Within this egalitarian wonder that is the modern world, we are often reminded that “diversity is strength” and that the socio-ethnic plurality of a group is crucial to its success (of course, in an economic sense, diversity may be a large source of strength but in this context it refers to a variety of skills and resources which enable an efficient division of labor as opposed to a diversity of race/ethnicity) . This alleged axiom is propagated in public settings from the workplace to the schoolhouse yet it is nothing more than a “noble” falsehood devised by social engineers intent on supplanting the status quo. As the mature mind observes its surroundings in their natural inequality, it becomes clear that there is no intrinsic contribution to the value of any group as a result of ethnic variety or sexual orientation. It is rather the individual merits of the group’s members and their attendant cohesiveness that contribute to its overall value and accomplishment irrespective of superficial characteristics.
Descending from the spirit of the civil rights era, diversification (in the social justice, not economic, sense) as an ideal has permeated every arena of social interaction in the democratized West. Wherever whites have founded homogeneous institutions, the cry for diversity can be found not far behind. State policy has emboldened this message in every sector. In the American military, women are encouraged to “diversify” occupations established, dominated, and championed by males even in opposition to studies showing how their addition may upend cohesion and mission readiness. Private establishments owned by families that represent the traditional mold are subjected to forced integration owing to demands of “social justice.” Cakes are baked at the behest of emotional legislation as degeneracy is given precedence over liberty. Corporations and small businesses are praised for their inclusiveness to “protected classes” – i.e. any demographic other than “cis-gendered” heterosexual white men.
Individuals in this “protected” class are indiscriminately ushered into these previously predominantly white institutions en masse, not exclusively on the merits of their achievements but rather as shining tokens of demographic variation. Quotas are filled with these tokens while individuals fitting the white male hetero-normative example are passed over, even if more qualified. All participants in this western model benefit from the dynamic of white-hetero patriarchal norms, but because they do not yield an egalitarian utopia, they have been rallied against with incessant crusades for its destabilization and ulitmate destruction. What better method of dethroning the stability of this timeless method than to spearhead its dissolution with the flaming torch of “diversity”?
Diversity, upon closer inspection, is nothing more than a concerted agenda to attenuate whiteness. As policy, it is a brand of suppression that would, if set against any other demographic, be identified as racial persecution. So called diversification is, in the West, the artificial dilution of white communities and the forceful denial of voluntary association between whites. This is true of white associations both public and private, neighborhoods and nations alike. “School district X must open its doors to non-whites”, the reverse of this example is virtually never demonstrated and would no doubt be derided as ” racist” if enforced as policy. Diversity per definition means “variety” but per policy actually means, “fewer whites”, and fewer whites in a plethora of applicable examples means a combination of a lowered rate of development and higher level of time preference.
Such “diversity” yields a critical loss to both outcome and income of the conglomerate, e.g. Detroit, Harare, etc. There is no inherent benefit for non-whites in denying whites the right to in-group association other than the vapid context of “equalization” in appearance. In fact, denying whites their own self-determination has been an existential detriment to every non-white demographic. Hoppe elaborates:
….most if not all technical inventions, machines, tools and gadgets in current use everywhere and anywhere, on which our current living standards and comforts largely and decisively depend, originated with them. All other people, by and large, only imitated what they had invented and constructed first. All others inherited the knowledge embodied in the inventors’ products for free. And isn’t it the typical white hierarchical family household of father, mother, their common children and prospective heirs, and their ‘bourgeois’ conduct and lifestyle – i.e., everything the Left disparages and maligns – that is the economically most successful model of social organization the world has ever seen, with the greatest accumulation of capital goods (wealth) and the highest average standards of living? And isn’t it only on account of the great economic achievements of this minority of ‘victimizers’ that a steadily increasing number of ‘victims’ could be integrated and partake in the advantages of a worldwide network of the division of labor? And isn’t it only on account of the success of the traditional white, bourgeois family model also that so-called ‘alternative lifestyles’ could at all emerge and be sustained over time? Do not most of today’s ‘victims,’ then, literally owe their lives and their current living standards to the achievements of their alleged ‘victimizers?’
…I would add (at a minimum): be and do whatever makes you happy, but always keep in mind that as long as you are an integral part of the worldwide division of labor, your existence and well-being depends decisively on the continued existence of others, and especially on the continued existence of white heterosexual male dominated societies, their patriarchic family structures, and their bourgeois or aristocratic lifestyle and conduct. Hence, even if you do not want to have any part in that, recognize that you are nonetheless a beneficiary of this standard “Western” model of social organization and hence, for your own sake, do nothing to undermine it but instead be supportive of it as something to be respected and protected. 
We need look no further for an example than the failed socialized experiment known as Zimbabwe. With an economy in tatters and corruption on the rise, its regime has recognized this undeniable truth, that the restriction and expulsion of the white patriarchal model leads to a certain declination in performance and stability. Zimbabwe, in true marxist zeal, succeeded the embattled and disgraced nation of Rhodesia and eventually displaced its European population in an effort to return the land to what it believed to be the rightful owners. Not only is modern Zimbabwe now a state writhing in disorder, but it has unsurprisingly invited the white inhabitants to return to their farms. It is profound to observe the Zimbabwean regime display its reluctant understanding of the cultivating nature of inequality among participants in a market setting. In such a setting there may exist a disparity of wealth, but everyone’s standard of living increases over time.
Even though whites are a minority on a global scale, it is and has been almost exclusively white nations that are subject to dilution and forced integration. Whites do not make a point to demand entrance into non-white institutions and nations. Whites historically do not burden non-white nations for entrance and citizenship, flood their borders demanding asylum, or drain the wealth of non-white establishments through mass subsidy. The converse, however, is true to the letter. Non-whites fare better from their own pursuit of in-group association than they do in endorsing the breakup of voluntary white involvement (it’s best to not deny anyone’s in-group preference). Historical basis for this argument is present in a multitude of segregation-based examples from Chinatown to Tuskegee. Exclusion by whites also provides an impetus for non-whites to pursue self-determination for their respective communities. Utilization of resources by the demonstrably more resourceful is no offense but rather a motivation to enterprise as it illustrates an ever-present market of alternatives for the self-described “disenfranchised.”
The false doctrine of “diversification” robs non-white associations, nations, and collectives of the energy and incentive to sustain themselves. The lasting result is the solidification of a “white savior” complex and a generational expectancy of support. It reinforces the idea that it is the attachment to white achievement that ensures the success of non-whites, that a group that is “too white” benefits from a particular privilege that non-whites must fuse themselves to in order to match or surpass its legacy. Nothing could be more self-defeating to any culture than this shameful admission of adolescent supervision of non-whites. As with the current Saharan slave trade, we can observe this pattern in the way that many non-white nations make a habit of debilitating its population with constant entreaty to European neighbors for aid or military support as a response to its own problems.
Ghanian President Akufo-Addo in a recent address on self-sufficiency to a gathering of non-white nations lambasted the entitled and lethargic inclination of non-white individuals to attach to white accomplishment as the answer for progression in saying:
We can no longer continue to make policy for ourselves in our country, in our region, in our continent on the basis of whatever support the Western world or France or the European Union can give us. It will not work, it has not worked and it will not work. Our responsibility is to charter a path which is about how we can develop our nations ourselves. It is not right for a country like Ghana, sixty years after independence, to still have its health and education budgets being financed on the basis of the generosity and charity of European taxpayers. By now, we should be able to finance our basic needs ourselves, and if we are going to look at the next sixty years as a period of transition, a period whereby we can stand on our own feet, our perspective is not to be what the French taxpayer decides to do with whatever surpluses they have in France – they are appreciated
…..These young men who are showing so much resilience and ingenuity in crossing the Sahara, finding ways to cross the Mediterranean in rickety boats, those energies, we want to have those energies working inside our countries. We’re going to have those energies if we begin to build systems that tell the young people that their hopes, their opportunities are right here with us…
Contrary to the mantra, diversity is not strength. By placating excluded groups with welfare which engenders dependency, it is in fact the opposite. It is an ironic admission to the world that the white in-group represents an irrefutable strength. Diversity is anything but the empowerment of the disparaged, it is the dismantling of advancement. Forceful policy not only damages the ingenuity and ethic of white commitment, it also effectively limits non-whites and reduces their effort and outcome to a standard of mediocrity at best. The demands for involuntary fusion into white congregation directly contradict the many adages and examples that represent “do-for-self-knowledge” within so many communities. They must choose which method of progression to follow, either the inferiority of diversification or determination via self-representation.
It is through the crippling method of diversification that non-whites become dependent upon the cultural osmosis of joint achievement and inadvertently cripple themselves as a whole. It would be wise for leaders within these communities to be consistent in asking, “What do we have to show for what we have done of our own volition?” This is the mentality of true empowerment. The persistent demand that white associations are “too white” and therefore must be remedied with the tonic of diversity by non-whites only exposes a deep inferiority complex of the latter. In effect, by forcing one’s way into white associations, the inferiority becomes clear: in pursuit of temporary and inexhaustive “progress”, non-whites define their constant need of whites, while whites, in pursuit of their own advancement, do not need them. Once upon a time, it was understood that greatness abides in separation when each group pursues its own determinations, free from the dictates and subsidization of another. The early 20th century pro-separation leader Marcus Garvey clarified how inner development of Self is imperative to outward self-determination:
The man who is not able to develop and use his mind is bound to be the slave of the other man who uses his mind. 
As an icon of American blacks who favored separation, he remained consistent in his rejection of attachment to “whiteness” as a solution for development.
Diversifying white institutions is not a message of self-confidence but rather a stark and opposing message of dependence and a fixation on the success and achievements of others. Examples of advancement attributed to the emulation of the western model can be found throughout recent history, proof that such a model can be used by non-white groups as a template for success while still seeking to express balance as a distinct cultural entity. The artistic flair of the Harlem Renaissance was a creation of non-white expression that produced a unique cultural climate in near separation. The grand capitalistic exploits of Tulsa’s Black Wall Street serve as one of many testaments to in-group development. These accomplishments and more spread across the strata of culture and illustrate the grandeur of discriminate association/preference and should inspire those belonging to their preferred groups to take pride in autonomous accomplishment sans babysitting or diversity. Voluntary separation is not only a potent remedy for strife but a tried and true method of advancement that never needed revision. The preference of individuals toward their in-group should not only be free of disturbance from egalitarian saboteurs and government entities, but embraced once again by a world yearning for genuine progress.
 Realistic Libertarianism As Right Libertarianism, Hans-Hermann Hoppe