Diversity
Inclusiveness Or Nazi Selection?
December 31, 2001
One of the grand schemes of the bourgeoisie cocktail party circuit was the concept of diversity. It has lost its true meaning and has become the racial scourge of the 21st century.
Hailing from that hotbed of intellectual zeal, the University of California, Berkeley, diversity is well defined:
What is diversity?
Diversity refers to human qualities that are different from our own and those of groups to which we belong; but that are manifested in other individuals and groups.
Dimensions of diversity include but are not limited to: age, ethnicity, gender, physical abilities/qualities, race, sexual orientation, educational background, geographic location, income, marital status, military experience, parental status, religious beliefs, work experience, and job classification.
Diversity as a concept focuses on a broader set of qualities than race and gender. In the context of the workplace, valuing diversity means creating a workplace that respects and includes differences, recognizing the unique contributions that individuals with many types of differences can make, and creating a work environment that maximizes the potential of all employees. (http://hrweb.berkeley.edu/aaeeo/diverse.htm)
At first glance, this definition is shockingly similar to the common sense concept of the American “Melting Pot”…a society where people from all bands of the human spectrum meld their contributions together into a powerfully comprehensive whole.
Unfortunately, in practice, the concept of diversity has been corrupted into a patronizing and guilt-ridden apologetic system of profiling and selection. It eases the cognitive dissonance of the “Haves”, salves the wounds of the “Have Nots” and legitimizes the machinations of the “Want It Alls”.
Diversity has become a code word for racial quotas intermixed with a garnish of gender, disability, sexual preference and other second tier levels of “oppressed peoples”. Simply stated, diversity is warfare between interest groups.
The romantic ideal would be a society blind to the multispectrumed physical and spiritual differentiations of the population...Opportunity based upon the potential of individual contribution. The corrupted contemporary conceptualization of diversity is the reduction of the romantic into a quota system of filling societal slots based solely on the physical differentiations to which society hoped to be blind.
From a concept with an original purpose of elevating the individual to recognition for who they were and not what they were, diversity has become the great identifier of what you are.
Since the latest U.S. census identifies the racial composition of the country as 75.1% White, 12.3% Black, 3.6% Asian and .9% Native American, then the ideal goal of diversity would be to have representative proportions of these “racial” groups in all American endeavors…from the military to the boardroom. Additionally, these racial groups are to be further segmented along the lines of gender, sexual orientation, physical ability, etc.
One might also reasonably assume that a further segmentation of the population, and its assignment in society, should be conducted along the guidelines of religious orientation in order to construct the optimally diverse model.
The census finds that, religiously, America is 55% Protestant, 28% Catholic, 2% Jewish and 6% “Others”.
Ideally, The Politically Correct Police can easily develop an algorithm that creates a “Master Schedule” of the U.S. population; itemizing each combination of identifier attributes in the society and what percentage of the total population they account for.
Thus, if people who belonged to the White-Male-Jewish-Non-Handicapped segment accounted for 1% of the total population then, that segment should represent no more than 1% of the peer group it is representative of. Whether it is the entering class composition to Harvard, Investment Bankers at Goldman Sachs, Media Personalities at MSNBC, or Members of Congress, in order to mirror society and achieve the ideal of diversity, no more than 1% of the segment can occupy the slots available.
The same will hold true for Black-Male-Catholic-Handicapped, Asian-Female-Protestant-Non-Handicapped and all other permutations of the identifier attributes.
The precedent for the “Final Diversity” is derived from the ultimate authority, The U.S. Department Of Justice (DOJ). The DOJ holds that the primary need for diversity is found in the statistical and historical evidence of “Under-representation” of “diverse groups” throughout the American society. DOJ clearly defines the identifier attributes for diversity as, “include(ing), but are not limited to, persons of different races, colors, ethnic backgrounds, national origins, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and persons with disabilities.” The permutations of segments are limitless and per DOJ directive, open-ended. A new attribute can be identified and included into the segmentation quagmire almost serendipitously.
In order for there to be “Under-Representation” there must also be the accompanying “Over-Representation”. This is dictated by the rules of logic.
An Attorney General or even a Minister of Culture might find that left-handed people are either “over-represented” or “under-represented” in societal institutions and establish new placement guidelines.
The folly of contemporary diversity is best addressed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). In an article, Alleged Jewish 'Control' of the American Motion Picture Industry, posted on their website, the issue of under or over-representation is skillfully addressed.
The argument that the ADL counters is that, “For the better part of this century, anti-Semites have alleged that American Jews have conspired with their co-religionists to “control” the motion picture industry in the United States…. To the present day, anti-Semites have continued to allege that Jews are engaged in a conspiracy to “control” Hollywood.”
Although, “Boosters and antisemites agree: Jews have been prominent and predominant in all phases of the [motion picture] business: production, distribution and exhibition…Of the 100 most powerful people in the industry according to a recent survey by Premiere, most, including the top 12, are Jewish”, it is argued that, “Though individual Jews control Hollywood, Jewishness does not.”
To “Debunk the Lie”, the ADL argues that, “While statistics and studies on the subject are not readily available, the Anti-Defamation League believes that the recitation of numbers and percentages is not the answer to the false charges of Jewish “control” of the motion picture industry, or, indeed, of similar accusations involving the media, banking, finance and other businesses. Reliance on statistics alone plays into the hands of anti-Semites. Generally, Jews involve themselves in non-religious and non-political activity as individuals, not as Jews. ADL takes the position that the number of Jews involved in a particular field bears no relationship to “Jewish power” or “Jewish control” of that industry. ADL does not accept the notion that Jews in any field act in concert with other Jews similarly situated simply because they happen to be Jewish. To believe otherwise is to accept a conspiracy theory that is the anti-Semites’ stock-in-trade and relegates Jews to a kind of second-class citizenship.”
“In other words, American Jews have as much right as any other citizens of the United States to work in the motion picture business, in the entertainment industry, and in any other legitimate businesses. Moreover, it bears repeating that those Jews who involve themselves in the motion picture industry do so as individuals, not as representatives of their religious group or with an aim to act in some coordinated conspiratorial manner.”
The same can be said for any other group in the United States whether it is white, black, asian, male, female, blond or brunette. Whether the endeavor is bond trading or basketball, those who involve themselves in these pursuits do so as individuals and not as representatives of a grand conspiracy.
To restrict Jewish participation in any profession to no more than the 2% of the total population that it comprises would deny this society of valuable talent. How would the restriction of NBA teams to no more than 12.3% Black athletes play on the courts of America?
Diversity, as policy, is a bankrupt concept whose time has long ago outlived its usefulness. To structure society based on percentages of persons of different races, colors, ethnic backgrounds, national origins, religions, genders, sexual orientations, and persons with disabilities smacks of Nazi Germany.
The United States is ruled by the Constitution and its Bill Of Rights. People should be transparent of identifier attributes in the eyes of the law and the eyes of their fellow citizens. To structure this society based on identifier attributes is a cure deadlier than the disease.
RightPage