Skip to main content

Is "Diversity" Failing?

While Americans nationwide clamor together to condemn the murder of a black man at the hands of law enforcement — an agreeable protest, no doubt  we are presented with an array of claims from protestors eager to hammer home their points. Whether it be multi-millionaires claiming incidents of "racism every day" or an exasperated government official in San Francisco comparing her plight to that of her ancestors of "four hundred years ago," nobody can possibly question the passion of the protestors, but their claims nevertheless stand squarely at odds with the ideas and causes they've promulgated all along.  

Ironically, people in America have long been groomed to champion “diversity” as a strength, yet I wonder what it would take to change the minds of that segment of society. This is not to condemn “diversity” as a weakness, but rather to consider when its advocates might be willing to admit defeat or, at the very least, confess that their version of "diversity" has been a scam

If not in the face of such unavoidable — even “daily” — threats, what would it take, hypothetically speaking, for Americans to abandon this notion and their fruitless cause? According to many black “minorities” in America, including LeBron James, they are threatened with prejudice, discrimination and profiling on a daily basis. According to LeBron James, they're "literally hunted everyday [and] every time" they step foot outside the comfort of their homes.  

Although I am skeptical of this claim  indeed, it's patently false, as black suspects are statistically more likely to die at the hands of black police officers — if we are to assume that it’s true  which it's not — it seems to suggest that their theories of “diversity” have never been met with success, at least in their own personal estimations; ironically, wherever they are to admit of any success, they must necessarily admit of an opportunity to avoid the aforementioned threat, in which case they’re either embellishing the threat they've described or they're deliberately searching for it. 

Ironically, Americans are some of the most accepting and tolerant of people in the world; at minimum, Americans fear nothing more than being labeled a “racist.” It is the modern equivalent of Hester Prynne's scarlet letter, second only to being a Republican or, more specifically, a "deplorable" Trump supporter, a segment of society whom Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton, in September of 2016, callously described as "racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic." 

You may recall a particular line from John Hughes' 1986 comedy Ferris Bueller's Day Off: "Isms in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an ism, he should believe in himself." 

Good point there.

It’s no mere coincidence that the modern form of this term, racism, has its roots in the Civil Rights movement, as another weaponized word to effortlessly smear political opponents and their ideas with a word lacking in any technical meaning. In fact, where this term has its origins, it was defined as "the theory that distinctive human characteristics and abilities are determined by race." Indeed, the study of people by race or ethnicity, still pursued by an intrepid minority of scholars, was once conducted honestly in the light of day, where mobs, rioters and looters are suddenly more acceptable. 

Whereas groups of people have always differed from one another, whether by geography, appearance, proclivity, skill, custom, culture or whatever, the self-proclaimed “progressive” encourages us all to abandon that truth to instead accept the unfounded notions of “equality.” People have never been equal, and I dare say that they will never be equal. What's more, any agenda which targets this outcome is all but certain to destroy liberty en route to rendering each person "equal" only as subjects to the over-promising overlords

Moreover, it seems the “diversity” crowd and the “equality” crew are one and the same; both seem to concern themselves with their respective agendas on any given day, at any given time, so long as they serve them personally. They’re generally not purists, in that they don’t genuinely aspire for “diversity” or “equality,” but mutually for advantage wherever it can feasibly be achieved. “Diversity” and “equality” are just their way of stacking the deck and conning some of their enemies, who predictably indulge in fancying themselves cultured or hip, into supporting initiatives that sound all too agreeable. 

Fortunately for the modern propagandist, public schooling has primed the pump with the likes of Harper Lee’s Too Kill A Mockingbird and other simplistic works which equip young, impressionable students with the lenses through which to view and scrutinize the world. Such themes and terms as racism, equality, diversity, and even core democratic values, prepare the youth to classify ideas in accordance with their agreement, or disagreement, with the idols and ideals they’ve been taught to worship. Over the last century, no single term has proven more divisive or more expedient than that of racism.

Over time, with the benefit of this term racist, men and women with compelling and factual ideas about the differences between peoples have been ostracized, even blacklisted, for the mere mention of these inherent differences. For this, no self-interested person would dare risk advancing such an argument, let alone fleshing out the details which would surely render him public enemy number one. 

For this, we are left to be swept up in a constant deluge of nonsensical rhetoric and political correctness that together carry us entirely too far away from the truth to even remotely consider making the trek back. What’s more, any such journey can only risk abject failure, humiliation and condemnation from onlookers always ready to censure every fellow man who even considers such an ill-fated voyage. 

As it is, it’s hardly even acceptable to try these days, let alone to contest the conventional wisdom that’s already been printed annually on shirts, in text and on the walls of every school. Only a nerd would dare to check the facts, and only one with a death wish would dare share them with the class.


  1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Into the Wild: An Economics Lesson

There is a great deal of substance behind the Keynesian motif, “In the long run, we’re all dead.” If this is your prerogative, your axiom, we are destined to differ on matters of principle and timeline. Surely, any quantity or decided cash figure is relevant exclusively to the available produce yielded by its trade. The current valuation thereof, whilst unadulterated, corroborates a rather stable, predictable trend of expectations, whereas its significance wanes once reconfigured by a process of economic, fiscal or monetary manipulation.  Individuals, vast in their interests and their time preferences and overall appetites, are to be made homogeneous by an overarching system which predetermines the price floors, ceilings and general priorities of life. Of course, all of this exists merely in abstract form. However, the supposition proposed by those who champion the agenda of “basic needs” fails to complement the progress achieved by the abolition of presumed guilt by the sole mis

Cullen Roche's Not So "Pragmatic Capitalism"

In his riveting new work Pragmatic Capitalism , Cullen Roche, founder of Orcam Financial Group, a San Diego-based financial firm, sets out to correct the mainstream schools of economic thought, focusing on  Keynesians, Monetarists, and Austrians alike. This new macroeconomic perspective claims to reveal What Every Investor Needs to Know About Money and Finance . Indeed, Roche introduces the layman to various elementary principles of economics and financial markets, revealing in early chapters the failed state of the average hedge fund and mutual fund operators  —  who are better car salesmen than financial pundits, Roche writes  —   who have fallen victim to the groupthink phenomenon, responsible for their nearly perfect positive correlation to the major indexes; and thus, accounting for tax, inflation, and service adjustments, holistically wiping out any value added by their professed market insight.  Roche also references popular studies, such as the MckInsey Global Institute's