The Great Lie of Diversity, By James Reed

Bo Winegard has written a great piece taking apart, at a fundamental philosophical, level the cult of diversity, which is of course the position that grounds multiculturalism. In general conservatives who are critical of multiculturalism do not probe deep enough to challenge the core philosophical basis of the doctrine. As argued by Winegard, what is behind multiculturalism, and diversity itself, is the Great White Replacement: "most conversations about diversity are misleading because the debate in question is not about real diversity, but only about an ideologically saturated and limited kind of diversity, namely racial diversity. Appeals to diversity are almost invariably used to subvert meritocratic principles at the expense of white people." The diversity scam is about his dispossession of Whites: "A competition in which many non-whites have affiliated with white elite progressives to redistribute the status and resources of other whites. Diversity does not mean diversity; it means more status, more resources, more moral praise for non-whites and for the white educated elites who are their allies. Complicated, nuanced debates about intellectual, ideological, or experiential diversity are thus beside the point because the goal is not to enhance institutions, the goal is to secure more well-paying jobs and resources for non-whites and more affirmation for the right-thinking elites who lead this glorious cause."

Thus, as diversity is a politically loaded ideology, geared to be a racial weapon against Whites, we must oppose it in every instance.

https://www.aporiamagazine.com/p/the-diversity-lie

"Diversity is a lie, a cheat, a swindle—a slogan so imbued with moral significance that its morally neutral meaning has been enveloped by a halo of righteousness. One must submit to it as one does to other enchanted words such as "freedom" and "democracy." Elites laud it, claiming that it is a great strength, a force for creativity, dynamism, and moral progress. And its mere invocation often ends debate, for who but the wicked, the fearful, or the ignorant could possibly oppose diversity?

In the abstract (and using the traditional meaning of the word), diversity might be good or it might be bad. A diversity of skills, interests, and desires can invigorate a coalition, encouraging specialization and productive disagreement. However, a diversity of values, traits, and talents can fracture a coalition, encouraging discontent and internecine conflict.

But a dispassionate analysis of diversity is virtually irrelevant for popular conversations because diversity in practice means something like, "fewer white people," though it can also mean, "more black people," depending upon context. Therefore, most conversations about diversity are misleading because the debate in question is not about real diversity, but only about an ideologically saturated and limited kind of diversity, namely racial diversity. Appeals to diversity are almost invariably used to subvert meritocratic principles at the expense of white people.

This might sound tendentious, so it is worth examining a mainstream example that illustrates the point. The Institute for Diversity and Ethic in Sport, founded by Dr. Richard E. Lapchick, who is "often described as the racial conscience of sport," assesses the diversity of various sports' leagues with a race and gender report card. For race, the grade is based on one criterion: The proportion of non-whites. The higher the proportion of non-whites, the higher the grade, with no ceiling. Thus, a hypothetical league with thousands of players but no white people would receive an A+ on the racial diversity report card. One predisposed to charity might think this an honest mistake or oversight, for surely the assessment could not be so obviously flawed.

But the report cards adhere to this risible criterion. For example, Major League Baseball (MLB) received a commendable grade of an A because players of color (POC, a different term for non-white) comprise 38% of the league. But the National Basketball Association (NBA) received an impeccable A+ because players of color comprise 83.2% of the league. Thus, in a country that is roughly 60% white, a league that is only roughly 17% white is very diverse, more diverse, in fact, than a league that more closely matches prevailing demographics in the country.

A similar duplicity pervades discourse about demographic change in the United States (and the West more broadly). Increasing diversity of the United States means a lower proportion of white people and is often greeted with panegyrics by elites, but a concern for and attachment to current demographics is denounced as a bigoted and reactionary posture, a futile attempt to stop the inexorable march of progress. Sometimes this is quite explicit. For example, Michael Moore greeted the decline of whites in the 2020 census with jubilation, calling it the "best day ever in U. S. history." Similarly, a Jimmy Fallon crowd answered his description of the same census data with cheers and applause. But more often it is just assumed and built into the structure of the rather one-sided mainstream debate about demographic change. The question is not if diversity is good, but how good.

If one notices and discusses but does not effusively praise demographic change, some elites will assert that one is trafficking in a pernicious conspiracy theory known as the "great replacement." But like the concept of diversity, the concept of the great replacement is strategically ambiguous and mostly used as a rhetorical weapon. Dustin Jones, writing for National Public Radio (NPR), contended that: "the 'great replacement' is a conspiracy theory…that nonwhite individuals are being brought into the United States and other Western countries to 'replace' white voters to achieve a political agenda." This is a standard claim, though some add that the great replacement theory also includes the belief that a coterie of elite Jews is striving to undermine gentile nationalism by promoting open borders.

Since the claim that demographic conservatives are attached to the great replacement theory has become popular—indeed, some describe it as "Republican orthodoxy"—, it's worth addressing. First, the premises, from most general to most specific: (1) Demographics in the United States are changing rapidly such that the U. S. is becoming less white; (2) Democrats and Democratic politicians are more enthusiastic about demographic change because it helps their electoral chances; and (3) A cabal of elites is spearheading the demographic transformation of the United States, perhaps to undermine gentile or white interests.

The first premise that the US is rapidly changing demographically is obviously and undeniably true. In 1965, the United States was approximately 85% non-Hispanic white, whereas in 2015, the number had dropped to 62%, for a roughly 23% decline in share of the population in fifty years. Furthermore, demographic change accelerated after 1980, and continues apace. This demographic transformation was not the unavoidable outcome of physical laws; it was the avoidable outcome of policy decisions, many of which were deceptively described (and perhaps misunderstood by those who enacted them).

By current estimates, whites will become a non-majority by 2045. As noted by William Frey in "Diversity Explosion," "Soon, most children will be racial minorities: Hispanics, blacks, Asians, and other nonwhite races." That the United States is radically diversifying is thus undeniable and has been noted by political analysts on both sides of the divide.

The second premise that demographic change is applauded by one political coalition because they believe it benefits them is more complicated but also true. Liberals have long championed and cheered the demographic transformation of America at least partially because they believed it would redound to their advantage. For a blatant example, the one-time Democratic consultant Patrick Reddy wrote:

The 1965 Immigration Reform Act promoted by President Kennedy, drafted by Attorney General Robert Kennedy, and pushed through the Senate by Ted Kennedy has resulted in a wave of immigration from the Third World that should shift the nation in a more liberal direction within a generation. It will go down as the Kennedy family's greatest gift to the Democratic Party.

Other analysts have written popular books about this; and the phrases "coalition of the ascendant" and "demographics are destiny," showing a clear awareness of the political effects of demographic change, have been popular for many years.

The third premise that this demographic change is being perpetrated by a coterie of elites is plausible since elite immigration preferences have often contradicted the preferences of the majority of the population. In fact, this is one reason for the rise of right-wing populist parties across the West. Of course, some versions of the great replacement theory are dubious or even obviously erroneous, but the general outline of the theory is correct: Whites are being replaced in the countries that their ancestors built largely because of the policies pursued by a small group of elites. Whites' interests are irrelevant because they and their ancestors have caused great harm to the world. The sooner they are replaced, the better.

In fact, the great replacement is also the view that many liberals and progressives hold. The only difference between them and conservatives is that they applaud the decline of the white population, while conservatives decry it. This creates a bizarre world of discourse in which demographic change is said to be a phantom of the xenophobe's imagination when he expresses reservations about it, but when the liberal praises it, it is said to be a great good for the country. In other words, demographic change is happening, but only if you celebrate it. We can applaud while whites lose their countries, but we must condemn if they resist, while insisting that their fears are chimerical.

Related to these double standards, perhaps even undergirding them, is the double standard about racial identity. Elites often praise black identity, Hispanic identity, BIPOC identity, and they encourage black pride, esteem, and rejection of the staid "white" status quo. A recent Vox article, for example, contended that "Finding ways to build pride in…Blackness can ease tension from racial trauma." But these same elites often lambaste whites, whiteness, and white identity, calling those who promote white interests racists, bigots, hate mongers, and myriad other names. The lesson is clear: Non-white people should work together to combat the hegemony of whiteness, perhaps even eradicating it altogether, while whites should voluntarily relinquish their identity, allowing the world spirit to fulfill its mission of creating a universe unblemished by whiteness.

And this is what the diversity scam is really about: A competition in which many non-whites have affiliated with white elite progressives to redistribute the status and resources of other whites. Diversity does not mean diversity; it means more status, more resources, more moral praise for non-whites and for the white educated elites who are their allies. Complicated, nuanced debates about intellectual, ideological, or experiential diversity are thus beside the point because the goal is not to enhance institutions, the goal is to secure more well-paying jobs and resources for non-whites and more affirmation for the right-thinking elites who lead this glorious cause.

The best thing for those of us who are incurably skeptical, inveterately curious, recently disillusioned, or merely mischievous, and who no longer view "diversity" as inviolable because its costs and duplicities have become obvious, is to be honest. We should not allow the rhetoric to obscure the underlying reality: Diversity is largely an instrument to accelerate demographic change and support affirmative action and other equity-based policies. Those who want to achieve these ends are welcome to continue to pursue them, but they should not do so while masking their behavior with morally elevated discourse. Diversity is a lie. We should unmask it."