One point that I did not notice is that the Left simultaneously claims that:
1) Diversity is a strength, and we need more diverse organizations
2) The culture characteristics of different groups have no impact on their outcomes in education, income, wealth, etc.
If the later is true, then why should be trying to get more diversity? The latter basically means that diversity will lead to no better outcomes.
The above is more evidence that it really about shaming non-Leftists. If you are interested in more of my thoughts on this issue, see my video and Substack:
Nice analysis, but how to stop this ever-repeating dynamic? We need more influence in mass media to popularize the idea that natural racial differences, not white racism, are largely responsible for causing different outcomes. Elon is helping with X, but it might not be enough. (Jared Taylor’s account is still banned on the platform.)
USA Blacks don’t succeed as well as other races socio-economically because they aren’t as intelligent on average as they are.
With a mean IQ of around 85, they are outclassed by Jewish people, IQ 111-113; Chinese IQ 106; Whites IQ around 100; Hispanics, IQ 89….etc etc.
IQ is closely correlated with eg Sat Scores; Sat scores are correlated with position in the socio economic hierarchy.
Rather than accepting these realities, mainstream equality thinking denies it because it is ‘racist’. It is convenient to blame disparities in Black achievement on ‘racism’. This results in injustice to White people, for example when Blacks gain places in prestigious universities on the basis of their race and ‘equity’ ahead of better qualified Whites.
The social commentator Heather MacDonald has a new book out, ‘When Race Trumps Merit’ which explores this phenomenon.
The progressives are Marxists, and Racism = capitalism. Being anti-racist = socialist. Whiteness = capitalism.
They think that they are slaves of capitalism and the only way they'll be free is to destroy capitalism, take power, destroy the gender binary, and usher in their utopia.
When you hear the phrase "Our democracy," it means socialism.
Undoubtedly, some progressives are communists, but I believe it is not so pure and simple. Progressives are determined to destroy our Western Civilization, but not necessarily to be replaced with communism. I think the term communism is overused, as is racism.
When I use Marxist and communist, I'm using it very carefully. I'm using it the way Marx used it. A systematic destruction of the normal state by either violent or non violent revolution by seizing power, destabilizing the state, overthrowing the gender binary, and trying to bring about a utopia.
The people doing this believe that capitalism is slavery and only by overthrowing it, can they be free.
It's not a coded language and it's all they write about, and they write about it a lot.
You really should subscribe to @karlyn borysenko's substack and watch her YouTube, especially the socialism Saturday and cult segments.
My point is that there is a tendency to confuse a governmental system with an economic one. Theoretically, a communist economic system could be possible under an electoral government and a capitalist economic system under a dictatorial government.
I contend the United States is a plutocratic oligarchy.
At it's base, Marxism is not really an economic or governmental system, it's a cult. Utopia is not a government or economic term, it's a religious term.
At its heart, Marxism is about liberating people from the evil of merit and slavery of having to work. It's about making everyone the same through a collective belief.
The Socialists believe that the community or state can run people better than they themselves can.
That is why they took over the LGBTQ movement and used to push Marxism. It's why they took over education and are using it to push revolution. It's why they are trying to destroy the family because they believe that the family unit supports capitalism by providing future workers. It's why they consider child rearing to be unpaid labor.
It's why there are outsiders, the novitiate, the "priests," and the "keepers" of the mysteries.
I believe Marxism is anti-meritocratic, and I am a firm believer in meritocracy. But leftists who promulgate what I call Acts of Societal Disruption are using LGBTQ, anti-white, BLM, and other agendas to destroy our civilization in an effort to 'Build Back Better' as Biden and others are fond of saying.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing...in different ways.
Reason 3, white people only like diversity because it benefits them, is actually correct. I'm not sure why this was rejected out of hand.
White liberals do feel a lot of guilt, but are not willing to do much of anything. Which is why Black liberals who encourage this idea that racism can be solved with friendship, are popular with a certain type of white person.
It's not uncommon for white liberals to want to live in/near "non white" neighborhoods, to read books, watch films created by Black people. White people do in fact benefit more from diversity than Black people do.
White people give themselves DEI positions, silence people who make them uncomfortable, pat themselves on the back for eating ethnic food, etc.
Both reasons 3 and 4 are correct. In instances where Black guilt tripping can't force white people's hand sufficiently, white people offer consolatory roles or slogans while they maintain control in nonprofit and academic settings. White liberals do control our creative institutions, and I've noticed that a certain type of Black person can ascend the ranks. But white liberals are only interested in preventing themselves from feeling bad, and going on about racial diversity is part of that.
So yeah, white people benefit more from diversity than Black people absolutely. But Black liberals want what (wealthy) white people have and white guilt is the only way to get it.
I’m also baffled at the slightly “presto!” tone with which reason #4 was elucidated. I thought it was not only obvious, but pretty explicitly stated all the time - this is a camp that seriously discusses reparations all the time.
They’re openly pro-redistribution of western wealth to people of color. The concept of diversity is a part of that for progressive-liberals. They often openly frame it in terms of settling a score or writing a wrong when a non-white person gains a very choice position in western society.
I sense a bit of Scooby-Doo dramatic revelation where there need be none, but maybe this is about a different slice of the liberal world than I know.
There was a Black woman who I followed on IG who, every time something happened involving Black people, she would tell whites and non-Black people to give Black people money. So people would post their venmos or whatever in her comments, and the idea is that non-Black people would pay up.
She was still a liberal, but her "pro Blackness" is spectacle. Shr posted a video her partner pretending not to know any white celebrities. (If you've lived in America your whole life, and werent raised in a cult, you know white celebrities!).
She calls for reparations basically all the time.
I saw a comment about this new tv show, The Other Black Girl, which is adapted from a novel of the same name. And one Black woman said that Black people should be able to make terrible television just like whites.
There is a strong thread of thought/desire that Black people want to be treated like white people; with impunity. Because Black people arent held to high standards, by anybody. So I dont know when/where/why Black liberals think anyone expects perfection or genius from Black creatives.
( Incidentally, white women feel this way about white men - why can they do this but I cant).
Brilliant. If only people who mattered would read it and take its lesson to heart. I've got to say, I've grown so sick of the racket and the constant accusations that I'd welcome an Orania-style community right here in the UK.
If you want to understand progressive's view on race then the term racism is less instructive than the term racial hierarchy. Progressives ultimately care about flattening any power differences between the races as a goal much more than racial discrimination as a means. Thus, they are completely fine with anti-white racism to achieve their racial egalitarian ends
And if you want a sexist reason for why this is currently important just think about women and their relationship status games and how they constantly want to "talk about things" rather than how men just want to get on with action
In this piece, the word "diversity" can be defined by both:
1) the state of having or being composed of different elements (such as races.)
2) Anti-whiteness (DEI programs, etc.)
Through this double and slippery use of the word diversity, the author is able to respond to those who say that having or being made up of different elements is not a bad thing, as if he were saying that anti-whiteness is not a bad thing.
*
In this piece, "racism is very bad" is used in both senses.
1) Racism is or it can be so bad.
2) White America is racist and is very bad for the colored.
This double and slippery use of the phrase “racism is very bad” allows the author to respond to those who say that "racism is or can be a very bad thing" as if they had said that "White America is racist and is very bad for the colored."
"For in practice, diversity is a non-meritocratic intervention in the market at the expense of white people. It appropriates wealth and status. It steals from whites and gives to others who have not earned it."
That is the money shot.
Complexity is commonplace in our current and future world, and as science and technology advance, high intelligence and a meritocratic society will become necessary.
Right, and then white people wind up earning status back by helping Black people come up with ever more convoluted reasons why racism harms them. It’s quite a funny game to watch.
"If whites are so bad, so effortlessly evil, getting far, far away from them would probably be a good idea."
- If I were in the business of Scott Alexander style steel-manning, I'd argue something along the lines of:
'there really isn't anywhere outside the immediate grasp of whites (The east Asian world exempted) where they cannot seize control over and rule whoever they want. If you think that racism motivates colonialism and that the political power of racists is weakened by the presence of minorities within their own country, and that colonialism is bad; then you might advocate for diversity as a purely defensive mechanism.'
Of course, I'm of the opinion that western colonialism was the best thing that happened to most of the colonized peoples, and that whites are it's primary victims, but my perspective is hardly reflected in the educational curriculum.
The kind of people we are talking about do not truly profess VIEWS at all. That is to accord them more substance than they really have. They don't really have an Ideology (contradictory or otherwise). It's much more of a PSYCHOLOGY....the endless need to FEEL GOOD about themselves (ideally in a way that incurs no actual COSTS on their narcissistic little selves. Any FACTS that get in the way of their sense of themselves as being on the side of that shallow abstraction 'The oppressed' must be mentally shoved under carpet. Is it a forelorn hope "that they will ever emerge from their lefty p.c. arrested adolescence and grow up?" https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
TL;DR - the supreme court said you can't have affirmative action - you can't hire people based only on the color of somebody's skin. BUT - you might be able to do it if it were related to some legit corporate goal, such as having a more diverse employee pool. Progressives said, "Oh yeah - that's what we're doing!"
It is creditable that you continue to apply logic and ask for consistency, because that is ultimately the solution to the impasse. Yet I fear that the illogic is not caused by a lack of good logic being presented to them, but because they already sense that logic is against them and they are going to lose, so they move to emotional and social arguments instead. That IS a sort of logic, to know when one venue is not going to give you victory and moving to another. It is similar to the legal advice, variously attributed but likely a century old "If the facts are with you, pound the facts; if the law is with you, pound the law; if neither is with you, pound the table."
In addition to its spotty replication record, stereotype threat only claimed to account for 3 IQ points out of the 15 point gap. Russell Warne points this out in his book.
Interesting article, and I largely agree.
One point that I did not notice is that the Left simultaneously claims that:
1) Diversity is a strength, and we need more diverse organizations
2) The culture characteristics of different groups have no impact on their outcomes in education, income, wealth, etc.
If the later is true, then why should be trying to get more diversity? The latter basically means that diversity will lead to no better outcomes.
The above is more evidence that it really about shaming non-Leftists. If you are interested in more of my thoughts on this issue, see my video and Substack:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E-aSPuaK12E
Nice analysis, but how to stop this ever-repeating dynamic? We need more influence in mass media to popularize the idea that natural racial differences, not white racism, are largely responsible for causing different outcomes. Elon is helping with X, but it might not be enough. (Jared Taylor’s account is still banned on the platform.)
Elon Musk is iffy. He is prone to 'revising' his positions. It is hard to know where he stands from day to day.
Elon Musk is our generation's Wernher von Braun. His goal is to get humanity into space, his politics are secondary to that goal.
USA Blacks don’t succeed as well as other races socio-economically because they aren’t as intelligent on average as they are.
With a mean IQ of around 85, they are outclassed by Jewish people, IQ 111-113; Chinese IQ 106; Whites IQ around 100; Hispanics, IQ 89….etc etc.
IQ is closely correlated with eg Sat Scores; Sat scores are correlated with position in the socio economic hierarchy.
Rather than accepting these realities, mainstream equality thinking denies it because it is ‘racist’. It is convenient to blame disparities in Black achievement on ‘racism’. This results in injustice to White people, for example when Blacks gain places in prestigious universities on the basis of their race and ‘equity’ ahead of better qualified Whites.
The social commentator Heather MacDonald has a new book out, ‘When Race Trumps Merit’ which explores this phenomenon.
The progressives are Marxists, and Racism = capitalism. Being anti-racist = socialist. Whiteness = capitalism.
They think that they are slaves of capitalism and the only way they'll be free is to destroy capitalism, take power, destroy the gender binary, and usher in their utopia.
When you hear the phrase "Our democracy," it means socialism.
Progressives are communists. pure and simple.
"Progressives are communists. pure and simple."
Undoubtedly, some progressives are communists, but I believe it is not so pure and simple. Progressives are determined to destroy our Western Civilization, but not necessarily to be replaced with communism. I think the term communism is overused, as is racism.
When I use Marxist and communist, I'm using it very carefully. I'm using it the way Marx used it. A systematic destruction of the normal state by either violent or non violent revolution by seizing power, destabilizing the state, overthrowing the gender binary, and trying to bring about a utopia.
The people doing this believe that capitalism is slavery and only by overthrowing it, can they be free.
It's not a coded language and it's all they write about, and they write about it a lot.
You really should subscribe to @karlyn borysenko's substack and watch her YouTube, especially the socialism Saturday and cult segments.
Karlyn.substack.com.
My point is that there is a tendency to confuse a governmental system with an economic one. Theoretically, a communist economic system could be possible under an electoral government and a capitalist economic system under a dictatorial government.
I contend the United States is a plutocratic oligarchy.
At it's base, Marxism is not really an economic or governmental system, it's a cult. Utopia is not a government or economic term, it's a religious term.
At its heart, Marxism is about liberating people from the evil of merit and slavery of having to work. It's about making everyone the same through a collective belief.
The Socialists believe that the community or state can run people better than they themselves can.
That is why they took over the LGBTQ movement and used to push Marxism. It's why they took over education and are using it to push revolution. It's why they are trying to destroy the family because they believe that the family unit supports capitalism by providing future workers. It's why they consider child rearing to be unpaid labor.
It's why there are outsiders, the novitiate, the "priests," and the "keepers" of the mysteries.
Marxism is a cult.
I believe Marxism is anti-meritocratic, and I am a firm believer in meritocracy. But leftists who promulgate what I call Acts of Societal Disruption are using LGBTQ, anti-white, BLM, and other agendas to destroy our civilization in an effort to 'Build Back Better' as Biden and others are fond of saying.
Perhaps we are saying the same thing...in different ways.
Marxism is anti-meritocratic. They see everyone as the same, no one is better, no one is worse. They are worse than the borg.
Reason 3, white people only like diversity because it benefits them, is actually correct. I'm not sure why this was rejected out of hand.
White liberals do feel a lot of guilt, but are not willing to do much of anything. Which is why Black liberals who encourage this idea that racism can be solved with friendship, are popular with a certain type of white person.
It's not uncommon for white liberals to want to live in/near "non white" neighborhoods, to read books, watch films created by Black people. White people do in fact benefit more from diversity than Black people do.
White people give themselves DEI positions, silence people who make them uncomfortable, pat themselves on the back for eating ethnic food, etc.
Both reasons 3 and 4 are correct. In instances where Black guilt tripping can't force white people's hand sufficiently, white people offer consolatory roles or slogans while they maintain control in nonprofit and academic settings. White liberals do control our creative institutions, and I've noticed that a certain type of Black person can ascend the ranks. But white liberals are only interested in preventing themselves from feeling bad, and going on about racial diversity is part of that.
So yeah, white people benefit more from diversity than Black people absolutely. But Black liberals want what (wealthy) white people have and white guilt is the only way to get it.
Exactly.
I’m also baffled at the slightly “presto!” tone with which reason #4 was elucidated. I thought it was not only obvious, but pretty explicitly stated all the time - this is a camp that seriously discusses reparations all the time.
They’re openly pro-redistribution of western wealth to people of color. The concept of diversity is a part of that for progressive-liberals. They often openly frame it in terms of settling a score or writing a wrong when a non-white person gains a very choice position in western society.
I sense a bit of Scooby-Doo dramatic revelation where there need be none, but maybe this is about a different slice of the liberal world than I know.
There was a Black woman who I followed on IG who, every time something happened involving Black people, she would tell whites and non-Black people to give Black people money. So people would post their venmos or whatever in her comments, and the idea is that non-Black people would pay up.
She was still a liberal, but her "pro Blackness" is spectacle. Shr posted a video her partner pretending not to know any white celebrities. (If you've lived in America your whole life, and werent raised in a cult, you know white celebrities!).
She calls for reparations basically all the time.
I saw a comment about this new tv show, The Other Black Girl, which is adapted from a novel of the same name. And one Black woman said that Black people should be able to make terrible television just like whites.
There is a strong thread of thought/desire that Black people want to be treated like white people; with impunity. Because Black people arent held to high standards, by anybody. So I dont know when/where/why Black liberals think anyone expects perfection or genius from Black creatives.
( Incidentally, white women feel this way about white men - why can they do this but I cant).
Brilliant. If only people who mattered would read it and take its lesson to heart. I've got to say, I've grown so sick of the racket and the constant accusations that I'd welcome an Orania-style community right here in the UK.
If you want to understand progressive's view on race then the term racism is less instructive than the term racial hierarchy. Progressives ultimately care about flattening any power differences between the races as a goal much more than racial discrimination as a means. Thus, they are completely fine with anti-white racism to achieve their racial egalitarian ends
And if you want a sexist reason for why this is currently important just think about women and their relationship status games and how they constantly want to "talk about things" rather than how men just want to get on with action
In this piece, the word "diversity" can be defined by both:
1) the state of having or being composed of different elements (such as races.)
2) Anti-whiteness (DEI programs, etc.)
Through this double and slippery use of the word diversity, the author is able to respond to those who say that having or being made up of different elements is not a bad thing, as if he were saying that anti-whiteness is not a bad thing.
*
In this piece, "racism is very bad" is used in both senses.
1) Racism is or it can be so bad.
2) White America is racist and is very bad for the colored.
This double and slippery use of the phrase “racism is very bad” allows the author to respond to those who say that "racism is or can be a very bad thing" as if they had said that "White America is racist and is very bad for the colored."
He clearly uses the word how progs do after all he's refuting them, there's no fallacy
"For in practice, diversity is a non-meritocratic intervention in the market at the expense of white people. It appropriates wealth and status. It steals from whites and gives to others who have not earned it."
That is the money shot.
Complexity is commonplace in our current and future world, and as science and technology advance, high intelligence and a meritocratic society will become necessary.
Thanks for a great article.
Right, and then white people wind up earning status back by helping Black people come up with ever more convoluted reasons why racism harms them. It’s quite a funny game to watch.
"If whites are so bad, so effortlessly evil, getting far, far away from them would probably be a good idea."
- If I were in the business of Scott Alexander style steel-manning, I'd argue something along the lines of:
'there really isn't anywhere outside the immediate grasp of whites (The east Asian world exempted) where they cannot seize control over and rule whoever they want. If you think that racism motivates colonialism and that the political power of racists is weakened by the presence of minorities within their own country, and that colonialism is bad; then you might advocate for diversity as a purely defensive mechanism.'
Of course, I'm of the opinion that western colonialism was the best thing that happened to most of the colonized peoples, and that whites are it's primary victims, but my perspective is hardly reflected in the educational curriculum.
The kind of people we are talking about do not truly profess VIEWS at all. That is to accord them more substance than they really have. They don't really have an Ideology (contradictory or otherwise). It's much more of a PSYCHOLOGY....the endless need to FEEL GOOD about themselves (ideally in a way that incurs no actual COSTS on their narcissistic little selves. Any FACTS that get in the way of their sense of themselves as being on the side of that shallow abstraction 'The oppressed' must be mentally shoved under carpet. Is it a forelorn hope "that they will ever emerge from their lefty p.c. arrested adolescence and grow up?" https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/are-we-making-progress
Michael Huemer makes a pretty compelling case that the emphasis on 'diversity' is just a side effect of a supreme court case: https://fakenous.substack.com/p/who-cares-about-diversity
TL;DR - the supreme court said you can't have affirmative action - you can't hire people based only on the color of somebody's skin. BUT - you might be able to do it if it were related to some legit corporate goal, such as having a more diverse employee pool. Progressives said, "Oh yeah - that's what we're doing!"
It is creditable that you continue to apply logic and ask for consistency, because that is ultimately the solution to the impasse. Yet I fear that the illogic is not caused by a lack of good logic being presented to them, but because they already sense that logic is against them and they are going to lose, so they move to emotional and social arguments instead. That IS a sort of logic, to know when one venue is not going to give you victory and moving to another. It is similar to the legal advice, variously attributed but likely a century old "If the facts are with you, pound the facts; if the law is with you, pound the law; if neither is with you, pound the table."
They apply the same logic with women and LGTBQ+, excellent article
In addition to its spotty replication record, stereotype threat only claimed to account for 3 IQ points out of the 15 point gap. Russell Warne points this out in his book.