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.

Comments

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

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

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