Randomizing Quality Of Population Via The Valuing Of Openness To Diversity: Another Insuperable Contradiction For The Pro-Diversity Emerges

The more openness to diversity you obtain, the more you randomize quality of population.
Valuing openness to diversity (with more always better) implies valuing randomization of quality of population. The randomization will tend to proceed downwards unless quality of population is already the lowest in the world.
If our quality of population is already the worst that is found anywhere, in spite of having valued openness to diversity to the extent of importing a significant change in population, valuing openness to diversity similarly as before, reduces to a contradiction-in-terms.
We can't have had the worst quality of population before these pro-diversity policies started to make their changes, and also today, such that randomization through valuing openness to diversity would still make an improvement. Either we were the world's worst before the pro-diversity got its population changes underway, or we're the worst now, after diversification of population. It can't be both; but valuing openness to diversity even after the first major diversification, implies both at the same time and in the same respect.
The way this pro-diversity insult works is in the tradition of the agents provocateurs.
Your people are the absolute worst, any random diversity would improve you, is such a provocation that it doesn't get answered rationally. The people react with hatred of the pro-diversity, as they should; but then the pro-diversity get to say that the people are haters and won't respond rationally, so why not let officials have more power to suppress the hatred and unreason. No, it can be answered rationally; provocateurs should be exposed and their servitude to the aggrandizement of despotic power should win failure for them. The increase of aggression is not excused by the characteristics of its opponents in any case.