Skip to main content

The 'Diversity' Scam

'Diversity' serves as one of the most ambiguous, abused and misunderstood terms in the modern lexicon. 

What does it mean, if anything? 

At what level does it operate, and what end does it serve beyond aesthetics or politicking? 

'Diversity' serves Western civilization as a sort of badge of honor adorning those who champion its undefined cause, who sport the language no differently than they wear a shirt with the name of a brand or political candidate they know only well enough to appreciate the membership it’s afforded them to some special club. 

The term ‘diversity’ likewise serves as a moving target whereby the politically-minded jockey for their advantage by appealing to an abstract, idealistic yet untested hypothesis about a better civilization. 

Nowhere in the historical record will one find any measure of certainty to support the theory that 'diversity' in and of itself can predictably achieve any semblance of harmony, prosperity or righteousness. 

Seldom, if ever, will one find those voluble exponents of 'diversity' even remotely pursuing, let alone realizing, their vaunted vision in their own private lives. 

Indeed, nearly every one of them maintains course by identifying with those around them who are familiar, who resemble them, who share their views, passions and interests. 

Moreover, the historical record is replete with examples of fatal dysfunction whereby factions, tribes and groups have clashed to stamp out the differences and anxieties between them. 

Inherent to life in the animal kingdom, human beings, while social animals, face real threats to their survival that, although seemingly less brutal or primitive, trigger the same kinds of instincts that impel their counterparts to hunt and live in packs, to associate with their own kind, which in turn yield to assortative mating and the reviled outcome of 'discrimination' that is radically misunderstood and mindlessly berated across nearly all forums of public discourse. 

There is not one human being who genuinely aspires for ‘diversity’ by whatever measure employed, in particular the kind of ‘diversity’ publicized in the vein of the mainstream. 

Whether through a ‘diverse’ portfolio design, a ’diverse’ workplace or classroom, a ‘diverse’ civilization or whatever, the ultimate objective remains entirely separate from the marketed and simplified means of ‘diversity’. 

Through a ‘diverse’ portfolio, for example, market strategists, wealth managers and mutual funds seek to mitigate risk exposure in order to stabilize their portfolios. 

However, their portfolios aren’t comprised of purely random securities for the mere sake of ‘diversity’; rather, they are composed of select securities that align with the overall objectives and risk profiles of the respective investors. 

In this sense, a portfolio may appear ‘diverse’ or ‘diversified’ even with investments in a single asset class, though they qualify as ‘diversified’ for other unique business characteristics that distinguish them from the others. 

In the case of the ‘diverse’ workplace or classroom, the ultimate objective is not to randomly enable all types of individuals to work together, but rather to maximize productivity by gaining meaningful insights into creative ideas, which tend to benefit from unique perspectives that typically arise from different backgrounds, passions and cultures. 

Just as with the unique qualities of any given security, whereby the intelligent investor takes interest not only in the name or asset class represented, but in the underlying business fundamentals, the shrewd business owner hires personnel on the basis of talent, qualification and compatibility; he is guided less by ethnicity or appearance than by the qualities possessed by the candidate. 

This is where the term ‘diversity’ is most often abused in describing a state of superficial variety or the perception of visual differences, where shapes, sounds and colors take the place of the substance, ideas and flavors beneath the surface; where that purported ‘diversity’ serves the myopic purposes of self-serving propagandists who are interested in marketing something other than the truth, who smugly echo the popular talking points that earn the desired praise, votes and marketshare of the great many who fail to recognize the scam before they’ve completely bought into the rhetoric. 

While there is certainly honor in entertaining different ideas, there is no honor in classifying people by their superficial identities, and the diversity scam, where it takes hold in practice on Monday, threatens only to perpetuate the very kind of discrimination that the same political movement ironically seeks to admonish on Tuesday. 

So while an understanding of real ‘diversity’ exists as a laudable goal for mankind, the kind broadly pursued and marketed today serves only to distract from the meaningful alternative that substantively distinguishes each of us as individuals. 

Instead of evaluating people through their personal qualities, the standard form of ’diversity’ has associated with differences in appearance, not unlike the kind of ‘diversity’ found within a bag of M&M’s. 

In this case, the politically-minded protesters jockey for inclusion of one color of M&M's at the exclusion of another, where the latter is simply dismissed as the cost of so-called "equality" or "doing what is right."

In the case of human beings, however, there are substantive differences beneath the surface, whereas all M&M's differ only by color.

Meanwhile, the total cost of the measures is never accurately calculated, as one can only approximate the losses from productivity and misallocated human capital, let alone the immeasurable psychological costs incurred by the flesh-and-blood human beings sacrificed for the benefit of the affirmative 'diversity' programs.  



The modern movement toward ‘diversity’ is all for optics, political correctness and marketability, and in the absence of those goals it is purely about personal gain where that particular style of ‘diversity’ serves to benefit those acolytes who either passively endorse it or actively hoist its banner and shout at the top of their lungs, begging to be heard and advantaged. 

Where mankind once channeled these impassioned energies into hunting and foraging, they now pour them into protest for benefits that surpass those of the hunt and, by all appearances, exact far lower measures of cost and risk in the immediacy.

What's more, in the game of political predator and prey, it is the persuasive talkers who conquer the capable doers, and it is the doers who, unbeknownst to the talkers, actually grant them the opportunity to continue complaining.  


Unfortunately, by the time it’s too late, their protests will have cost them far more than they could have even imagined. 

In the course of bargaining for spice, they will have lost the farm.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

The Keynesian mantra, in its implications, has its roots in destruction rather than truth: “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your guiding principle, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. While it is true that our fates intersect in death, that does not mean that we ought to condemn our heirs to that view: the view that our work on this planet ought only to serve ourselves, and that we ought only to bear in mind the consequences within our own lifetimes.  The Keynesians, of course, prefer their outlook, as it serves their interests; it has the further benefit of appealing to other selfish people who have little interest in the future to which they'll ultimately condemn their heirs. After all, they'll be long gone by then. So, in the Keynesian view, the longterm prospects for the common currency, social stability, and personal liberty are not just irrelevant but inconvenient. In their view, regardless of the consequences, those in charge tod

America's Civil War: Not "Civil" and Not About Slavery

Virtually the entirety of South and Central America, as well as European powers Britain, Spain and France, peacefully abolished slavery — without war — in the first sixty years of the nineteenth century.  Why, then, did the United States enter into a bloody war that cost over half of the nation’s wealth, at least 800,000 lives and many hundreds of thousands more in casualties?  The answer: the War Between the States was not about slavery.  It was a war of invasion to further empower the central government and to reject state sovereignty, nullification of unconstitutional laws, and the states’ rights to secession.  It was a war that would cripple the South and witness the federal debt skyrocket from $65 million in 1860 to $2.7 billion in 1865, whose annual interest alone would prove twice as expensive as the entire federal budget from 1860. It was a war whose total cost, including pensions and the burial of veterans, was an estimated $12 billion. Likewise, it was a war that would

There's Always Another Tax: The Tragedy of the Public Park

In the San Francisco Bay Area, many residents work tirelessly throughout the year to pay tens of thousands of dollars in annual property taxes. In addition to this, they are charged an extra 10 percent on all expenses through local sales taxes. It doesn't stop there. In addition to their massive federal tax bill, the busy state of California capitalizes on the opportunity to seize another 10 percent through their own sizable state income taxes. But guess what! It doesn't stop there. No, no, no, no.  In California, there's always another tax. After all of these taxes, which have all the while been reported to cover every nook and cranny of the utopian vision, the Bay Area resident is left to face yet an additional tax at the grocery store, this time on soda. The visionaries within government, and those who champion its warmhearted intentions, label this one the "soda tax," which unbelievably includes Gatorade, the preferred beverage of athletes