Diversity vs. Equality

You can champion diversity, or you can condemn bigotry.  But you can’t do both.  Pick one.

This is obviously something the Left is confused about.  They believe themselves to be “pro-equality”, which they present as meaning treating people equally, which means being anti-bigotry.  They are also obsessed with diversity, to the point we can fairly say that being a Leftist means being pro-diversity.  They see these together as being an internally consistent position.  But as time goes on people are beginning to call out Leftists on their supposed commitment to “equality” in the sense of anti-bigotry.  As a culture, we are starting to notice that Leftists are the most raging bigots on the planet.  They’re not about equality or tolerance, they’re about diversity.  They’re about tearing down straights, whites, Christians and males, an obsession that arises out of their staunch commitment to diversity, plus the fact they live in parts of the world made up mostly of these groups.

The confusion starts with a false dilemma: you must either be pro-diversity, or anti-diversity.  This is then connected to a false equivocation: bigotry = anti-diversity, hence anti-bigotry = pro-diversity.  The additional option of being ambivalent to diversity (neither pro nor anti), because you actually focus on unrelated things like merit, is ignored, and usually declared a “soft” or “implicit” form of being anti-diversity.

Now, let’s be clear.  “Diversity” does not mean diversity of thought, or character, or skills, or interests, or anything else that involves peoples’ personalities.  Diversity means a particular distribution of race, sex, sexual orientation, and sometimes religion (but really only with Islam, in a way where it’s seen as effectively a race rather than a consciously chosen belief system.  Islam just means Middle Easterners).  The Left’s obsession with diversity is an obsession with primarily race and sex.  When a Leftist walks into an office building, the main thing on his mind is what percentage of the members of the office belong to a certain race or sex, and how these percentages differ from the national averages.  Commitment to diversity either means that there must be no deviation of these percentages from their national averages, or that there must be as close to equal distribution among all possible races and sexes as possible, so that there are no “majorities” or “minorities”.

In such a situation, everyone is “equally” represented right?  Isn’t it inherently “unequal” for there to be more of one group than another?  Doesn’t this uncover some kind of bigoted hiring practice somewhere?  This is the ridiculous thought process Leftists used to infer that opposing bigotry, and supporting equality, means demanding diversity in this sense; as ultimately the eradication of majorities and minorities by discriminating against whoever is currently the majority and in favor of whoever is currently the minority.  Such discrimination is not really discrimination, because they say it is really just undoing the real discrimination that led to the formation of majorities and minorities to begin with.  The playing field is already uneven, so such “reverse discrimination” is actually anti-discrimination!  It’s mind-boggling to try to work through the doublespeak of this thinking, where something literally becomes its opposite, but Leftism is a minefield of such literal contradictions.  There is no “reverse racism”, because racism means one race is a majority, so then targeting the majority race to depopulate them is actually anti-racism!  Women cannot be sexist because patriarchy!  And so on.

We will work through, as best we can, the layers upon layers of perfectly illogical nonsense that forms this belief system, but the first thing we can do is state outright how obviously absurd its conclusions are.  The “diversity” crowd and the “supremacist” crowds have something in common: they both demand a particular distribution of some external trait.  A white supremacist demands 100% of the office is white people.  A black supremacist demands 100% of the office is black people.  A Leftist demands that the office is 85% white and 15% black, today, with the longer term goal of making the office equal percentages of whites, blacks and all other races.

They all care about what percentage of the office belongs to a certain race!

Meanwhile, you have the people that are neither pro nor anti-diversity, because they don’t actually care what race people are.  This person walks into an office, and he doesn’t see 90 white people and 10 black people, or 60 men and 40 women, or whatever.  He sees 100 people.  This possibility first shocks, and then infuriates, the pro-diversity crowd, because it suddenly reveals just how bigoted they actually are.  It forces them to acknowledge their bizarre obsession with superficial traits that people have no control over instead of caring at all about character, and thereby places them in the very same category as supremacists of any variety.  White supremacists, black supremacists and Leftists all fight with each other because they have different goals, but they are like different sects within one religion: the religion of bigotry.

The standard reaction to this is, guess what, call it bigotry (the Big Three: racist, sexist, homophobic).  In some way or another, not demanding the particular distributions they think are ideal just makes me an indirect supporter of the supremacist groups.  By not demanding that an office with mostly white people throw some of the white people out for no reason other than the fact they are white and replace them with non-whites just to achieve a particular distribution of races, apparently I am “implicitly supporting” white supremacy!  But this is because they define “white supremacy” as the existence of a white majority.  This is a routine tactic of the Marxist Left: to redefine terms, which just like doublethink is a major theme of 1984.  Their newspeak includes a complete redefinition of “racism” to have something to do with “structure” and “power dynamics”, which are Marxist concepts: “racism” is now a “class conflict” concept where one class holds power over another, which creates the growing tensions that eventually result in the oppressed group overpowering and oppressing the oppressor group, thereby destroying their power and eventually leveling the field to a classless society.  This is the sequence of capitalism-socialism-communism Marx described, except instead of the oppressors being owners of the means of production and oppressed being wage workers, now the oppressors are the majority race and the oppressed “minorities”.

If you’ve noticed that at the end of these discussions about race and sex, the “root cause” is always “capitalism”, and the solution is always socialism or communism, it’s not a coincidence.  This is all ultimately just selling socialism to people who don’t get or care about “ownership of the means of production” or “surplus value” other egg-headed economics stuff, but they do understand and care about peoples’ skin color and gender.

Of course there is no support, either lexical or etymological, for this definition of “racism”, which actually means belief in the superiority of one race over another; in other words, it means being a supremacist.  So they redefine “supremacy” itself from meaning an active belief that a particular race should be a majority and it should always remain a majority, to simply not believing that whoever is currently a majority should be made no longer a majority.  The definition is changed from demanding a majority, to simply tolerating the existence of a majority, and in fact not demanding any currently existing one be eradicated.  If you aren’t on board with tearing down the “structural inequities”, which just means a majority, then you basically are a supremacist!  I should point out, and this is very significant so never forget it: this is mostly white people shrieking about tearing down “white supremacy”.  It’s especially funny to see the inevitable cannibalism that happens when their anti-white race pimping starts attracting genuinely tribalist non-whites.

The stupidity of this is painfully obvious, even to Leftists, so there needs to be some way to rationalize the contradiction.  The main way to do this is to say that by being actually not bigoted, meaning not being obsessed with things like race, that means I am “blind” to race.  Of course this is asinine.  I can see what color peoples’ hair is, but I don’t demand “equal representation” of blondes and brunettes.  It’s not that I am “blind” to hair color, I just don’t give a shit.  I don’t join some big political cause that is centered around what percentages of people have certain hair colors.  Well, race is about much more than skin color, it’s really about culture.  Different races have their own cultures.  But that’s the whole fucking point.  Being neither pro nor anti-diversity means I have no issue with some places having equal distributions of different races, while others are almost, or possibly completely, one race.  This allows different races to form their own cultural centers and maintain their own cultural identities, while also allowing those different races to mingle and work together whenever they see fit.  This is true multiculturalism.

But the Left’s idea of “multiculturalism”, which really means a complete domination of a “diversity culture” over all other cultures, is cultural genocide.  All the individual cultures of the component races would get destroyed.  The Left understands this, so they invented this self-contradictory idea of “cultural appropriation”, with the same theme that something becomes its own opposite depending on whether the “oppressor” or “oppressed” group is doing it.  When “minority” cultures adopt the language, math, science, technology, music theory and, most ironically, political philosophy, of Western Civilization, it’s just “adoption” for the purpose of surviving oppression (and now that they have ample opportunity to leave the West and return to their own cultures, they don’t, so maybe sticking around where iPhones and Twitter exist isn’t really about survival anymore).  But when the “majority” culture participates in things like dress styles or styles of Western music developed by minorities, it’s “appropriation”, which is a big word for “stealing”.

As noted, the biggest irony of this is that this whole concept, which is all Marxist sociology, is a product of Western European thought.  Marx was a 19th century white male German philosopher, trained in the Romanticist school of George Hegel, another white male German philosopher, and built his notion of “oppressor-oppressed” class conflict on top of the economic theories of classical economists like David Ricardo and Adam Smith, who were white male British philosophers, themselves immersed in a centuries-old tradition of Scholastic philosophy developed in Spain and other European countries by white, almost entirely male, Europeans as part of their intellectual revolution we call the “Renaissance”.  The very notion of “equality” they are perverting, including the rejection of slavery as immoral and the demand that humans have inalienable rights that no organization, not even a government or otherwise dominant group, may justifiably violate, wholly belongs to the culture of Western Europe.  No other civilization in history ever suggested that slavery is utterly wrong in all its forms, and then struggled over centuries to eradicate it from its societies (cue the criticism that the West didn’t do this in a single day).  But see, this doesn’t count as “appropriation”, because it’s being done by the “oppressed”, not the “oppressors”.  Well, call it what you will Leftists, but maybe at some point, considering that your entire half-baked political philosophy was pilfered from a bunch of “dead white males” like Karl Marx and Herbert Marcuse, and since you see the world as one “group” like “white males” vs. other groups like minorities, a simple “your welcome” would be in order.  Or better yet, just drop all the dumb bigoted collectivism and see people as what they are: individuals who organize into groups based on common interests and beliefs, not collectivist blobs whose “cells” are individual humans.  I don’t think you’re “appropriating” Western philosophy.  It’s for everyone to share.  Enjoy it.  As communists you shouldn’t even really believe in “appropriation” to begin with.  Everything belongs to everyone, right?

Anyways, the point is that their cultural genocide is formulated in order to preserve the “oppressed” cultures, by allowing them to remain distinct.  It is empowering and progressive for a minority group to form minority-only clubs and forbid any amount of diversity therein.  A Black Lives Matter rally can rightfully throw out any whites who attend.  “Black pride” is a wonderful thing that should be encouraged because it helps blacks cope with their struggle.  But the very idea of a “whites only” club is horrible bigotry manifest, and any utterance of the phrase “white pride” is declared code word for Naziism.  Just notice the blatant double standard.  Does uttering “black pride” suddenly mean you’re part of the Black Panthers and want to wipe out all white people?  No, it just means you are proud of your blackness.  But then uttering “white pride” does mean you’re part of the Nazis and want to gas blacks and Jews!?  Remember when I said the Leftism worldview is a minefield of doublespeak; of literal contradictions?  This is what I’m talking about.

To be clear, my position is on this, the one I think is the most valuable for mankind, is to not go down either of these rabbit holes.  I’m not really into “white pride”, because I think being “proud” of my race, something I have no control over, is kind of stupid, and ventures into just the sort of identity politics I so thoroughly want to avoid.  Frankly I’m not into “pride” of any sort.  Pride does not yield success, and I’m much more interested in winning the next thing I’m trying to win, of accomplishing the next thing I wish to accomplish, of reaching my next goal, than of gloating over the things I have already won, accomplished or achieved.  The very idea of “pride” is childish to me, and I see it as little more than pointless, if not actually destructive, mental masturbation that interferes with productivity.  That being said, I do not hesitate to point out how silly it is that Leftists have formed a religion around the idea that their designated “victim groups” can and should hold “pride rallies” and be outwardly, boastfully “proud” of things they were born with, while at the same time flipping their shit when other groups, like white people, end up doing the same thing.  Look, you guys made that bed, now you’ve gotta sleep in it.  You popularized this idea of “pride”, are you seriously surprised it resulted in a “white pride” movement?  You’re hypocrites for glorifying minority pride while attacking majority pride.  You have to understand the rest of the world does not subscribe to this “doublethink is okay” mindset of Cultural Marxism, where the opposite rules apply to different groups because they were, ultimately arbitrarily, designated “oppressor” or “oppressed”.  We know you think you’ve excused yourselves for holding two completely opposite positions simultaneously, but the rest of us aren’t buying it, and that’s not going to change any time soon.  People aren’t going to take you seriously when you sell yourselves as Tolerance Manifest with all your stupid “Love Trumps Hate” signs and then turn around and foment hate mongering against some of the largest, most truly diverse (in terms of beliefs, attitudes, actions, interests, and so on) groups that exist on the planet.

It turns out common sense is actually right.  The people who are demanding that the Asian guy who scored high on his math tests shouldn’t get into a university because too many Asians historically have scored high on math exams are, well… racists!  That’s not equality.  It’s the opposite.  It’s not treating everyone the same, it’s treating the Asian guy different just because he’s Asian.  It’s different rules for different people, based on their race and sex, literally, as written in the rulebooks, just like the racist Jim Crow laws of the early 20th century.  If you want to support equality, then stop supporting diversity.  This doesn’t mean to start supporting homogeneity.  It means to stop caring about superficial traits and to do what Martin Luther King Jr. said: focus on the content of character.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *