“Diversity” is Simply Code for “Non-white”

When the left touts the benefits of diversity, they’re really telling white people to get lost. The latest example is this wimpy white woman’s screed about her white neighbors’ reluctance to send their kids to a black school, which tells us all we need to know about the left’s conception of “diversity.” I just find it amusing that while leftists frequently accuse the right of using racist “dog whistles” and other coded language, they do the same thing when they employ the word “diversity.” This passage says it all:

When I am able to move past the anger, the frustration that people are talking about a school they know nothing about, I listen to what they say. Behind all the test score talk, the opportunity mumbo jumbo that people lead with, I feel like what is actually being said, and what is never being said is this: That school is too black. The people who are moving into my neighborhood want their children to have a diverse upbringing, but not too diverse. They still want a white school, just with other non-white children also participating.

What does she mean by “not too diverse?” Is she trying to claim that in order to enjoy a truly diverse education, her white neighbors must subject their kids to an overwhelmingly black classroom? How is a predominantly black environment in a nation where blacks are around 13% of the population “diverse?”

She also asserts that there’s something wrong with whites wanting to experience diversity on their own terms, and that they must become uncomfortable as a minority in order to enjoy diversity’s enriching qualities. Whites in today’s loony multicultural climate are never permitted to be the majority in any circumstance. I’m sure in her book, a school that’s 65% white, 13% black, 15% Latino, and 6% Asian – truly representative of the nation’s demographics – is less diverse than a school that’s 90% black.

However, even when whites have been relegated to minority status, their presence is still considered insufferable. Just check out this old editorial from my alma mater, UC Irvine, where the castrated cracker decries racism and even singles out UCI for its lack of diversity. This one sentence is most telling:

“We ought to note in the first place that, despite our large Asian-American population, we are not a “diverse” campus in the least.”

That’s right, even though Asians are over 50% of UCI’s student body – which makes them grossly overrepresented – and whites are a minority, the campus is still insufficiently diverse. One might logically conclude that, in order to increase diversity, one should increase the number of non-Asians relative to Asians. But no, in the author’s mind, UCI’s population is insufficiently diverse in spite of its enormous Asian population; it’s the presence of white people that’s hindering a multicultural utopia. His solution is for the already embattled white students to bear the costs of diversity and make room for Latinos and blacks.

So there you have it: diversity simply means fewer white people and more colored people. What amazes me is that so many credulous white people continue to be cozened by that word, unable to recognize that “diversity” is a celebration of their displacement. That’s why our task is to educate whites about the true nature of “diversity,” and thus enable them to instantly rebuke this leftist dog whistle.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cultural Marxism, Race, Racism, Subversion, Wimpy Whites and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to “Diversity” is Simply Code for “Non-white”

  1. Beatrix says:

    So are all UC campuses (except perhaps UC Davis & UC Santa Cruz) now this “diversified’?
    The Chinese, Japanese, & Korean students were absolutely outraged that Indians (from India) were categorizing themselves as ‘Asians’ when I went to UCSF in ’89.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Even Davis is now heavily Asian. The only campuses where whites are a majority (or at least plurality) are Santa Cruz and Santa Barbara.

      Just curious, why exactly were East Asian students at UCSF outraged?

      • Beatrix says:

        All the programs at UCSF are medical/dental.
        It is VERY difficult to get into the UCSF School of Medicine & VERY competitive (same for their pharmacy, nursing & research depts).
        It’s easier to get into Harvard’s School of Medicine than UCSF’s – we’re talking EXCLUSIVE.
        Anyway-
        The East Asian (Chinese, Japanese & Korean) students were claiming ‘minority status’ on whatever all applications were required for entrance into the UC system at that time. I believe ‘Affirmative Action’ programs were still in place at UC until 1996 & Prop 209 went through. (I entered in 1989, I don’t recall what all we had to do to get in it was so long ago.)

        Indian students were claiming ‘minority status’ under Affirmative Action as ‘Asian’ & increasing in their enrollment in all programs on campus at that time. I was actually sitting at a table with the Deans of all the schools at UCSF as honorary student member of some high falutin’ enrollment discussion when the topic of ‘minorities’ came up. I will never forget when the former Dean of the School of Pharmacy Dr Mary Anne Koda-Kimble (a rather formidable lady of Japanese descent) started yelling, “Those Indians BETTER NOT be claiming themselves as Asian on this campus, they are NOT ASIAN!!!” while banging her fist on the table. (An image of Krushchev banging his shoe on the table while yelling “We will bury you!!!” came into young Beatrix’s mind.) This was to be one of many experiences where young Beatrix learned that if she wanted a ‘career’ she’d better learn to look the other way & hold her nose when dealing with those ‘superior to her in their academic ivory towers’ crap.

      • Bay Area Guy says:

        That’s interesting, because last time I checked, Asians don’t really benefit from affirmative action when it comes to university admissions.

        (though I do hear that they get loans for small businesses)

        If anything, certain Asians complain about how affirmative action screws them over; indeed, Asian enrollment at UC’s has soared ever since Prop 209 was passed. Even though it was mainly whites who wanted affirmative action repealed, I would argue that Asians have benefitted the most.

        Fascinating anecdote. Just goes to show you that when the chips are down, most “liberals” are thoroughly cutthroat and Hobbesian – minority liberals especially. This is why the Bay Area is so interesting and contradictory; it’s both socially darwinistic and inclined towards social justice.

        Of course, that makes fuck all sense; why on earth would anyone want to sacrifice “privilege” and surrender power and resources to potential competitors in a dog-eat-dog kind of world?

  2. Yeah all these hipster racists love diversity so much they spend more than half their salary to live as far away from it as possible. All these deluded wimmen with their small dogs that are like babies they would have if they weren’t fat and stupid as shit, have only seen diversity in a controlled zoo-like setting where armed security with rifles are just minutes away to stop them from getting “real”. Whether its Acme Looniversity where some thug with an IQ of a head of lettuce gets to spend time in a place that has working utilities to play a childrens’ game in front of lazy fucks who couldn’t do a sit-up to save their lives, or the often quoted “diverse” workplace where the security looks like the Blackwater guys that cleared New Orleans of the keeping it real niggas after Katrina made the five finger discount legal for a week, they have a petting zoo view of the urban wildlife that is far removed from The Mutual of Omaha Wild Kingdom you experience in the Real World of the Street. Main Street, flyover country, the sticks, otherwise known as REALITY.

  3. Pingback: Robert Stark interviews Bay Area Guy about the Radical Center | Beyond Highbrow - Robert Lindsay

  4. Tulio says:

    I think there’s a good word for this stuff, “diversity fetishism”. I don’t really care that much about racial diversity for its own sake. I mean I have friends of various different backgrounds, but the reason I am friends with them is because I like them as people, not because of what race they are. It doesn’t bother me that Ireland isn’t diverse or that Mexico isn’t diverse. Why does homogeneity bother people? I was reading an online discussion where someone referred to the city I live in as not diverse enough. And this is a city that is roughly 56% non-Hispanic white, 28% black, 10% Hispanic, 3% Asian with some remaining “others” thrown into the mix. I was scratching my head wondering how this does not qualify as diverse. I also never hear anyone complain about El Paso or Detroit not being diverse enough. So I think you’re pretty much right.

    I don’t know what the left’s obsession with diversity for its own sake arises from. When they say, “diversity is our greatest strength” do they really believe this because there are reasons for it, or because they were just conditioned to say it? I’m a minority myself but I see no inherent value in diversity for its own sake. Would Japan be better off if it was split equally between Japanese, blacks, Hispanics, whites and Native Americans? If you’re a diversity fetishist that’s what you must believe.

    Look at this Canadian bureaucrat when Bill Maher challenges her on Muslim immigration. All she can do is default to diversity is strength platitudes. It’s cringe-worthy to watch.

    • Bay Area Guy says:

      Good lord, that woman was painful to watch. Despite my ideological leanings, I sometimes can’t help but think that white people deserve to go extinct. I also find it ironic, but not exactly surprising, that a leftist woman – who would normally bring the hammer down on any manifestation of sexism, no matter how trivial – excuses or downplays openly patriarchal religions like Islam.

      There are times when I believe that perhaps manosphere netizens are correct when they insist that feminism is just a giant shit test for Western men.

      But back to diversity. You’re absolutely right that she can’t make any points in favor of diversity other than mouthing the usual tired platitudes. In fact, while the woman in question didn’t say this, I’ve seen certain leftists like her argue in favor of bringing in yet MORE Syrians/immigrants as a result of the Paris attacks; that way we’ll show Muslims that ISIS’s assumptions are wrong. Pure insanity, I tell you.

      Let’s just try to imagine what would happen if members of a visible minority committed similar attacks in any non-Western country. Let’s imagine that poor, tribal, and Christian Eastern Europeans start migrating to Gulf Arab states en masse. Let’s then imagine that they’re hostile towards Arab Muslim society, and that they commit a disproportionate amount of crime – from rapes of native Arab women to terrorist attacks. Do you think for a second that elites in those societies would call for tolerance, insist that Christianity is equal to Islam, or encourage more immigration as a means of combating extremists? Of course not. They would try to burn down every European Christian neighborhood they could find.

      The way I see it, the burden of proof should be on advocates of diversity/immigration to demonstrate that the benefits of diversity overwhelmingly outweigh the costs. The reason why is that if you restrict immigration and maintain homogeneity (like Japan) then you can always bring in more immigrants later if need be. But if you introduce diversity, then reversing its negative effects becomes exceedingly difficult – short of forced assimilation or genocide, that is. It’s not as easy to put the genie back in the bottle as it is to not let it out in the first place.

      The only person who’s actually made coherent arguments in favor of diversity (at least off the top of my head) is British-Indian writer Kenan Malik. He argues that the conflict engendered by diversity is precisely what makes it desirable; after all, it’s through tension, argument, and conflict that a society develops stronger and more universal values.

      I don’t agree with him, but he at least makes an honest attempt. With others though, my guess is that they just support diversity to appear enlightened. That, or they associate diversity with cool Thai restaurants.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s