If Pro-Diversity Be An Anti-Value, How Best May This Be Shown?

If pro-diversity be considered an anti-value, one that is presented as a virtue or value, but in the place where a real value would otherwise be, loyalty is a likely candidate for being the value which would be thus displaced. Foreigners have different loyalties than do we, and pro-diversity favors immigrants and minorities in proportion as they do not share the loyalties of the majority or the citizenry. In general a group counts as diverse insofar as they are hostile to the net taxpayers of the host population, being rarely, if ever, loyal to these over against needy minorities and foreigners. For the majority or the citizenry to become pro-diversity in the above way, would mean losing loyalty to the fellow nationals, such as the net taxpayers, when foreigners and aggressors generally, increase the damage on those to whom loyalty is owed. This is how it occurs that pro-diversity is an anti-value of anti-loyalty, occupying and subverting the place of loyalty; in the above-described ways and perhaps in others not mentioned.
Added 8-9-08 from: Friday, August 8, 2008

If Diversity By Definition Makes Us Better & Enriches Us...
the non-diverse would then, by definition, be the worst and least valuable. That this is established by official aggression, has got to be intended as a racial provocation against the majority. It is the ultimate in divisiveness, and it can't possibly be done for money; it is political and has to be about power. It has to be about how to get power from conflict among groups.