Insight on how diversity is segregation


Diversity presents a dilemma straight out of Faulkner: the government bureaucrats, essentially re-named carpetbaggers in uniform, want us all to be equal participants in a Soviet-style “progressive” society. And yet each person in the small towns sticks close to the earth, and nature, and sees a bigger picture.

Each of these people has a complex identity. Where a city-dweller has job, things he owns and maybe politics or religion, in the natural state of humankind everyone belongs to a group. Old families, white trash, Indians, swamp people, African-Americans, hobos. This group becomes part of their identity.

Diversity denies this natural impulse and instead creates segregation based on financial status, which in turn reflects obedience to the plan set out by government and its social engineers. As the Obama administration continues Great Society programs and Hart-Cellar style removal of whites from America, it has advanced the idea of building housing for minorities in traditionally white, middle class suburbs.

Bureaucrat-reasoning here is both easy to see and horribly wrong. They can focus on one problem at a time, so they focus on poverty. How to improve poverty? First, get them out of the bad neighborhoods, and maybe give them some background in not being poor. Great, we can move them to the prosperous neighborhoods. The only glitch is that both groups are destroyed in the process.

A bureaucrat sees only numbers and statistics, but those can lie if not applied properly. Ghettos are not just ghettos; they are communities and while, statistically, they have a high crime rate, this does not manifest itself uniformly. Many people grow up there and live there their whole lives. Others get involved with drugs and gangs and may have shorter lives. This is true anywhere however. While our financially-minded brains see low property values and thus risk of crime and decay, we are overlooking the communities that exist there. Even trailer parks and city tenements have groups of humans living together, who have formed a pocket of culture all their own.

When white bureaucrats swoop in and take over, then move these people out, they are effectively telling those people that they are incompetent and their culture is bad. This further creates the mythos of the white savior and the black subject, or even substrate, something with which the great white hunter works to make a new, Enlightened thing. And yet, in the process, they are smashing communities and forcing cuck on African-Americans.

AfroTraditionalist wrote a solid analysis of why this process is a destructive variant of a common form of cuck, the white knight:

I see this as a clear attempt at social engineering of the worst sort. Forcing unlike people to live among each other because of Utopian ideals and feel good rhetoric. But the most insidious part of this is of course is that it promotes idea that Blacks need white saviors and if Blacks aren’t somehow allowed to be in the general vicinity of thee great white man, Blacks are doomed to failure. Forced integration was and is still bad policy. It has created a racket for despicable opportunist and has created little to no actual opportunities.

Looking at that major point — that liberal white knighting enforces a submissive role for African-Americans — we can see how this fits into what we know of liberalism: liberals are people who like to signal their own importance and, like hipsters, use external acts solely as methods of signalling. The hipster dresses up like a dork not to be comfortable but to be ironic; the liberal acts like a white knight plantation master not to help African-Americans, but to look cool to all his liberal friends. Liberalism is not a political viewpoint, but a social pathology.

Showing us a historical parallel, AfroTraditionalist quotes the following entry describing the same mentality in a much different time:

Since Yankee slaves spent the greater part of their daily routine as subordinate members of white households, separated from the society of fellow blacks, they could not maintain a viable African culture; neither were they, as supposed inferiors, supposed to develop into fully assimilated “Americans.”

This duality exists today under diversity. We are told that diversity means a feast of different cultures, but the white (liberal) culture remains dominant and demands that these cultures conform to white culture, and yet will never fully accept them both by outright exclusion and by passive-aggressively enforcing their exotic status. As a result, minorities must either conform and have no culture, and still not be “equal” — whatever that means — or, can keep their culture and be alienated from the good life, which they could participate in materially but still not actually be accepted.

Faulkner could have told us this would be the result. Our quest as individuals does not boil down to such mechanical and bureaucratic concepts as “equality.” It consists of finding a place where people understand us and need us. That happens within sub-cultures to the main culture, which itself is a construction on paper because many parts make up the composite whole. But in our manic desires to signal our progress, both in social engineering and egalitarian ideology, we humans have made a mess of things as usual.

Tags: , , , , ,

Share on FacebookShare on RedditTweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedIn

Recommended Reading