Diversity was Never Anybody's Strength

They played us like fools but it seems many are finally waking up now.

“Dindu Nuffin” Stoltenberg and “Dindu Nuffin” Obama smiling together at the White House in May 2015. (Photo: RTVE). Two dangerous Socialists that badly hurt us…

---

In its masterful post “Translating Marxism into English”, Substacker Don Surber wrote: “Diversity—United we stand, divided we fall. Diversity divides us.” Unquestionable thought indeed. It led me to think…

Since the Obama years, Americans have been repeatedly told that “diversity is our strength.” The phrase has been elevated from a sentiment into a mantra, echoed endlessly by political leaders, institutions, and international organizations. For a full decade, NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg repeated the same slogan before officials, politicians, and troops alike. Yet despite its popularity, the phrase never sat well with me. The more I heard it, the more it sounded like an empty incantation rather than a serious principle.

My skepticism began with history—specifically, the Korean War. Allied forces from many countries fought under UN flag against Soviet, North Korean and Chinese troops. In theory, this was diversity in action. In practice, it was chaos. The coalition brought with it a bewildering array of weapons, ammunition calibers, ordnance types, command structures, procedures, ranks, and languages. The result was confusion, inefficiency, and unnecessary suffering. Diversity, in this case, was not a strength; it was a deadly liability.

---

An allied soldier comforting a fellow infantryman during the Korea War.

---

The lesson was learned the hard way. In the aftermath, NATO painstakingly developed standardized calibers, interoperable systems, unified procedures, and coordination mechanisms. These reforms were adopted not because diversity worked, but because it failed. Effectiveness came from discipline, standardization, and shared doctrine—not from celebrating difference for its own sake.

American history tells a similar story. The United States did not emerge strong because the founding colonies remained radically different, but because the Founding Fathers deliberately constrained that diversity. The Constitution and federal law were designed to prevent a cacophony of competing state regulations, legal systems, and procedures. A common framework was essential to turn thirteen distinct entities into a functioning Nation: E Pluribus Unum.

Our federal system itself is evidence of this truth. Diversity can exist, but only within limits. It must be coordinated, channeled, and subordinated to a unifying purpose. It alone certainly isn’t our strength, because without that framework, diversity fragments rather than strengthens.

Yet in recent years, the slogan “diversity is our strength” has been used to justify policies that undermine cohesion: illegal immigration, sanctuary cities, and open challenges to American laws, traditions, and civic norms. These policies do not strengthen the Nation. They weaken trust, erode shared identity, and strain institutions that depend on common rules and mutual obligation.

A serious Nation does not survive on slogans. Strength comes from unity of purpose, respect for law, and shared standards. Diversity can complement those foundations—but only when it is governed, never glorified.