When a leader is confronted with an obvious case of Jihad and can only think to defend diversity, it is plain that we are a nation adrift.

In the dystopian movie “Idiocracy,” a futuristic America has declined to a point at which abject ignorance is the norm. It is so bad that there is crop failure because the nation is watering its food plants with a sports drink called “Brawndo.” And when the wisdom of this practice is questioned, people reflexively parrot the drink’s advertising slogan, “Brawndo’s got what plants crave. It’s got electrolytes!” Of course, no one even knows what electrolytes are, but people love slogans — especially dumbed-down people.

I think of this when pondering General George Casey’s response to the point that Fort Hood shooter Nidal Hasan’s act was not the only attack by American Muslim soldiers on their comrades in arms. Most of you have already heard his now notorious statement, but what he said was, “what happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here. And it's not just about Muslims. We have a very diverse army. We have a very diverse society. And that gives us all strength.”

Yes, diversity — it’s got electrolytes.

“Our strength lies in our diversity” has been one of our modern slogans for a long time now, but does anyone ever explain why diversity is beneficial? Now, this is where some will go off half-cocked and accuse me of bigotry, but that reaction is nothing more than “Idiocracy” meets “1984.” If I say electrolytes are what plants crave, and you ask why, I am certainly out of line if I accuse you of hating electrolytes. You did not start the conversation; I did when I presented my proposition, and it’s incumbent upon me to support it with evidence if I want to be taken seriously.

We certainly know why unity is beneficial. We’ve all heard “E pluribus Unum” and “United we stand, divided we fall.” They are slogans, too, of course, but they speak to a great truth. You’ll never hear anyone say, “You know, Bill and Susan should do well in married life; they’re really diverse.” On the contrary, we hear of the importance of spouses becoming “one flesh.” Likewise, we never scratch our heads and say, “Wow, for the life of me I can’t imagine why people were fighting in the Balkans. I mean, they just have so many different kinds of folks living together. They’re so diverse.” When people are united, they tend to work toward common goals and get along, two things which, last I heard, are supposed to characterize a nation.

I can think of one defense of diversity. If it can make us stronger, it might be because every group brings certain things to the table others don’t — because every group has its characteristic qualities. For example, studies have shown that Ashkenazi Jews (German Jews) have the highest I.Q. of any group.

This is where I can see a leftist happily bouncing about and saying, “Yeah, diversity! It’s what nations crave!” But not so fast. What we’re saying here is that certain groups are superior (ooh, that dreadful word!) to others in certain respects. And as scientist James Watson and the late sportscaster Jimmy “the Greek” Snyder learned, theorizing about such things is contrary to leftist dogma and hazardous to career health. Why, speaking about a group’s strengths even hurts that group, we’re told, as it “reinforces stereotypes.”

So we see here two contradictory leftist principles. Are groups equal in every measure? If so, the strength-through diversity theory is thrown into question. If not, the equality-equals-identity theory is bunk. So which is it?

Oh, yeah, I forgot.

It’s got electrolytes.  

If we’re to actually think, however, we’ll also realize that if a group can have positive qualities, it can also have negative ones, as positives imply negatives. If this is the case, it then is entirely possible that a given group’s influence may be more negative than positive. And if this is so, it would only make sense for a country to consider this factor when devising immigration policy.  

The biggest problem with the modern conception of “diversity” is that it doesn’t merely pertain to differences in race, sex and heritage. It doesn’t even confine itself to cultural differences that can be chalked up to taste. Rather, like “multiculturalism” and “tolerance,” it has become a codeword for moral relativism. The idea is that we can’t get along if we regard others’ values as inferior; thus, we must view all values as equal. But the problem with relativism-based agendas is always the same: They are self-defeating. After all, if all values are equal, how could diversity be better than conformity?     

In reality, not all values are equal; some values are virtues while others are vices. And despite relativistic protestations to the contrary, even leftists behave as if this is so. After all, how did they react to the diversity represented by Sarah Palin, Carrie Prejean, and Michael Savage, who has been banned from traveling to Britain? Tolerance for me but not for thee?

As for mindlessly parroting “diversity,” we may want to consider what the Online Etymology Dictionary tells us about the word’s origin. To wit: “mid-14c., from O.Fr. diversité (12c.) ‘difference, oddness, wickedness, perversity,’ from L. diversitatem ‘contrariety, disagreement, difference . . . .’”

Of course, now its meaning has changed. As the dictionary also informs, “Specific focus (in a positive sense) on race, gender, etc. is from 1992.”

Hmm, I wonder, what was happening in the early ‘90s that caused “diversity” to be redefined and who redefined it?  

Whatever the case, since we have diversity six ways to Sunday, we can pride ourselves on it now being a good thing. In fact, I’ll conclude with some verse about being diverse. When America’s last chapter is written, our epitaph just may read:

We’re no longer here, but things could be worse,
As our last trip was taken in a hybrid hearse.
And because from strife we sought relief,
We never questioned a belief,
And went to our grave compassionate, open-minded and diverse.

Selwyn Duke is a columnist and public speaker whose work has been published widely online and in print, on both the local and national levels. He has been featured on the Rush Limbaugh Show, at WorldNetDaily.com, in American Conservative magazine, is a contributor to AmericanThinker.com and appears regularly as a guest on the award-winning, nationally-syndicated Michael Savage Show. Visit his Website.

TrackBack URI for this entry

Comments (4)

Subscribe to this comment's feed

Show/Hide comments

rprew

November 13, 2009

72.201.107.33

Votes: +10

• 
• 
• 

Rational thought

Aristotle listed several laws necessary to rational thought. First, there is the Law of Non-Contradiction which essentially states that opposite truth claims cannot both be true. A second law, the Law of the Excluded Middle, which says in essence that if one claim is true, the other is false, i.e., there is NO middle.

Moral relativism claims that all beliefs are equal. It states this as a truth. Moral relativism, therefore, contradicts itself in claiming that there is no absolute truth and that claims for absolute truth is false. That very claim is an absolute, which moral relativism insists if false.

Any belief in moral relativism is inconsistent with rational thought.

DDW

November 13, 2009

173.74.213.85

Votes: +4

• 
• 
• 

As I stated in an earlier posting

I have never understood how there can absolutely be no absolutes. The reason(s) the "liberals" are always contradicting themselves is because they are absolutely foolish and absolutely confused. Now that's alright, if that's what they want to be. But they have no right whatsoever to try and force people capable of logical thought to accept their sophistries as truth, because the are not. Oh, and by the way, one can have many years of "higher" education and perhaps even a high IQ and still be a fool. Also, if one believes in everything, then one actually believes in nothing. Right?

us and them

November 13, 2009

70.17.183.6

Votes: +2

• 
• 
• 

liberalism

Liberalism always generates the complete opposite of what it was intended!!!!! always

RLA

November 15, 2009

71.61.116.48

Votes: +1

• 
• 
• 

Interesting Piece

As I ponder the decay of America, and the "I don't know and I don't care" philosophy that has become so pervasive, I cannot imagine how it can be reversed.

I am constantly struck by how common it is for our liberal counterparts to be educated beyond their inate intelligence. It seems to me that this is a significant part of the problem. We continue to "teach" concepts to people who are illprepared to assimilate them. Ane thus, we would up with a lot of "sophisticated" idiots who are spending our last days trying to push "diversity" and other PC non-sense onto us who are the "problem".

I'm with Jesse Ventura, "Don't Start the Revolution without me"

Write comment

This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.