Over at Legitimate Grievances, a site whose tagline is “the only way to win the war on racism will be to end it,” Al Stankard points out that the war on racism is a death spiral because it perpetuates the problem it seeks to solve:

As the war on racism wears on intractably, as it has our whole lives and with the mirage of success receding perpetually from view, the alt-right has descended onto the scene like a black swan. While for many of us it serves as a convenient scapegoat for the ongoing failure of the war on racism, it could just as well be interpreted as a by-product of that same war on racism, and a sign that we are at an historical crossroads and that there may well be more black swans to come. When an ideology, such as Antiracism, creates its own bogeyman, then it has entered into a negative feedback loop that ensures its own demise.

Most people prefer to live with those like them, not just in terms of race but ethnic group, caste, religion, culture, class, and even political orientation. To make us all get along, we have to abolish those things, but they are also the parts of hierarchy and social order necessary to keep a first world society — as opposed to a third world style one — operating.

The war on racism throws us into a doom loop. The more we crusade against racism, the more we find, and the more we create racial animus through clumsy and unjust attempts to equalize. This will only end when any groups that have risen above the level of equal — high Asians, whites, and Jews — are eliminated and we are all a uniform brown with an average IQ in the mid-90s, at which point social Darwinism will end because competition will end and pacifism will rule.

Even The Atlantic has noticed the autumnal death cycle of diversity which plays out through Leftist desires for funding for their socialist-style entitlements programs:

As the birth rate has declined in the U.S., Canada, Western Europe, and Japan, the immigrant share of their populations has increased…These countries have high median incomes, which are attractive to international migrants, plus their economies need new humans to sustain both GDP growth and government services…as the children of immigrants find jobs and pay taxes, immigrant families wind up being a net contributor to the government over many decades, according to a 2016 report from the National Academy of Sciences. …But there is a growing body of evidence that as rich majority-white countries admit more foreign-born people, far-right parties thrive by politicizing the perceived threat of the foreign-born to national culture. That concept will sound familiar to anybody who watched the 2016 U.S. presidential race, but it’s a truly global trend. A 2015 study of immigration and far-right attitudes in Austria found that the proximity of low and medium-skilled immigrants “causes Austrian voters to turn to the far right.” The effect was strongest in areas with higher unemployment, suggesting that culture and economics might reinforce each other in this equation. Last week, the far-right Austrian party triumphed in the nation’s election. This is where the story finally connects with welfare and the future of liberalism. Rich countries tend to redistribute wealth from the rich few to the less-rich multitude. But when that multitude suddenly includes minorities who are seen as outsiders, the white majority can turn resentful and take back their egalitarian promises. Take, for example, the Twin Cities of Minnesota. They were once revered for their liberal local policies—like corporate-tax redistribution from rich areas to poor neighborhoods and low-income housing construction near business districts. But since the 1980s, as the metro area attracted more nonwhite immigrants, the metro has become deeply segregated by income and race and affordable-housing construction has backtracked. Or take Finland, that renowned “Santa Claus State” of cradle-to-grave social services, where the welfare state is being “systematically dismantled.” The far right has emerged in the last few decades, just as foreign-born population has suddenly grown. …But an unavoidable lesson of the last few years, from both inside and outside the U.S., is that cultural heterogeneity and egalitarianism often cut against each other. Pluralist social democracy is stuck in a finger trap of math and bigotry, where to pull on one end (support for diversity) seems to naturally strain the other (support for equality).

This remarkably blunt article exists to conceal a simple truth: when people experience diversity, they do not like it, despite the happy faces of celebrities and professors telling us that we should eat our damn vegetables and start appreciating diversity already. In fact, this is the classic feedback loop. As diversity grows, so does opposition to diversity, mainly because diversity is having negative effects. What are those? Think about the inverse relationship between “equality” and “diversity” when you read Robert Putnam’s research findings:

Harvard political scientist Robert Putnam — famous for “Bowling Alone,” his 2000 book on declining civic engagement — has found that the greater the diversity in a community, the fewer people vote and the less they volunteer, the less they give to charity and work on community projects. In the most diverse communities, neighbors trust one another about half as much as they do in the most homogenous settings. The study, the largest ever on civic engagement in America, found that virtually all measures of civic health are lower in more diverse settings. …Putnam claims the US has experienced a pronounced decline in “social capital,” a term he helped popularize. Social capital refers to the social networks — whether friendships or religious congregations or neighborhood associations — that he says are key indicators of civic well-being. When social capital is high, says Putnam, communities are better places to live. Neighborhoods are safer; people are healthier; and more citizens vote. …Putnam writes that those in more diverse communities tend to “distrust their neighbors, regardless of the color of their skin, to withdraw even from close friends, to expect the worst from their community and its leaders, to volunteer less, give less to charity and work on community projects less often, to register to vote less, to agitate for social reform more but have less faith that they can actually make a difference, and to huddle unhappily in front of the television.” “People living in ethnically diverse settings appear to ‘hunker down’ — that is, to pull in like a turtle,” Putnam writes.

Further research has shown stronger connections between diversity and social collapse, including the role of diversity as division in American politics. Some have looked further into why diversity is so destructive, finding a number of reasons from antiquity onward suggesting that not just racial but ethnic diversity is destructive to social order and precedes civilizational collapse.