The Wall Street Journal has a new article up on the changing face of diversity in American cities -- but this isn't your father's Affirmative Action. It's a new, more virulent model, that aims at White genocide as its ideal, not 'fairness'. The time for sharing is over, and the for killing has begun. A new study released today by the US2010 Project at Brown University shows how the country has become much more diverse at the metropolitan level. The report scores the diversity of the nation’s metro areas by how evenly a place’s population is spread across the five racial groups: Non-Hispanic whites, Hispanics of any race, African-Americans, Asians and an “other” category that is largely made up of Native Americans, Alaska Natives and people of two or more races.A perfectly diverse place would have a population with exactly 20% of each category, and would get a diversity score of 100 on the diversity scale. In 2010, the most diverse metropolitan area in the country, Vallejo, Calif. had a score of 89.3 and the population was 41% white, 24% Hispanic, 15% Asian, 14% black, and 6% other. http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2012/09/07/which-u-s-cities-are-most-least-racially-diverse/ The idea behind Affirmative Action was that whether you were Black or White determined employment, other things being equal. Aggressive racial quotas were the supposed solution -- use the coercive power of the state to force the desired outcome, and make the system adjust to the application of force majeure. At least the outcome was a feasible one -- a hypothetical state in which Blacks and Whites are hired in proportion to their standing in the population. The new measure of 'racial diversity' is more aggressive than that by far. The 'optimal outcome' is not possible at all, without killing about 40% of the population of the United States, all of them Whites. It is a simple enough measure of species or racial diversity -- classify people into one of five racial categories (White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, and Other -- meaning 'Native American' or Indians), and (here's the key) insist that the optimum is when all five racial groups have equal populations. The 1970s style Affirmative Action may have resulted in promoting Niggers above their level of incompetence, on the Hamitic-Peter Principle, but no one was supposed to die. Now, however, Whitey has to go. It's Polar Bear Hunting season, apparently, at Brown University and the Wall Street Journal. Insisting on equality of outcomes is one thing. When the 'outcome' is mere existence, however, the underlying notion of Population Entropy and Bio-diversity takes on a nasty, competitive edge. At least the Affirmative Action of yore was aiming at a *static* outcome -- a final ideal equilibrium state, presumed stable, in which Blacks and Whites could inhabit the bridge of the USS Enterprise in proportion to their -- it was race blind, not race competitive. When races or species compete in nature, 'biodiversity' in not the likely outcome. An Ecology is a dynamic system, in which the balance of species is changing. Dynamic Diversity is seldom the same as Static Diversity (the sort investigated in the study). If there are exactly as many apex predators as their prey, the situation has reached a tipping point (common enough in American cities), where one or the other species will go on to prevail. The results of the study may be interesting -- as are iSteve's comments -- but cities that show 'diversity' by this measure will be unstable, changing places, where difficult adjustments -- workplace turn over, White flight, municipal bankruptcy -- are common, not because diversity leads these things, but because diversity in the sense defined is an unnatural, unattainable state.