels, if pro-diversity is respected. Yet, again, this is the serious and correct definition of racism: the racial-genetic transmission of ideas.

If racism is to be regarded as a serious matter, then it must have some (serious) definition. It can't be flippantly defined as someone who doesn't want to give to the black man all that possibly could be given. It mustn't be so unseriously defined as to say; a white who believes that blacks are inferior, but not the other possibilities. The more serious a matter racism is to be considered, the more serious the definition should be. Not wanting to give points for race to disadvantaged racial minorities is not a serious definition of racism. If liberalism now means being liberal in the sense of generosity in giving points for race, or freely giving them, this means freedom for official racism, but no freedom from it. The more liberal a country is, in this sense of the term, the closer it is to race war. Giving points for race to one racial group means also taking points away from another race, and the way to take the most points away is to kill them. The further this process of giving racial points is carried, the more likely it is to be seen as war by one of these racial populations.

According to S. Tilghman, speaking for Princeton University, giving points for race is important "for educational reasons and so that we can prepare future leaders who come from a full range of racial and ethnic backgrounds" (New York Times, 2-19-03, P.B6). Apparently, diversity is said to be needed in order to serve diversity, as an end-in-itself. What was to be demonstrated, though, was how there can be value in diversity as such; not just to claim that we need diversity in order to aggrandize the diversity. If the diversity of ethnic and racial types is assumed to be lacking in leaders now, and needs state intervention to get them, does this prove that there is a consensus of officials in despising these minorities? If it is this way, or nearly so, does this indicate an establishment of religion, of official belief that these minorities are that which is to be despised? If a school is so altruistic that it will condescend to educate racially appropriate leaders for these minorities, the government may allow this project to break the rules. Alternatively, the officials may hold to universal principles, and see the threat of balkanization, before it is too late. 

***Chapter 16***

Consider that almost all the independent countries in the world today are the result of partitions that occurred in the context of racial policies. British India had anti-merit policies with a racial coloration to bring in untouchables and 'scheduled tribes' to government employments and so on. But a few years later the imperialist divide-and-conquer policies came to spectacular fruition. A partition of the country, with nearly a million deaths, and tens of millions violently pushed over the new borders, attended the independence festivities (in 1947).

In (British) Malaya authorities had set quota-type policies to prevent Chinese from getting 'too many' places in colleges and government jobs. Then a Chinese insurgency developed, which was violently suppressed, but within five years the country was partitioned into (Chinese) Singapore and Malaysia. The Malaysian government intensified the quota policies against the remaining Chinese and other minorities. In recent years it has been a federal crime to publicly protest the racial policies of Malaysia.

In (British) Nigeria authorities started to use quotas to keep Ibos from getting 'too many' government jobs. Independence occurred a few years later, and native leaders intensified the quota policies. Six years later the Ibos made a coup, but were deposed, except in their area, called Biafra. Over a million people died as a result of the civil war, before Biafra was deliberately starved and put down.

Another symbol of mass death, Bangladesh, came into existence very similarly. In East Pakistan, as it was called then, there were said to be too many West Pakistanis in positions of importance. Quota policies were set up, but this only inflamed the conflicts, which culminated in 1971 with secession. A typhoon hit about the same time, giving the new country, Bangladesh, a name like that of Biafra.

In Sri Lanka representatives of the majority decided that the Tamil minority had too many places in certain occupations, especially those requiring considerable education. Quotas were established, and tightened in 1973 and 1974, in such a way as to virtually exclude the Tamils. Tamil secessionist warfare started, with effective partition of the country accomplished about a decade later. According to Thomas Sowell, in Preferential Policies, "Sri Lanka has become almost a textbook example of how even unusually amicable relations between two groups can, within one generation, be turned into implacable hostility, violence, and ultimately civil war, simply by the politicization of race and ethnicity".

Pro-diversity is very largely a cover-name for the "politicization of race and ethnicity". The government is not likely to say that it is fomenting race war in order to aggrandize its power, but officials can say that their racial policies are pro-diversity. Their moral image would be crippled if they said racial conflict as a means to power is their objective. Yet their moral reputation should be just as handicapped if they say they are guided by diversity-as-a-value, if people would take care to see what this would mean.

There is a reason why, in terms of people, pro-diversity refers to race and ethnicity more than anything else. It is because this doctrine, this value-representation of pro-diversity, has been promoted politically for political ends. If it had arisen by some other means, and for some other purpose than the promotion of race war and dictatorship, it would not have acquired such a racial coloration from the outset. Even in the case of biodiversity-as-a-value there is special emphasis on sub-species, on race, not just endangered species. There is also the preachment of power, of dictatorship, to save the diversity of species and sub-species.

This sets the pro-diversity most squarely in self-contradiction; it preaches the use of power to gain or save diversity (that is distinct from the dominant) while, at the same time, it would be the dominant if it could use power like that. The pro-diversity then must be absolutely against itself at the moment that it uses power to act pro-diversity. It would then be both anti-dominant and pro-dominant at the same time and in the same respect. So much for the logical standing of pro-diversity; it doesn't seem to have any.

Pro-diversity is also an exploitation of the divisions that exist among people. It focuses on just those divisions that can most easily be exploited to start war. Pro-diversity does not focus on such divisions as different ideas that could be reconciled by rational means. The more easily two parties to a dispute can be reconciled, the less interest that division could have for the pro-diversity. Pro-diversity is not used to celebrate differences in scientific theories that could be about to be reconciled under a new allegiance to a third theory that may encompass the first two. Observing that it is only the irreconcilable differences that could interest the pro-diversity, and race and ethnicity foremost of these, what can one conclude but that pro-diversity is for racial and ethnic war?

When it is announced that there is to be celebration of diversity in a city, does anyone expect that they are about to give us a long list of the Protestant denominations in that city? Would anyone not be thoroughly surprised if they were given that list, rather than one of races and ethnic groups? That being the case, it is known to essentially everyone that the pro-diversity is about race and ethnicity, (when it is about people). It is about irreconcilable differences and specifically those differences which can be exploited to foment civil war on a racial-ethnic basis. 

***Chapter 17***

The strategy of 'divide-and-conquer', and of virulent anti-merit activism is especially prominent in immigration issues. It can be observed that immigration policy is a large part of what pro-diversity is concerned with. Immigration can be peculiarly efficient in dividing a country into irreconcilable groups, when it is recruited on an anti-merit basis, or mainly on the basis of nothing but blood.

Massive recruitment into a country on the basis of blood, is able to lead to great bloodshed, thus, this could be the objective of the supporters of such policies who have some idea of what they are doing.

United States immigration policy is not far from what pro-diversity would ask for. In fact, it is so far out towards the pro-diversity pole of possible immigration policies that they would almost have to use genetic analysis of applicants to increase its pro-diversity quality to any notable degree. Consider that countries with a thousand times larger population than numerous small countries have the same quota. If language diversity were the guiding idea of an immigration policy, Papua New Guinea would get hundreds of times as many places as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Italy or dozens of other such countries.

Yet Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, with a combined total population considerably smaller than the United States, together are issued twice as many patents as America. This indicates the effect of a pro-diversity policy on the progress of civilization. There is also a thousand-fold difference in scientific publications between low-diversity countries like Finland, Japan, and Sweden and high diversity countries like Nigeria, Congo and Papua - New Guinea, where hundreds of indigenous languages subsist. A policy that gave many more places to a Papua - New Guinea than a Finland, in order to be pro-diversity, would cause us to lose out on the development of new science and technology, as would any anti-merit policy.

Sometimes human merit, in order to find an appropriately large field of endeavor, will have to find a way to move from a smaller to a larger country. It is not at all guaranteed that a country will recognize and develop the human merit that exists there. If anything, the widespread existence of anti-merit policies would tend to guarantee that potentialities will remain undeveloped. There is an extent to which the progress of civilization can depend on some countries having merit policies on immigration, but pro-diversity is adamantly against this.

What would one think if the government hired people almost exclusively on the basis of their having relatives who worked there? What if all our best colleges recruited mainly on the basis of blood connections? What if sports teams switched to using only relatives of team members, or mainly them? However unthinkable those possibilities may be, it can be noted that this is the American immigration policy; blood and almost nothing but blood. As if human merit did not exist, and never could have existed. But, whatever tends to cripple a dominant is pro-diversity.

For pro-diversity to be true in immigration Americans would have to be the lowest-performing people in the world. After all, each step towards diversity is a step up, according to the pro-diversity. But if Americans were not any better, who would apply for a visa to such a place? What's more, this would apply to every other country, which would also have to have the worst people in the world, but that is a contradiction-in-terms. They can't be all the worst at the same time (and in the same respect), yet they would literally have to be the worst, if any and all (immigrant) diversity would improve them.

It is also a serious provocation by the government (and its schools) to say that our people are poor and weak to the extent that any diversity from outside would 'enrich' and 'strengthen' the population. It is intended, perhaps, also as a racial provocation, to bring closer the race war that officials may be counting on to allow for the establishment of dictatorship.

Can there exist in the world a single person with such a low self-estimate that he could really believe that any and every diversity from him would be better than him, and an 'enrichment' of his country just by being different from him? That so many officials and professors in the pay of the government consider that the majority could have such a low view of themselves indicates a rather disturbing degree of self-hatred among the professors and officials. They are certainly not too proud to foment racial warfare as the road to absolute power.

Sometimes it is said, in support of anti-merit immigration policies, that immigrants are willing to work. But those who say this, also know better than to say to the people of a poor country that "foreigners are willing to develop their minds". If they did, it would (correctly) be taken as meaning that the natives are not willing to develop their minds, and would be resented. Yet Americans have one of the highest labor-force participation rates in the world, and they are not surpassed in this by immigrants. There is no way of getting around the question of merit by saying one group is to be arbitrarily defined as being more willing to work.

A society that rejects the contributions of those who have the most to offer, in order to force acceptance of the destructiveness of those who have the least to offer is also an anti-merit society for that reason. Today, English is the international language in the same way that (international) mathematics is of the quantitative realm. Someone who does not know English is lacking in international merit in the same way as someone who does not know the symbolization of mathematics is (in a quantitative field). Merit in English language abilities is not merit for a particular country with a particular national language; it is international merit. Yet pro-diversity claims that we can improve our society by bringing in millions who are illiterate, or far below standard, in international language. This also proves that pro-diversity is anti-merit.

Pro-diversity often claims that merit features in immigration policy would be anti-family. But it is the immigration policy that divides those families; therefore immigration is anti-family. The more immigrants admitted who would need 'family reunification', the more anti-family such a policy must be.

The pro-diversity also bids us have compassion for and solidarity with the (political) refugee. Yet it cannot be shown that we need to do that here. In fact, it is wrong to offer that refuge in the rich countries, where public subsides, often a hundred times greater than what is required in a poor country, are resorted to. There are a great many poor countries who depend on the rich ones, and can thus be made to accept refugees on any scale that was actually needed. That is, needed by true refugees, not by those who are only trying to improve their economic circumstances, yet who pretend to be special objects of persecution.

A real political refugee, who invades our borders, is implicitly attempting to get us to declare war on his country. He turns himself in to the authorities without delay. Yet it may not be feasible for us to accept his war, or to let him declare it for us. In any case, there will never be large numbers in this genuine refugee category. Pro-diversity, by emphasizing the refugee, as if there would be a great many honest ones, avoids the issue of human merit, that might otherwise be applied. The pro-diversity, by going to such lengths to avoid the application of the merit principle, also indicates how weak it is on that standard. 'Refugees' moving toward the rich countries with the most liberal aid programs are a very obvious exploitation. If they were for real, it would be 'any port in a storm' for them.

Why would the pro-diversity emphasize the category of refugees, when the genuine cases may be no more than one in a thousand of the total immigration, unless it were to find a way to evade the question of merit? We don't stop imprisoning people for violent crime, just because some few may be falsely convicted. In any case, all the real political refugees can be taken care of outside the rich countries, and there would, in that circumstance, be very few false claimants. Life in a poor country, for someone who is accustomed to it, is not a prison sentence, or a punishing decline in the broad-category status of his living standards. Even if it were, the false claimant of refugee status, who invades a country, does deserve to be punished.

The pro-diversity is also quite active in trying to get privileges for foreign criminals, who are illegally residing in a country, which they have invaded. These include a large proportion who cross the border in groups, carrying weapons, and with obvious hostile intentions against the laws and standards of the invaded country.

It is clear that merit principles would never favor the illegal alien, but pro-diversity does. Pro-diversity tries to get amnesties and public subsides for the illegal alien, and says that those who oppose them in these efforts, are 'against the diversity'. They try to make it sound as if only racism would be against this swarming-in of foreign criminals.

The illegal alien is in a status relation, rather than a free-contracting relation, to the citizens he deals with. He is not in a position to report crimes that he witnesses, and that places him outside any rational community of values. As an illegal alien, his is not a rational life. He is a party to aggression when he does not cooperate with law enforcement to the necessary extent. To allow robbery and other such crimes to go unreported is to be in complicity with aggression. No dispute (that requires it) is adjudicated legally, but each is left to the rule of violence (allowing for some exceptions). This pattern favors the more violent, thievery rules the places that they live in, such that pro-diversity is here asking for diversity from law, from peace, from reason and decency. This diversity is a very clear conflict with the rational life-interests of the citizenry.

Does not tolerance of illegal immigration select for those with the greatest hostility towards the laws and standards of the country that harbors them? What would happen to a society that continually selects for those most willing to bring its standards down? Would such a country even revive the slave trade, since there are no standards we shouldn't sacrifice, according to the pro-diversity, so long as there is some additional diversity to be gained? Going further down in terms of exploitation may be pro-diversity, but who else could value such a state of affairs? The use of illegal aliens represents an extreme case of exploitativeness because of the status difference as against the citizen.

The pro-diversity asks also whether we are for competition, when it works for us, but against it when it is inconvenient. Yet no one believes in competition as an unlimited value. Hitler and Stalin were in a competition to kill the most people, but no one would call that good competition. Even the strictly economic competition doesn't and shouldn't try to cheapen every element of production. It would miss the chances to increase wealth, if it did blindly attempt to cheapen every aspect of production. An increase in competition on the low end of the economy is bad if it prevents the raising of economic standards.

Some kinds of competition result in displacement without making the general population any better off. If the government promotes this, isn't it immoral, for officials to dislodge people unnecessarily? In the case of immigration, what are they in the way of, a treacherous policy of aiding the foreigner, while leaving the citizenry undefended, who are made to move out in order to aid and accommodate the foreign diversity? Are they guilty of wanting to live free of (frequently subsidized) lowlife competition sliding in (often illegally) from abroad? Do they have an irrational fear of the foreign criminals who exploit the undefended borders to move into a life of crime?

Perhaps it will also be said that the existence of armies is 'xenophobic', or that the existence of sovereign countries is 'xenophobic'. But if borders, armies, and sovereign lands represent 'neuroses', we need more of them. The psychologizing of politics is a kind of ad hominem response that evades (and fears) the political points that were to be answered. It shows a very weak argument, to be only willing to criticize your opponents possible psychology (rather than his argument).

Instead of attempting to diagnose races, nations, classes and so on, the pro-diversity partisans should say what they need anti-merit immigrants for. Would they dare say that it is in order to bring standards down, out of gratuitous malice against those who have some standards (that they would like to maintain or improve)? The rich countries are dominant culturally, economically, militarily, and so on, but whatever tends to cripple a dominant is pro-diversity. Hostility to high standards is also what the pro-diversity people have in common.

The anti-merit immigrants are not in the top one or two percent, but an all-merit immigration would be. This sets them against all human merit; to say not 'let the best man win' but 'put my relatives in regardless', is to be anti-merit. The presence of the anti-merit immigrants is a constant affront to justice. Justice would not have chosen these people (above others). That they might have been admitted on a free immigration policy is no objection; such a policy is impossible in a welfare society.

According to Representative W.N. Vaile of Colorado, speaking to the congress in 1924, "If there is a charge of 'discrimination', the charge necessarily involves the idea that the proposed quota varies from some standard which is supposed to be not 'discriminatory'. What is that standard"? The pro-diversity wouldn't even ask that question, or at least not in such a way as to suggest that it could possibly be answered. Perhaps what Representative Vaile meant was that we are entitled to discriminate and can't be reasonably criticized for it, because there is no compelling standard of human merit, or at least not that many people care to recognize. Yet if there are no general standards of human merit, then we are perfectly entitled to discriminate on any arbitrary grounds, and no one can reasonably appeal to higher justice. But if we are to have some standards, then these apply also to all kinds of recruitment, including immigration. Yet the pro-diversity calls all merit standards 'discriminatory', and insists that any and all of them be dropped.

They are to be dropped in favor of diversity. A diversity of bodies, of physical types, imported on a government policy, and on a public subsidy (to maintain them), is also what we are to ditch our standards for. Even though all standards are discriminatory and harmful, we can at least be sure that the dominant is somehow evil, according to the pro-diversity. But by what standard can anyone claim to know this? There is nothing evil about the dominant as such. Pro-diversity does not attempt to show how the dominant is evil, and cannot do so if all standards are discriminatory (as they say). In many cases, one can know perfectly well that the dominant has value or virtues that are superior, because it is by those virtues alone that it can become or remain the dominant.

In reality it is important to have standards, not so much the racial categories. But for the pro-diversity, merit standards are perfectly disposable, while racial classifications are the necessities of life and of functioning society. On this observation, one would have to conclude that racial conflict is a partly hidden, yet important objective for the pro-diversity.

The pro-diversity is enthusiastic in its racialization of any discussion of immigration. They would like us to believe it's all about race. If the pro-diversity insists that only racism could be against anti-merit immigration, why not inquire if this has any chance of being true? It is known that the incomes of recent immigrants are far below those of the citizenry. The difference is on the order of thirty percent lower for post-1980 immigrants. Median personal incomes for these immigrants show that sort of disparity. This has serious implications for net public subsidy of those cohorts (post-1980). In a welfare society, low-income populations are parasitical on the above-average groups.

If every other immigrant in the post-1980 group has one child in public school, that would be over $4,000 per adult immigrant. It is actually somewhat less than this, so let the estimate be $3,000 per adult (post-1980) immigrant. America spends over $4,000 per person on medical expenses. Older people get around half of this, so allow $2,000 per adult (post -1980) immigrant plus $1,000 for the one child for (approximately) every two of them. Asthma, diabetes, and other medical conditions are distributed broadly across the age groups, as is the free (or heavily subsidized) dental care.

The police, courts, and prison systems cost hundreds of billions a year. Each additional resident requires their share of this total to be added on; in round numbers: $1,000 a year. Public transit is heavily subsidized, and is heavily used by immigrants. Allow $500 for this public expenditure. Now our total public subsidy to the typical post-1980 immigrant adult is over $7,000 a year. To this can be added a share of the cost of the military, subsidized municipal water delivery, subsidized utility services that lose money on low-income customers (as required by the government), translation and foreign language subsidies, government immigration services given below cost, and whatever public subsides that may add up to $1,000 a year. That is, public subsidies that are actually used by the typical (post-1980) immigrant, not items like welfare, food stamps and extraordinary subsidies that only a small percentage use.

This brings our total to $8,000 a year per person. From this must be subtracted the taxes that are paid. If the median personal income of this group is estimated at $15,000 and taxes at $3,000 we have a net public subsidy of $5,000 per person before the interest on the national debt is added. Since the immigrant is borrowing the money for his public subsidy (through the government), the interest rate on the national debt must be applied to what he has drawn down. This must at least double the net public subsidy to the typical (post -1980) immigrant. The government has run large deficits during all this period, often at high interest rates. The immigrant must be charged the interest that is actually attributable to him for this estimate. The total net public subsidy to the typical post-1980 immigrant adult is estimated here at more than $10,000 a year, with essentially no hope of repayment. Their incomes are still in the net public subsidy range twenty years on, with retirement only ten or twenty years beyond that.

Since more immigrants come in each year, the public subsidy mounts up to hundreds of billions a year. The citizenry now pays hundreds of billions a year just to import this diversity of anti-merit immigrants. It is not supported out of current income, but by borrowing in competition with capital investment. The money is borrowed from rich foreigners who may realize before long that our 'investment' in public subsidy of the diversity only gives rise to a demand for further subsidies, but never to repayment.

The pro-diversity likes to say that we are 'investing in people'. Other countries invest in production, but America 'invests in people', that is, in consumption. 'Investing in people' is another hideous political slogan. It sounds so wrong, since who but slave owners would literally invest in people? Yet if it is taken as a metaphor, unseemly as it is, it would be education and training that it might refer to. But is education given more to the retarded, or should it be more for the brighter and less for the less-qualified? Likewise with immigration policy; do we 'invest' more in those who receive public subsidy because they are non-English speaking, uneducated, illiterate or criminal, or does morality require that we give first place to those who are most above standard, and reject those who are below it?

In any case the term 'investing in people' is really too insulting to the objects of the 'investment'; they are not our slaves. Governments with any pretense of respecting individual rights should be too embarrassed to use such a phrase as 'investing in people'. It is a cover-name for public subsidy, for current consumption. In the case of anti-merit immigrants from the post-1980 cohorts this 'investment' is an obvious case of huge sums thrown down the public subsidy rat-hole. Nothing is left to show for it, but the diversity and the national debt, trillions upon trillions, 'invested in people', in diversity, in consumption - just to do damage. The Orwellian big-lie technique, a contradiction-in-terms such as referring to current consumption as 'investment' (in people) is an indication of how strong the arguments for developing diversity might be. One could note that no recipients of this 'investing in people' are actually required to pay it back. If some of them actually do repay, that is thoroughly unexpected. Yes, they call it an 'investment' where there is no expectation, or requirement of repayment.

The reason that so many immigrants parasitize the citizenry is because they have children in public school at a higher rate than the citizens and because they don't have older relatives who have long paid taxes in this country. Since such a large percentage are in the twenty-five to fifty age group, their fertility rates don't need to be very high in order to eat up public subsides at a rate that is ruinous to the citizenry.

A willingness to consume net public subsidy from the citizenry established the foreigner of that type as an aggressor, definitely lacking in rights. Such a foreigner has only privileges which may be cancelled anytime. The other big reason for net public subsidy consumption by anti-merit immigrants is their low incomes. In their first ten years, they are typically one-third below the median. Even after twenty years they are most commonly well below the median income, and this means massive public subsidy. Yet the pro-diversity finds it convenient to pretend that recent immigrants are net taxpayers. Actually the anti-merit (pro-diversity) immigration is like adding another Puerto Rico every few years. If the last twenty million immigrants are costing the citizenry upwards of $150 billion a year, how much will we be weakened and impoverished by the next twenty years' quotas of anti-merit immigrants? Yet the pro-diversity insists that we are 'enriched' and 'strengthened' by the new diversity from abroad. Adding trillions onto the national debt just to accommodate the immigrant, is 'riches' and 'strength'?

In Europe, the diversity is brought in by refugees, who receive outright welfare far beyond what happens in America. Again, the governments borrow money to import diversity at enormous expense. If diversity were a safe value for man, the countries that import it at public expense would not be worse off financially, but they are.

In Kuwait, the refugees who were living there at the time of the Iraqi war invasion often joined the invaders, and aided in the pillaging of the country. In the Congo, refugees have started, and kept going, numerous civil wars, resulting in the death of millions. If one population is called the victims, this doesn't mean that they can't (or don't) victimize others. The most brutalized are not the least, but the most, likely to victimize.

In America, the metropolitan areas with the highest percentage of anti-merit immigrants are most often among the poorest in the country. The lower Rio Grande Valley (Brownsville), El Paso, San Antonio, Yuma, Miami, and the Imperial Valley of California are in the lowest income category of populous districts. When a city starts out way above the average, anti-merit immigration pushes it back down towards the national median personal income and even below. If pro-diversity could establish a legitimate value (for man), these negative events would not occur.

In California, the public schools' performance was in the top ten percent of the states, before the mass anti-merit immigration policy was set up in the 1960's. By the year 2000, their public schools performance had fallen to the bottom ten percent, alongside Mississippi and Louisiana. A vast increase in diversity had occurred as a result of agitation by anti-merit activists. Yet if diversity were a safe value for people to try to hold, this astonishing downfall of school performance would not have happened. Now, why should California be much more a center for high technology in the future than Mississippi, Arkansas, Louisiana or Alabama? Will they be able to make up the difference by importing foreign talent, in the context of anti-merit immigration policies, and yet also proportionally more than, say, Louisiana?

Boostering stories about the value of diversity may fool some people, but they can't prevent intellectual disabilities in the population from having their effects. The pro-diversity can say that only racists would be so impolitic as to mention such results, but the placement of speech taboos doesn't allow for the amelioration of any such problems. It actually tends to retard progress on such difficulties (as become off limits to rational discussion).

New York City is another big example of a place that received a massive increase in diversity at the same time that its schools went from above average to the level of the lowest performing school aggregates (i.e., where the comparison is of this city to state averages). Even one such example contradicts the prediction of pro-diversity; that an increase in diversity would bring standards up, not down. This means also that the standing of the increasingly diverse should not decline relative to the less diverse. Pro-diversity predicts that the relative standings should favor the more diverse, but the facts indicate that the opposite is true, although perhaps not in every last case.

Pro-diversity also predicts that diversity brought in by immigration policies should not bring economic standards down from what they would have been without the new diversity. Yet the theory of supply-and-demand indicates that more labor supply will bring the wage-levels down from what they would have otherwise been. If two countries start at the same level, but one of them brings in diversity through immigration while the other doesn't, the more diverse country will fall behind. That is, the more 'diversifying' country will have lower economic standards than the other, provided that it 'diversifies' on a large scale.

The supply and demand for labor causes this to happen, because labor also competes with capital (such as labor-saving machinery). When, for the sake of diversity, much labor is brought in from abroad, there will be substitution of labor for capital investment (that is of a labor-saving type). That is, new capital investments in labor-saving categories will be displaced by abundant labor. This will happen to some extent with any labor force increase, but it can become extreme in its effects in the case of anti-merit immigration that involves large numbers. With mass immigration of an anti-merit type, there are levels where existing capital investments of a labor-saving kind will be displaced. All this follows necessarily from the principle of supply-and-demand relations, and from the fact that there is some considerable substitutability of labor and capital. From this, one should expect that a pro-diversity immigration, recruited in large numbers on an anti-merit basis will bring economic standards down from what they would otherwise have been. Yet pro-diversity predicts the opposite.

The facts are not compatible with the pro-diversity prediction. During the period of mass anti-merit immigration into the United States, since 1973, median personal incomes have stagnated or even declined, for around three decades running. Unemployment has increased several times over since the 1960's. Productivity growth has fallen from around three percent a year (in the sixties) to about one percent a year (since 1973). Other countries, such as Canada and Australia, with similar circumstances of mass immigration, had similar declines. But, countries with no pro-diversity immigration policies, such as Taiwan, South Korea and Japan, had no slowdown in productivity growth comparable to that of America.

Countries with the fastest labor force growth are also (with few exceptions) the poorest in the world. Nigeria, Mali, Chad, Congo, Ethiopia, and Somalia are examples of this effect. Almost any government, no matter how bad, can usually manage one or two percent growth. But very few can do better than that per capita. Several Persian Gulf countries brought in large proportions of their populations as (illegal) immigrants in recent decades. They also had very high native population growth on top of that. Their per capita outputs fell drastically (since 1980) in the midst of this enormous labor-force and diversity growth. Yet, pro-diversity would expect the opposite result. On the consideration of supply-and-demand relations and the substitutability of labor and capital (that is labor-saving) a one-half to two-thirds decline in per-capita output is not a surprise. If all you know about a country is its labor force (or population) growth rate, you can guess its per capita income and its rank order position in the total list of countries to an amazingly accurate degree. This high correlation cannot be a coincidence. The exceptions have obvious explanations such as a recent oil discovery or a once-in-a-century political collapse. This most improbable correlation to the rank order of per capita incomes (if it were coincidence) indicates a likely causal relation. The suggested mechanism is the pre-empting of the opportunity for labor-saving capital investment by labor force growth.

Then we have writers like Julian Simon who, in the Ultimate Resource, says, "…it is better to have more people and a lower per capita income…". Per capita income is not a valid criterion, according to Simon, because "…it would mean doing away with all lower-income people." This assumes that absolute dictatorship, bent on mass murder or expulsions, is compatible with maximization of per-capita output, even in the richest countries possible with today's technology. Also, that individual rights can be disposed of without causing economic failure. Further, that unlimited violent aggression can be committed in a country and somehow, also, not do violence to economic values. The pro-diversity, also, denies the validity of per capita output as a criterion. Note that those who are enthusiastic for anti-merit immigration (such as Julian Simon) find it necessary to eliminate per capita production as a criterion of success. When the people realize that they have been fooled on the question of whether diversity can improve their living standards, the pro-diversity can just fall back on their denial of per capita production as a criterion of progress.

In this, the pro-diversity would have the precedent of the religious who say: cast your bread upon the waters and it will return to you tenfold. But when it does not return at all, they respond that wealth, production, and such values are worldly and unworthy of a noble spirit. Likewise with the pro-diversity; if you complain that no 'riches' or 'strength' appear, even though we have multiplied the diversity, because none could ever spring from diversity as such, it is said that you are racist, you are intolerant, ungenerous and lacking in the sensibility that could appreciate diversity for its own sake. But weren't the donors supposed to gain by 'investing' in diversity? Why is the pro-diversity entitled to a contradiction as serious as this? Why must they make ad hominem accusations against those who bring to light these contradictions? Diversity is good for you, unless you realize that it very likely won't be, in which case, you are bad, and bad people cannot speak the truth on the subject of diversity-as-a-value?

Is it like the Emperor's New Clothes, this diversity value-representation, which only the evil cannot see the splendors of? This emperor, pro-diversity, is wearing no clothes at all, and not everyone is afraid to say so, just because some charlatans have declared that only the immoral cannot see them.

The people would prefer to have high and rising standards, and not just be made to share with the foreigner for no reason other than that he is diverse from them. Perhaps a professor in the pay of the government could talk himself into believing that any other person, no matter how bad, is his moral superior. This is what diversity-as-a-value would mean, if anyone believed it literally. Yet public policy is to be based on what no one can literally believe; that any other person, including the worst, has 'diversity-value' over him?

The diversity is most commonly below the average. With major support from the pro-diversity, immigration policy has been so anti-merit for so long that scarcely one percent of the total immigration would have been able to be admitted on an all-merit basis. This is a group of perhaps two-hundred thousand, and one from which breakthrough developments might reasonably be expected to come. That is, not frequently, but almost to the exclusion of other echelons which are also theoretically capable of contributing an important new development, as in science or technology. But an all-merit immigration policy could send us two-hundred thousand, on such a level, each year, rather than every fifty years, as the anti-merit policy may allow.

This consideration gives the lie to the claim of the pro-diversity that anti-merit immigration policies are to be credited with such breakthroughs as do happen with foreigners or immigrants in the country. Likewise diversity-as-a-value can be given no credit, an all-merit immigration policy could give us fifty times as much, and it would all be because of high standards, not from diversity as such. Yet pro-diversity militates against any such standards, then points to an inventor of foreign birth, or an immigrant Nobel prizewinner, as though an all-merit policy could so easily have rejected these. Perhaps in some cases it would reject a few of them, but that doesn't compare to the dozens of times as many which an all-merit policy would likely yield us. As to the abstract possibility of free immigration into a wealthy alternative-welfare society, would any brilliant people be willing to just plunge into such a chaos of plundering, if it is even briefly possible?

Similarly, what becomes of those of great and rare merit, who are rejected by the anti-merit policies? What if many of them would actually need to match up with a large and rich society or institution, in order to develop to the point of making a great contribution? How much, then, are we missing out on, by indulging an unclean taste for anti-merit policies? If it were many hundreds of billions a year, would this not be a monstrously large tribute to the pro-diversity in power?

Pro-diversity causes us to lose now, not just in the hypothetical future of a more extreme case of the pro-diversity, anti-merit society. Worse, it has been doing so long enough to accumulate an overhang of past losses, a lot like the national debt. It can bleed us slowly, or quickly, or very rapidly, as in the extreme case of racial-ethnic war. In any case, the diversity has been proven not to be a safe value for man.

***Chapter 18***

Pro-diversity is for rare species and breeds even where this would be ruinous to man. It is for diversity of tribal languages (and cultures) even if this would require the destruction of all but one-in-a-thousand of today's population. It is for the diversity of predators and parasites regardless of how great an evil these can be to man. Pro-diversity opposes community of values and culture even where this would mean promoting civil war. It damns civilization and specialization for threatening the diversity of tribal languages, endangered species and rare breeds.

Pro-diversity is a species of altruism in much the same sense as Jonestown might be taken as a tableau of altruism. Pro-diversity cannot tolerate there being one truth on a given point, because that would suppress the diversity of untruths.

At one time, the pro-diversity argued that it was for genetic diversity, because this would allow for traits of genetic disease resistance to become (or remain) available for future human need. Yet it is now demonstrated that the pro-diversity is opposed to all traits of genetic disease resistance that have any possible value to many. That is, any such traits as could expand in the population, because they could be of value to many, are the enemy (to the pro-diversity). Numerical expansion of a homogenous type displaces diversity.

Likewise with an expanding cultural type (or idea); the pro-diversity had argued that it would shelter the cultural item that may turn out to be needed. It is now proven that a cultural pattern that could expand because it could be needed at some point, is for that reason alone an object that the pro-diversity must be against. Pro-diversity allows for the segregation of races and breeds, where this is helpful to the maintenance of the total diversity. Yet pro-diversity had as its 'argument' against its detractors that only a racist could fail to see the 'value' of diversity. By now, though, it is proven that the pro-diversity is all for statutes to protect races, and policies to segregate human races, so long as these are in the diversity (not-dominant) category.

The pro-diversity once claimed that all its doubters and critics must be advocates of inbreeding. Yet now, it has been shown that the pro-diversity uses inbreeding to save endangered species. It even imposes inbreeding depression on its favored endangered species and breeds, as diversity-as-a-value would require. Some endangered species have closely related species that could contribute relief from inbreeding depression, but pro-diversity can scarcely allow for that. Yet, with a dominant species, namely human beings, the pro-diversity would call for interbreeding chimps and humans just to get genetic diversity into a dominant.

Pro-diversity, which at one time claimed to be a remedy for racism, now has universities preaching racial hatred against Caucasians. This is not incidental to it, pro-diversity does blame the white race for the downfall of diversity in the world. Pro-diversity has often claimed that its only alternative is the idolatry of the clone, yet identical twins are clones and it can never be proven that there is anything evil about them (as human clones).

Mutations are the new genetic diversity. The pro-diversity, which pretended to be concerned with human health and disease-resistance, is now shown to be pro-mutagen, pro-carcinogen and pro-teratogen. But we can never be too 'rich' with diversity, it is said. Cancers and birth defects are 'riches' of diversity, if mutational diversity is part of the total diversity, and a safe value for man.

Species diversity could be a result of destructive parasite activity, but this is not safe to hold as a value. Monocultures show the greatest productivity, but the pro-diversity asks us to sacrifice this, even though it would starve out untold millions of people. The further back from monocultures and towards diversity we go, the more people must be starved out. Pro-diversity now insists on the existence of valuable ecological services provided by species diversity. Yet it is impossible for them to produce the list of species whose functions, which are of clearly general benefit, cannot be performed by other species, as, for example, dominants. That is, a list of thousands of species which are of indisputable general benefit, and not capable of being substituted for by other species.

Monoculture use on a large scale is associated with wealth, and high species-diversity use with poverty, but pro-diversity predicts the opposite of this. In the line of species that leads to man, it has been discovered that there is less and less tolerance of genetic diversity. Pro-diversity predicts the opposite case; improvements in function should not be associated systematically with less tolerance of diversity-mutations. For the human brain, in comparison to the less complex, mutations are more likely to do damage that is crippling.

The diversity of antibodies in the immune system is not an instance of 'diversity-value'. The immune system is and must be, in all its operations, against diversity in order to maintain the original genetic program. Pro-diversity has to be against open competition, since this will cause the diversity to lose out to the dominant. Yet how can there be much justice, if, by mere aggression, we intervene to make the weaker win out over the stronger? Pro-diversity insists on this intervention; without it, the diversity loses to the dominant.

Pro-diversity is in self-contradiction for being against any universal, which is a dominant (if anything is), while also insisting on a universal; namely, the pro-diversity 'principle'. The pro-diversity is especially opposed to universal standards, therefore it is destructive of any community of values. Without these, only civil war is possible.

Pro-diversity has, as another substitute for an argument, that its opponents must be fascists. Yet it is now demonstrated that the Nazi plans for the administration of the world were pro-diversity. Walter Schoenichen's official description of these plans featured draconian policies to save endangered species, indigenous populations, rare languages, races large and small, even the destruction of dominants in order to restore natural areas.

The pro-diversity of today regards the huge downfall of diversity of rare species (and of rare languages) that is underway as disaster and as multi-genocide. If this is true, what degree of violation of individual rights could the pro-diversity not accept to slow down the extinctions and 'genocides'?

What of the natural experiments, that can be found, to ascertain whether diversity is a possible, safe value for man? There are mother-and-children groups where each child has a different father and each child is of a different genetic classification. Yet no value can be expected to arise from that high-diversity state of a natural human group. On the contrary, such a group should be expected to be in the bottom percentiles of the global distribution of human conditions. But, the pro-diversity should expect the opposite result.

A similar high-diversity experiment could be set up by artificial insemination. There exist very rare genetic classifications, with a status like races, only more precisely defined. Yet no volunteers, no matter how enthusiastic for diversity in the population, could very likely be found. If no one can believe that genetic diversity would be good for their own offspring, how can they then ask others to believe in the value of diversity?

For cultural and linguistic diversity there exist the examples of Nigeria, India, Papua-New Guinea and the Congo, each with hundreds of indigenous languages spoken. These include some very poor countries, yet pro-diversity would have us believe that such diversity makes us rich. Would other countries demolish their interior road networks, in order to move toward the linguistic diversity that the island of New Guinea has? One-thousand full languages is quite a lot, yet the demise of that diversity is called genocidal by the pro-diversity.

The highest genetic diversity is found also in the poorest populations of the poor countries. Examples are the Pygmies, Bushmen, Turkana, and the Oromo people of Ethiopia. If diversity were a safe value for man, then these populations would raise the economic and other standards of the world. These examples can't be special cases of 'diversity-value' not appearing because of some unique factors in each case. High diversity of species is also associated with the poverty of a region.

If diversity could be a proper value, then the top universities could establish feeder schools among the Oromo, the Bushmen and the Pygmies and confidently expect the next Nobel prizewinners in Science and Medicine to come from that source. But does anyone actually believe that they would be justified in doing so, and with any such high expectations?

If genetic diversity could be a safe value for man, then 'lethal mutagenesis' could be used in all sorts of populations, including human beings, with beneficial, rather than lethal results. Diversity of technology is also clearly not a proper value; we don't improve the economy by going back to water mills and the spinning wheel in order to get diversity. Diversification of investments is not a case of any actual 'diversity-value'. If it could be, then one could increase the quality of a portfolio by diversifying well below investment-grade. The higher the proportion of bankrupt companies' paper in the portfolio, the greater the 'diversity-value', if such could exist. 'Diversity-value' has to mean diversifying towards lower value, if it is to be used as a standard (more than just sporadically).

Pro-diversity in recruitment, with its racial emphasis, involves believing that ideas are transmitted genetically and in a racial pattern. But that is the literal meaning of racism, which pro-diversity claims is the belief of those who deny the 'diversity-value'. Yet the pro-diversity defines racism as applying a standard that results in a disadvantaged race getting less.

When a universal standard applies to all applicants, no one is accepted for their diversity. Diversity-as-a-goal has to mean that one group has a lower standard to meet than another. A pro-diversity society is thus also an anti-merit society. Pro-diversity is about the relation between two alternatives, one of which is the higher-value. Pro-diversity sets it up like a value, to choose the lower value, from these alternatives.

Pro-diversity has schools accepting people who are in the bottom ten percent of the standard scale that applies to the majority, to the 'non-diverse'. Then they graduate such people, and even send them out to practice surgery on those who don't realize that they are living in an anti-merit society, ruled by anti-merit activists. There are people whose trade is 'diversity-management'. Pro-diversity sets up diversity of disabilities as an ersatz value.

Pro-diversity also involves establishing racial conspiracy theory as an official doctrine to explain why the 'diversity-value' of minorities does not express itself economically or culturally. The diversity supposedly would be on the same level as the dominants, if it were not for the exclusionary activities of the dominants. According to this official doctrine, such exclusionary activity is never necessary to prove.

The assumption of equality in this sense, as in multiculturalism, is contradictory. It is not an example of superior culture, to say that there are no superior cultures. Pro-diversity in recruitment necessarily excludes people because of their race; 'too few' of one kind has to mean 'too many' of another classification. Officials have chosen race, rather than some other point of division, not in spite of, but because of, its high potential to set off internal warfare. Consider that most of the independent states that exist today arose by partitions that were made in the context of ongoing racial policies.

It is only the least reconcilable differences that could interest the pro-diversity. The policy of 'divide-and-conquer' is the historical precedent for this central feature of the pro-diversity establishment.

Immigration policy is a large component of the pro-diversity regime. Immigration can be effective in dividing a country into irreconcilable groups, when brought in on an anti-merit policy. What if the government recruited employees almost entirely on the basis of blood connections? Yet this is accepted in immigration policy. It is provocation for the government to say that our people are poor and weak to the extent that any diversity from abroad would 'strengthen' and 'enrich' us.

The furtherance of civilization may require that some important countries have merit policies on immigration, yet the pro-diversity is intensely opposed to such a development. All genuine refugees can be accommodated in lower-income countries; since, as repressive regimes are established or overthrown, there will always be much poorer countries, which recently have acquired about as much freedom as the richest several dozen countries, or thereabouts. The wealthiest countries need only use their power to get the (genuine) refugees accommodated in those lower-income countries, rather than deviate from an all-merit policy.

The maintenance of armies and the borders of sovereign states is not xenophobia. If the pro-diversity have an argument to support their position, why would they try to diagnose nationalities as having a neurosis? In any case, the pro-diversity is not in a position to diagnose classes, nations, and other such large groups and never will be (because no one ever is).

In America, the typical immigrant is on net public subsidy for decades, and often permanently. The expenses are not negligible, but add up to considerable sums per immigrant. Overseas, the situation often is much worse. This sort of 'investing in people' is causing massive losses; it is current consumption of a damaging kind. Yet to the pro-diversity it doesn't matter if nothing is left to show for these 'investments' but the diversity. Large-scale anti-merit immigration gives large increases in the supply of labor, especially on the low end of the pay-scale. But capital and labor are substitutable for each other to such an extent that this immigration must bring wages, labor standards and productivity down from where they would otherwise have been. This theory (supply-and-demand) predicts the stagnation of median personal income, the decreased rate of productivity gains, and rising unemployment of the most recent decades of mass anti-merit immigration, but a pro-diversity theory must predict the opposite. When pro-diversity results in declining, or long-stagnating per capita outcomes, it turns out that pro-diversity denies the validity of per capita improvements as a criterion of success.

In conclusion, diversity is not a safe or acceptable value for man. For those who say they believe in it the most, pro-diversity is more likely a cover for a passion to establish dictatorship and do damage to people. It is, by now, clear that pro-diversity, if honestly believed in, would have people doing what no one ever actually does. It would have them believing what no one ever really believes, such as that any destitute foreigner is better than them, just by being different, or 'diverse', as they say. Since the pro-diversity is not honestly and radically believed in at all, it must also function as a cover for the real value or sentiment behind it. Pro-diversity is a passion for the outlawry of human merit, for anti-merit society and the dictatorship that could radically impose it, for the racial and ethnic wars that allow for this, and for mass death. Pro-diversity is not a proper human value, but an intensified (and slightly concealed) hatred against any proper human values.

The pro-diversity, if they had rational arguments available to them, would not be so bereft that they would need to say that only the fascist, only the racist, only the xenophobic, only the human-cloning enthusiast, only the human inbreeding devotee, or only the endangered species destroyer, could fail to see the value of diversity. The reliance on this ad hominem technique indicates a most serious failure to develop convincing arguments in favor of 'diversity-value'.

Their usual replacement for an argument however, is: 'wouldn't it be sad to lose…' this or that instance of diversity. But this merely assumes what was to be demonstrated - that 'diversity-value' itself can exist. An even lower and more emotive technique is that where one of the pro-diversity types says that he wouldn't want to live in a reduced-diversity circumstance of the future. As if because he threatens to kill himself or die of ennui over loss of diversity, everyone else must now just believe in 'diversity-value'? And no one is to ask why he is not already dead, given the loss of diversity that is sustained? Dismissing these emotive imitations of debate, one may conclude with certainty, that 'diversity-value' itself cannot exist.

The conclusions as to public policy are that we should stop acting towards diversity as towards a value. Yet this involves changing so many public and private policies and, sometimes, in a radical way. It has to occur in an across-the-board manner. The society shouldn't be pro-diversity in one large area, anti-diversity in another, and neutral in the remainder. Therefore, let us be neutral on diversity in all the relevant fields. Consider how many of these fields there are; yet all of these must stop acting towards diversity as towards a value at about the same time. If this is not done; war must follow before long.

In the area of species diversity, the war is already underway. It is killing millions of people a year, by means of resurgent malaria, and other diseases, in order to value and protect endangered species of birds. Let us withdraw from this war by ending the use of aggression to save endangered species. If strictly private (non-aggressive) means are used for protection of rare species and races, this is acceptable, but should be also considered a breach of the right order of values. Conservation of natural resources for human benefit has a place, but official aggression in the name of diversity of species should have none.

Governments should not intervene to increase the diversity of languages or cultures in a country. Anti-merit immigration policies are pro-diversity; it is for this reason that they should be halted. The diversity of languages, cultures and racial-ethnic groups should not be maintained by official aggression. Indian reservations, bilingual education policies for the maintenance of separation, and such policies in general should be stopped. It is not in spite of, but because of, the fact that they are pro-diversity that such programs are incapable of yielding net value. Official aggression is not justified in any case; therefore, it should not be used to preserve or increase the diversity. The people have every right to freedom from aggression; but no one, and no minority, can have a right to freedom for aggression. If official aggression is necessary for the furtherance of the diversity, this only proves that diversity is not a proper value.

Genetic and racial diversity is not a proper value in recruitment. The governments should not impose this improper value of diversity on employers and schools; no good can come of it. Likewise, officials should not promote diversity of languages or customs; these can have value only apart from their diversity. If official aggression is used for the promotion of such diversity, that in itself shows that it ought not to be done. The government school is itself an act of aggression against those who are forced to pay for it, or to use it. There has never been a consensus in support of this establishment of public schools, and never will be. Therefore it is aggression to force everyone to pay for government schools, when not all agree that they should exist, or on such a scale as they do operate. If the government schools are suppressed, it would happen that the propaganda for diversity is also halted. The pro-diversity is very largely about what percentage various physical groups have versus other such populations. The governments, especially through their schools, stir up conflicts on this basis (the physical diversity) in order to set off civil war. Then they use a declaration of national emergency to establish a dictatorship. Once they have this power, the diversity is no longer useful to them, and very little will be heard of it afterwards. The pro-diversity value-representation is an excuse for grasping after power. The better the people are prepared for this eventuality, the better are our chances against it.