(T)hose who talk all the time about cultural diversity are nominalist in ontology and relativist in epistemology; they do not care much to distinguish the good from the bad, the true from the false, and the beautiful from the ugly. Of course I speak in general terms, but it is still a shock to hear someone, as I have recently, in the same breath insist upon cultural diversity and then resist any attempt to define culture, saying that it means different things to different people, and there’s an end on it. No one who cares about human culture, or about any particular culture, could say such a thing. It is like saying that fidelity to your wife is of utmost importance, and that fidelity has no meaning beyond what you arbitrarily choose to assign to it...
They teach about “inequality, exclusion, and institutions” because they oppose those things: They are defined not by what they love but by what they hate. Since they have so little by way of cultural knowledge, the thing most available for their hatred is their caricature of the civilization they so relentlessly work upon: They hate what they think is the West. They do not want so much to read the Rig-Veda as not to read the Oresteia. The East or the South is valuable to them not in itself but in its not being Western. “Cultural diversity” does not then mean that you study Palestrina and Zulu polyphony. It means that you apply yourself to contemporary identity politics in the post-Christian and postcultural West, without understanding how thoroughly Western you are. You will listen neither to Palestrina nor to the Zulus, but to some “artist” in California who can be used as a political weapon.
So “diversity” means not that there should be a diversity of thriving cultures across the world, but that this civilization and what is left of American culture should pass away. Since people who want this show little sense of what a culture is, they are cavalier about what is to replace what they hate. That does not matter, nor does it matter whether their prescriptions here destroy cultures elsewhere to boot. Hence the attacks by global organizations against Christian African states whose people are wary of ingesting the viruses that have vitiated the cultures of the attackers.
Here we approach the heart of the problem. Suppose I note the obvious, that the collapse of the natural and God-ordained family in the West has visited grave harm upon the most vulnerable among us, particularly African-Americans. Suppose I then say that feminism has played its part in this collapse, just as the birth-control pill, also celebrated by feminists, has brought on a surge in the incidence of breast cancer. Will the purveyors of “diversity” reconsider their ideological commitments for the sake of millions whose lives are at stake? Will they spare visiting Sodom and Gomorrah upon that part of the world still relatively free of the infection?
Hardly. The watchword now is intersectionality, by which is implied an equivalence between one sort of attributed odium and another: between racism and the desire of every healthy father who ever breathed upon earth that his son might grow into manliness, attracted to women and attractive to them in turn. In other words, if you believe that boys ought to be guided firmly and gently into that natural manhood, to take wives and to beget children by them, and that anything that might derail them with unnatural temptations must be kept out of their sight, you might as well be hanging a racist sign on the water fountain.
After worship, the most determinative feature of any culture is how it comes to terms with sex: the facts of male and female, and their relations to each other and to their children. But the secular West now decrees: For the sake of “gender diversity” there shall be no boundaries, no definitions.
That is an all-eating acid. No culture can contain it.
Some permissions purport to broaden the field of human action but destroy the thing they work upon...
The result will be not cultural diversity but a fungal homogeneity, with culture reduced to a few superficialities of dress and cuisine.
Summing it up, then: To its most vocal proponents, “cultural diversity” implies a virtuous hatred of Western civilization, and the global spread of a secular Western ethic as regards sex, marriage, family, and the rearing and education of children. The result will be not diversity but dreary sameness; not jewels gleaming each in its particular character, but mud.
Now we may return to the teachings of Christ and the Church. Christian liberals say that “diversity,” so defined, is compatible with the faith. But it is not compatible with any decent pagan culture, let alone with Christianity. No pagan hates his own home, and the home for Christianity was the world wherein it pleased the Father to send the Son: the particular world of the Jewish faith amid the political and intellectual matrix of Greco-Roman antiquity. You may begin by hating Plato and Aristotle, Aeschylus and Sophocles, Virgil and Ovid, Origen and Augustine; you will end by hating Christ. Nor can any pagan accept the secular West’s sexual disintegration-by-design. To say that it does not matter how the next generation is brought into the world is to say that the future need have no connection with the past, and that is to say that there shall be no culture at all.
Demons can only parody the divine, and we have such a parody here. Jesus commanded the Apostles to go forth and “make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.” He did not command them to obliterate the nations.