vegetariantaxidermy wrote: ↑Tue Jul 04, 2023 10:17 pm
Has anyone else noticed how it's only ever white wokie wankers (wonkers) who use the word 'diversity' in this way?
The reason your observations interest me, in the context of the topic of cynicism, is because -- I think it possible to propose -- that one aspect of cynicism is a general loss of confidence. Certainly we have many good reasons to be suspicious and cynical (distrustful) of the myriad Machiavellian interests that surround us, and this is necessary and even required, but what I believe you are pointing to when you critique the use of the term *diversity* (an Orwellian term if ever there was one) has to do with the undermining of a former cultural chauvinism that, once, was a basic value. I selected that word:
chauvinism (ˈʃəʊvɪˌnɪzəm)
n
1. aggressive or fanatical patriotism; jingoism
2. enthusiastic devotion to a cause
3. smug irrational belief in the superiority of one's own race, party, sex, etc: male chauvinism.
[C19: from French chauvinisme, after Nicolas Chauvin, legendary French soldier under Napoleon, noted for his vociferous and unthinking patriotism]
Because it puts the issue in strong relief. There certainly was a time when it was considered natural and normal to strongly value and strongly put forward one's own nation, culture, and indeed one's own people. These attitudes, supported by certain ideas, those we now judge as being bad or regressive, were the normal attitude of our grandparents and great grandparents. Now, what has happened is a unique form of "transvaluation of values". In our nations (certainly if speaking of the English-speaking nations) we have had our sense of self-identification and even self-appreciation undermined. It is a curious malady, a sort of sickness, a loss of a capacity to stand up for oneself, indeed to put oneself first.
What is the origin of these sentiments or loss of nerve? The two European wars. Robertson Jeffers wrote a poem in which he mentioned that Europe after WW2 --
the jewel of the world, he wrote -- lay in ruins and had become a beggar. And with no moral right to lecture anyone given the levels of destruction unleashed. It became necessary to locate a cause, a reason, and someone to blame for all of that. But what was that? No one can quite say. What happened? No one quite knows. The best psychological analysis I ever came across was CG Jung's
After the Catastrophe.
However, it is in a deep sense of collective guilt that the European person turned, at a basic level,
against his own self. But that is what happens when a guilty conscience meditates on itself. It turns against itself, it invalidates itself. That guilty person must go to work and make amends for what his forefathers allowed.
There are a HELL of a lot of humans on the planet, therefore humanity is going to be 'diverse' no matter what -- without the 'help' of these god-like creatures who preside over the rest of us.
Those god-like are motivated by specific ideas and believe that they have the right to impose and enforce them. They believe it is their moral duty to do so and they say that those who oppose them are immoral. But it is also necessary to say that our own modern Liberalism, in its original form, and I do not mean the excessive variant we talk about as *wokeness*, has also always insisted on its moral superiority. If Liberalism is taken as a political ideal where people with different outlooks live together under a shared political umbrella.
Are Chinese and Indians saying, 'Oooh, we must have more 'diversity' in our film industries and governments. We must have quotas to correct this unfair advantage that we have. We need to be more 'inclusive' '? Of course they aren't. It's only wonkers who are arrogant and racist enough to do that. It's the same with the equally nauseating 'multiculturalism'. When you want to experience another culture you go to the country of that culture. If anything, emigrating means losing one's culture. That's a sacrifice that humans make when they move to another country. They are intelligent enough to understand this. They might even be more than happy to leave it behind, or never had much interest in it in the first place. Wonkies are anti culture-and-diversity. They want humankind to be homogenised milk. Apparently, wonkie 'gods' know better than everyone else and have designated themselves the 'guardians of the collective conscience of humankind'.
The Orwellian sense of the term *diversity* is quite easy to expose for what it is, and what it is is very different from what it pretends to be.
What is diverse is different, distinct, special, unique. And it became that through various means. To say that a given culture must *diversify* is actually to say that it must stop being diverse and distinct and must take into itself what will break apart that diversity. In fact, it has become a social sin to advocate for real diversity -- if that means
maintaining what is diverse.
The function of the term 'diversity' is uniquely applicable to European cultures because someone has decided that these cultures must become incorporated with other peoples, other cultures, other traditions, which begin a process of ending European diversity.
It has been said that Europe is not diverse. I mean racially or somatically. This is actually quite false. There is tremendous diversity within Europe in terms of somatic types, skin color (if that is relevant), languages, customs, etc. The idea that this must be diversified is absurd. One reason political leaders and economic leaders favor the importation of different peoples is because there is not enough natural population increase within the European nations. So without a population-importation there will not be enough people to keep things moving forward.
