The Logical Flaw in Vox Presenting Diversity aka Non Whiteness As an Unquestioned Benefit

Executive Summary

  • Virtually all of the media entities have decided to push diversity aggressively.
  • Curiously, Vox does not even stop to question if diversity is beneficial.


Vox is an establishment media entity that presents assumptions about what is good, without providing any evidence. At this point, it is clear that diversity (which means when white areas become less white) is bad for whites and good for non-whites. The reason is that whites have shown historically that they can create societies that non-whites want to be a part of, but which non-whites cannot create themselves. This has led to a multidecade pattern of immigration from non-white countries to white countries. Because non-whites increase societal conflict and reduce the desirability of white societies, non-whites — even those that state they prefer diversity, actually do not prefer non-white areas. However, due to political correctness, they cannot admit this preference.

How This Bias on Diversity Negatively Affects Vox’ Analysis

Because Vox never bothers to question their central assumption (diversity good), they cannot perform a proper analysis of the following patterns shown in the video.

This video shows that diversity is far less than it appears. It goes on to say that we are not much less segregated than decades ago. Whites do not like living around non-whites — and this is clearly shown in the video. Non-whites do like living around non-whites, but this is natural as white areas are nicer and better maintained than non-whites. This is true for racial groups that have a higher income than whites like Chinese and Indians. 

This video points out that sharing demographics, or the demographics becoming less white promotes conservative thoughts among whites. Vox presents this as a negative — however, Vox never seeks to analyze whether the country becoming more non-white is a good thing. 

Most of the countries in the world are non-white. Why white countries must also become non-white is never explained — again, it is an unexamined assumption. For example, why isn’t Papua New Guinea required to become more white? Why is there no push for China to become “more diverse?” Whites are the only race that are “required” to hand over control of their countries to non-whites slowly.

Importing non-whites into white countries benefits the non-whites, but it proportionately reduces the quality of life for whites as they take a step down being forced to live among more and more non-whites.

Hmmmmm…how much is “diversity” a strength in white countries? 


Vox’s video combines good tactical analysis, with unquestioned assumptions that prevent it from analyzing the issue from anything but their biased perspective. Vox might ask the question..

“Why do non-whites always seem to want to move to white countries?”


“If non-white areas of white countries go into decline after non-whites move there, what does that mean for the future of the US is it becomes more non-white?”

Vox can’t analyze these questions, because it can’t admit that a country becoming more non-white is not good for the whites that live there. This is the problem with following a “doctrine” without questioning the assumptions of the doctrine.