On the Severe Limitations of Leftist Diversity
The next time some academics tell you how important diversity is, ask how many Republicans there are in their sociology department. —Thomas Sowell
This is one of those essays that shouldn’t have to be written but somehow are, pointing out the obvious to people who may not see the obvious…because the obvious is forbidden by the keepers of mainstream orthodoxy. I’ve written quite a few of these actually, like the one pointing out the extreme strangeness of feminists endorsing fundamentalist Islam while denouncing the very same civilization, and the same men, that allowed them to become feminists in the first place. Some people may be vaguely aware of these situations, but they never articulate them to themselves in such a way that the perversion of the situation really sinks in. Others are painfully aware of all the ideological fuckery running amuck, but still may be able to appreciate someone else bringing it up, maybe from a slightly different angle, because the propagandists of the Brave New World Order certainly are not. So, here we go.
As we all know, the “progressives” of the new left promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. But these are just words. What do these words mean? I’ll start with the second two, and then return to the first.
Equity means equality of outcome. Endorsement of this is based primarily on the outrageous fallacy that everyone is the same, and that if everyone were placed in a state of equality (of rights, protection under the law, and opportunity) they would all come out the same with regard to prosperity and general well-being. Thus the lack of equality of outcome among different ethnicities is considered necessarily to be oppression by evil Whitey, even though white people are certainly not the most prosperous people in America—I have read that East Indians earn on average approximately twice what the average white American earns. Anyway, this desire for equity totally disregards psychological differences between ethnicities and even among individuals; and it is astonishing to me that “civilized,” “educated” people in the 21st century can still believe it. But people can believe anything. I move on.
Inclusion means that nobody is excluded from general acceptance in society—except of course for people who are not leftists. So what inclusion really means is inclusion of all leftists so long as they tow the party line, regardless of how perverse or dysfunctional their attitudes and lifestyles may be otherwise. So “inclusion” excludes non-leftists because non-leftists are not to be tolerated.
But this is beginning to display some intolerance of certain varieties of human being along political lines, so I suppose I should return to the first term on the list, diversity. Diversity means variety…of what? Well, it means diversity or variety of skin colors in a society, except maybe for white; diversity or variety of sexual orientations, except maybe for normal heterosexuality; diversity of tattoos, piercings, and hair colors certainly; and probably some diversity in society of individual rights, in the attempt to force-fit equality of outcome onto a society with a variety of people with different talents and aptitudes. But what about other, arguably more important kinds of diversity, like diversity of opinion? Or how about diversity of individual strengths and talents, and a variety of distributions of those strengths and talents among different ethnicities?
That the left, yowling for diversity, equity, and inclusion as they are, absolutely cannot stand diversity of opinion on matters of politics, for example, is totally obvious, probably even to most leftists. Postmodern progressives deny the existence of truth, considering it to be a mere cultural construct, but they nevertheless absolutely insist that their version of it, or mutation of it, is the only allowable one.
So in a leftist “utopia” there will be no more marketplace of ideas that helped western civilization to become preeminent throughout the world. It would be pretty much like any other Marxist or collectivist system: heretics are to be burned at the stake, or thrown into gulags to be isolated or reprogrammed, or otherwise persecuted and silenced, or simply disappeared. Big tech platforms like Facebook and Twitter are already implementing minor forms of this, and the Australian government is constructing gulags as I write this.
Darwinian natural selection of belief systems, with the more successful at dealing with the world rising and the less successful sinking into oblivion, resulting in the gradual evolution towards a valid or at least healthy system, would be outlawed by a “progressive” leftist utopia. This is due in part, I assume, to the fact that many of the leftists themselves feel insecure with the idea, deep down, that what they believe is false. (Seriously, how could any sane person believe, deep down, in the blatant fallacies of Social Justice?) If everyone else believes it, even if under compulsion, then lefties aren’t bothered by people sensibly calling their mass hysteria into question, thereby shaking their own faith in the mythos. People not so long ago believing that a Hebrew carpenter turned miracle rabbi was the only begotten Son of God and that anyone who didn’t worship him would burn in hell indulged in similar hysterical intolerance of unbelievers. Instead of competition of a diversity of ideas we have fanatics squabbling over minutiae and the outright criminalization and banning of substantial diversity of view.
The current situation is reminiscent of the late Roman Empire, in which the Pagans were ruthlessly persecuted into oblivion, and the Christians fought each other in the streets over such matters as whether the Holy Spirit emanated directly from the Father, or indirectly from the Father through the Son. People were literally killing each other over this kind of fatuous nit-picking. So now calling basic principles of socialism or equity into question, or working out how there can be racism without race, etc., is not allowable, and the lefties squabble over what the next microaggression will be, or what historical figure to attack next for not having 21st-century hysterical values, or how fast communism should be implemented and the concentration camps built. Whether Social Justice is valid or not is a topic that is strictly verboten.
One would think that true diversity would include political diversity. It would include not only a few competing mutations of Marxism but also every other possibility on the political spectrum, including hardcore libertarian capitalism, autocratic hereditary monarchy, fascism, and presumably even anarchy—which is not what Marxism is really striving for of course—the anarchy I mean, because communism cannot exist as a national political and economic system without a brutal and controlling central government with brutal secret police enforcing it upon people, most of whom would rather not have a wealthy ruling class making their personal decisions for them.
A digression on Whitey: The European race has been viewed by Marxists as the main obstacle to global communism, what with our perverse insistence on human dignity and individual rights and so on (was it Lenin who said that? or Stalin? I don’t remember), which helps to explain why socialistic globalists are trying to dilute the European race down to a light brown mongrel race through mass immigration/invasion. That is, if we are allowed to exist as equals in socialistic standardized mediocrity at all. Whitey is viewed as the oppressor and enemy, even though, as I say, white people are not the most prosperous in the USA. If I remember correctly, people of European ancestry come in 17th place after a variety of Asian and even African ethnicities. But the lefties don’t care. Whitey is in the way regardless.
What other kinds of diversity are not allowed by the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion-bots? Religious diversity, fortunately I think, is allowed, because Marxists tend to be materialistic atheists who do not consider religion, or anything higher than materialism, to be important or relevant anyway. Nevertheless, all religious systems in the west that have become dominated by “progressive” leftists resemble each other more than they resemble their own original versions. Westernized liberal Theravada Buddhism more closely resembles Western liberal Zen or Western liberal Methodism more than it resembles traditional Asian Theravada, for example.
Even cultural diversity is frowned upon to some degree because of the various points of view favored by different cultures. Leftist, globalist “diversity” ultimately means docile, sheeplike brown people of no particular race who all think the same way.
In conclusion, I think it is safe to assume that leftist “diversity” is more or less of a lie, considering that the socialist left considers all people to be essentially the same, and thus without any diversity other than what individuals are allowed by society to choose, plus superficial skin color etc. that can’t possibly be more than skin deep.
|even non-leftist black people are not to be tolerated by the left|