[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Editorial See other Editorial Articles Title: Surplus Value Of Diversity U.S. District Judge Allison D. Burroughs ruled that Harvard University’s admission program was a Constitutional application of affirmative action. In other words, Harvard’s systematic discrimination against Whites and Asians was, according to the law, not discrimination against Whites and Asians. In addition to reaffirming the second-class status of Whites and Asians, she wrote, “It is somewhat axiomatic at this point that diversity of all sorts, including racial diversity, is an important aspect of education.” Now, in general usage, an axiom is something that is self-evidently true, like the sky being blue or water being wet. More precise speakers will use the word to mean “tautology”, something that is true in every possible interpretation. To say, “It is somewhat axiomatic” is therefore a rather tortured assertion, but revealing. It is the sleight of hand we get from the kritarchy. Every alleged statement of fact is really just a form of hairsplitting intended to nibble away at any notion of truth. That aside, it does bring up some interesting questions. How much diversity is a good thing and how much diversity is too much? There’s no doubt that someone like the judge in this case would reflexively respond that there can never be too much diversity, as diversity is an unalloyed good. There’s also no doubt that like every other diversity fanatic, the judge has organized her life to be around as little diversity as possible, with a special emphasis on avoiding vibrancy. Revealed preferences are real. Clearly, even the people who say it is somewhat axiomatic that diversity is important think a lack of diversity is important too. Put another way, even the blubbering diversity fanatics assume some upper limit on how much diversity is tolerable, even though they focus on the lower bound in their proselytizing. Somewhere between complete diversity, a place with at least one of every flavor, in perfect proportion to their frequency on earth, and complete homogeneity is the sweet spot according to the advocates. Arthur Laffer famously explained that there is a relationship between income tax rates and the resulting tax revenues. A 100% tax will result in zero revenue, as no one will voluntarily work without being paid. At the other end, where no tax is imposed on income, the net revenue is also zero, for obvious reasons. Using Rolle’s theorem, there is an optimum tax rate between those two end points. In theory, this should be calculable, so tax rates should be set at that point and left alone. Now, we know the tax is not a continuous interval, so Rolle’s theorem would not apply in the case of these sorts of social taxes. Still, at one end, zero diversity and vibrancy, we get something less than maximum happiness. Universal homogeneity sounds good in theory, but in reality, people like to punch things up a bit. At the other end, the multicultural paradise ruled by the usual suspects, has nearly no social happiness for normal people. It does not exist, because no one would tolerate it. The legendary empiricist, La Griffe du Lion, looked at the correlation between the black population in a city and the white victimization rates. The assumption is that blacks prefer to live around whites, as they always seek access to whites. On the other hand, whites are neutral on living near blacks, unless it has some impact on their well-being, which is where crime is a useful metric. Whites move from high crime areas to low crime areas faster than any group, having the least tolerance for crime. What the numbers reveal is that as the percentage of black residents in a city increases, the white victimization rates begin to climb. At about 20% black population, the white victimization rate climbs rapidly. Blacks commit crimes against whites in this analysis at 64 times the rate of whites committing crimes against blacks. Other studies have found different rates, but it is axiomatic that black crime is vastly higher than white crime and it is axiomatic that blacks prefer white victims more than whites prefer blacks. Now, it is not somewhat axiomatic, but a universal truth that when Progressives talk about diversity, they mean blacks. Therefore, we can now put the upper bound on diversity as 20% of the population being black. Any more than that and white crime victimization begins to soar and awareness of it begins to soar. This sets off a chain reaction known as white flight. Baltimore is a great example. Once its black population crossed the 25% level, it began a rapid decline into chaos. This does not address the other issues of diversity. Since it is axiomatic that diversity is about blacks and whites, as demonstrated in that court case, the obvious question is how many white people are required to maintain the multicultural paradise? It is just assumed that whites must be exposed to diversity, so they are not only beneficiaries, but also a necessary ingredient. You cannot purify white people through the healing magic of diversity if they are not actually part of diversity. As the examples of Rhodesia, Baltimore and now South Africa show, there is some minimum number of whites required to keep the lights on, so everyone can enjoy the wonderfulness of diversity. In the case of Rhodesia, the number fell below the minimum and it became Zimbabwe. In Baltimore, they have hovered along the critical number for decades, always ready to tilt into chaos, but saved by the state. South Africa staggers on, but they too are approaching the inflection point. As Steve Sailer has pointed out, America schools are starting to run out of white kids to maintain the diversity is magic assertion. Once a school gets too diverse, no one wants to send their kids to it, not even the diverse, so diversity requires a certain threshold of white people to make it work. According to the data in that Sailer post, a good starting place seems to be 50%. Once the white population falls below 50%, the negatives of diversity increasingly outweigh the positives. Another example seems to make the same point. This story about white flight from tackle football in America has some interesting numbers. Again, the 50% number appears to be a threshold. Peak football in America was when whites were 50% of the youth leagues, which eventually supply the NFL. The decline in play and interest in the NFL over the last few years also supports the observation. The NFL now has a diversity problem, created by their efforts to fix their diversity problem. Taken together, the starting boundaries of diversity are no more than 20% black, with no lower limit definable, and no less than 50% white. The diversity sweet spot lies somewhere in that zone. Given the ethnocentrism of Jews and Asians, a hard limit on their numbers is certainly part of the formula. Hispanics, a group that is a social construct, should not be a consideration. Most likely, the right mix for maximum diversity benefits is something close to what America was like in 1965. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
Makes sense here, thanks.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out... without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.” ~ H. L. Mencken
"It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brush fires of freedom in the minds of men." -- Samuel Adams (1722-1803)‡ "Resistance to tyrants is obedience to God." -- Thomas Jefferson
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||