Source: Bigstock

What follows from this? That, in Madison’s words,

it is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm….

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

Of course, Madison, an “enlightened” statesman, more than knowledgeable about human affairs, wrote these words during a time when what we now call diversity was justly regarded with prudent suspicion. For Madison, it is manifest that man is a fundamentally egotistic creature, naturally partial to his own ends (what Madison called “self-love”) and those of his family and friends, on whom he depends for his own well-being. For all their high-toned words (which, to be sure, usually serve only a selfish, material end), the extent to which people are willing to sacrifice for others rarely extends beyond their own small social circle. So men and women, on the whole, are “much more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.” Diversity, therefore, is far from being a virtue, because getting people who have a common culture and history to agree is already hard work; doing so without a shared foundation is especially daunting. There is a profound lesson, moreover, to be got from the fact that human disagreements, in politics and in every other domain, are so often incoherent, interlocutors constantly misinterpreting each other in terms of their own premises—an incoherence that usually is not even seen for what it is. All life shows that people care about nothing so much as their own selves. Therefore, to do away with the very possibility of disagreement is one of the greatest political goods.

Americans used to take it for granted that immigration was a mixed good at best and, without assimilation, a disaster. In general, most people do not want to argue about how to live well together, for they cannot be other than oblivious and fickle pleasure-seekers. Intellectuals think they have the ability to bring about a desirable social order, but for the most part, they are conceited fools and cowardly pretenders. So once more, it is essential for there to be less need for this extremely difficult process of debate. It is best for people, to the extent that it is possible, to simply inherit and do their part to carry on a tradition. If foreigners are to take part in that endeavor, assimilation is indispensable—otherwise there can only be chaos. The Chinese are the world’s oldest civilization. This sophisticated, accomplished, and increasingly powerful people did not endure thanks to “diversity” or that sentimental, resentment-driven leveling known as democracy. Because of the influence of our inept intellectual class, assimilation is no longer assumed to be a necessity. On the contrary, it is tantamount to “racism.” For America has become a womanly nation, truth determined by sheer affect, and reason itself tainted by the so-called sin of whiteness. “Diversity!” leftist intellectual cattle cheer, enchanted by their own delusional spell. For the leftist intellectual, unsolvable and unending disagreement is now life’s highest value. In other words, diversity is our doom.

What is to be done? Nature herself shall provide the answer. Its name is war, which alone can bring us back to reality and teach us what counts.

So get your house in order. The barbarians are not just at the gates. They have long been in charge.