As I have mentioned before, the word diversity in PC discourse is a misnomer. We must value diversity, and we must acknowledge it as the source of our strength (whatever that means). But only certain groups impart its putative benefits. White males have no diversity. Even if they are a minority in a particular neighborhood, they cannot provide the rich rewards that diversity imparts. I've taken courses in college, for instance, where white males constituted perhaps 10% of the class. Did we add "diversity"? No. The very lack of white males was an indication of how "diverse" the classroom was. Thus, diversity has come to mean not a mixture of races or ethnic groups, but the mere lack of white people. A school that is 78% Hispanic has more diversity. One that is 100% Hispanic has maximal diversity. Of course, this contradicts the normal meaning of the word.
This type of discourse, where reason is tossed aside in obeisance to blind ideology, has come out in full force following the shooting at Fort Hood. David Limbaugh gives some examples in a recent article, one of the most egregious of which comes from General Casey, our Army Chief of Staff:
Casey -- in this interview and others, on ABC and NBC -- also expressed his concern about a "potential backlash" to Muslim soldiers. On NBC's "Meet the Press," he told host David Gregory, "Our diversity, not only in our Army but in our country, is a strength. And as horrific as this tragedy was, if our diversity becomes a casualty, I think that's worse."We must not question diversity. No one asks, "In what way is diversity a strength?" Economically? In business? War? When the Diversity Industrial Complex promotes diversity, it mentions vague benefits couched in the bureaucratic language of management theory. No one can point to a successful state or enterprise of any kind that rests on diversity.
Europe did not invent science and mathematics, explore the world, nor create the industrial revolution with diversity -- at least not racial diversity. Great civilizations of the ancient world were monoracial. Nor did America become a world power by means of diversity. The various European immigrants subsumed their origins under the common culture and language of our Anglo-Saxon forefathers. Those immigrants wanted to assimilate. And they could, because they shared a common race with the majority.
If the PC priesthood claims that America is, in essence, a diverse nation because of blacks, that doesn't support their moral position. They could just as well say "slave labor is our strength". Is that what they mean? As I have argued, liberals do want that kind of America. They promote a system where Hispanics and other non-whites are used for cheap labor. They want to create a permanent racial underclass that does all the dirty work.
Sadly, it takes an act of extreme violence like the Fort Hood shooting to knock people out of their stupor. Of course, the hard core, like General Casey and the staff of NPR, are utterly impervious. Casey is probably a reasonable guy, but he's been brainwashed by the PC ideology that infests government organizations. But those who create the propaganda are more nefarious. For them, an atrocity like the Fort Hood shooting is simply an occasion to manufacture more lies, and promote them with renewed vigor.
