Sunday, March 24, 2013

Character Trumps Diversity

If you ask two men (or women) to describe themselves, the lesser of the two will cite their religion or ideology rather than their profession.  i.e.- the superior of the two will say,

"I'm a plumber"


"I'm a surgeon"


"I'm a stay at home wife."

while the inferior of the two will say,

"I'm Christian" 


"I'm a liberal"


"I'm a vegan."

The reason why one is superior to the other is that in order to be a "plumber" or a "surgeon" or a "stay at home mother" means you must do something or achieve something.  Being "Christian" or declaring yourself a "vegan" simply takes a declaration and nothing more (please do not flood me with e-mails about catechism).  And though it may seem to be a very subtle difference, it is something I immediately pick up on when meeting people for the first time.  For nearly 100% of the time when somebody defines themselves by their belief system or ideology and NOT their profession that person proves to be somebody I not only dislike, but do not trust. 

The reason why is that when somebody substitutes a belief, religion or an ideology for achievement, it is an (admittedly) unconscious admission of laziness and proof of a weak, or total absence of, character.  A person who defines themselves by merely joining a group or espousing beliefs lacks the rigor, determination, work effort and temerity to do something productive and meaningful in their lives.  However, their ego is such that it cannot stand having no prestige or respect and thus they join a "club."  Ergo why I truly believe the VAST majority of religious participants do not participate in religion for something as noble as god, as much as it is first and foremost for themselves.

However, religion aside, there is another variant of this intellectual hypocrisy and that is "diversity." 

Let us be clear what diversity is - it is nothing more than a political tool of the left.  It works by irrationally and undeservingly applying value to traits that a person was born with, and thus, had nothing to do with. 

For example, say you were born the "Triple Crown" of affirmative action - black, female, and homosexual.

You are a veritable celebrity in leftist circles.  You are fawned over, placated, kowtowed to and told how oppressed you are.  You are also told how great you are just by the fact you have the traits of being:

1.  Black
2.  Female
3.  Homosexual

and still manage to live, "courageously" in the face of evil white privilege, male, patriarchy blah blah blah.

But what did you achieve?

The answer is nothing.  You just happened to be born with the traits of being black, female and homosexual. 


Of course this isn't to say that a black woman who happens to be homosexual does not have character.  If she is a surgeon and you say, "describe yourself" and she says, "I'm a surgeon and an avid cyclist," she is placing value on her achievements and hobbies, not her ethnicity, gender and sexual preference, none of which she did anything to attain.  Unfortunately, though, the appeal of "diversity" and applying value where there is none proves too tempting to many.  One only has to look at the sea of worthless degrees and worthless college departments in "Hyphenated-American Studies."

"Women's Studies"
"Gender Studies"
"African American Studies"
"Chicano American Studies"

and the list goes on and on and on. 

Here the political tool of diversity is particularly deceitful, evil and outright bigoted.  It lies to various groups of people telling them traits they were born with somehow give them value.  It lies to those same groups of people telling them because of these traits, they are oppressed by those who do not share their traits.  It ruins the lives of these innocent people saying the ONLY way they can overcome these injustices is through the government via Democrat/Socialist/Lefitst parties (of whichever country they're in).  And worst of all, it deprives these individuals of any real individualistic achievement by brainwashing them into an crippling coma-like state of "Woe-Is-Me-ism."  In short the irony of these programs is that they claim to help these individuals, but merely serve to ruin their lives by making them veritable slaves to a political party. 

I often wonder how long it's going to be before the black community wakes up and realizes that despite 40 years of affirmative action and democrat bribery their communities are in tatters and they are still in last place sociologically speaking in the US.  I often wondering how long it's going to be before the Latino and Hispanic communities wake up and realize they're voting to turn the US into a more northern and colder version of the crappy countries they or their ancestors fled.  And I wonder how long it's going to be before women realize feminism has done nothing more than enslaved them to the rat race, replaced their would-be-husbands with a government check, and destroyed any hope for true love and happiness via a normally functioning family. 

Again, I don't care. I've checked out.  It's just a sad crying shame nobody is heeding the words of Martin Luther King, especially those he worked so hard to help.


Anonymous said...

I'm the King of Spain.

Unknown said...

I've seen this same pattern with what you would call the far-right or the extreme right, especially with regards to White nationalism. Black nationalism, the neo-Confederate movement, and neo-Nazism exists too and it seems to be an attempt for certain people, possibly ostracized, to band together behind a common cause over something that they had no control over and that much of the scientific consensus and the Human Genome Project disagrees with, like the people who attacked your channel a while ago when you said you were an "technical Jew." Some of these people even think MLK was a raging communist and that the Civil Rights movement ended up expanding the size and reach of the federal government. Others even take the whole concept of freedom of association and libertarianism can apply to segregation and claim that Murray Rothbard and Hans-Hermann Hoppe supported White nationalism or innate racial differences by some of their writings. These two videos got a ton of controversy lately.

I still find it intriguing how you had far right people liking your videos for a while. I saw another video where you had similar people commenting and the uploader had accused them of being angry because they don't make money and there was someone who claimed to be 16 credits short of completing an engineering degree. Thomas Sowell and Ron Unz have provided some pretty strong arguments against such racialist views.

As a last point, I'm not exactly sure about this, but for a long while, I thought the Democrat Party had some pretty controversial racial views a very long time ago, and long before the 1960s arrived.

Unknown said...

George Carlin makes the exact same points you just made in your post. Why should you have pride in something that has nothing to do with what one accomplished as an individual? I think he was also arguing against nationalism here.

Anonymous said...

Hey, what happened to your Aurini-lanche post??

Pulp Herb said...

I think your casting a little too narrow. The lesser will cite what they are rather than what they do.

The reason I think you should put it that way as I'm as likely (or more likely) to say I'm a mathematician/programmer/musician/gamer than I am to say I'm a quant. The first two make up most of quant between them but I don't get paid for the later two even though they are professions for some.

All four, however, are things I do. I solve mathematical problems. I write computer programs. I play and write music. I play and write games.

I have done the first two for money but I've also made and delivered pizzas (and run the store), make sandwiches, operated a nuclear submarines propulsion plant, welded, built circuit boards, and other things for money.

My profession/job may change. However, mathematics, programming music, and gaming have been things I've done across the entire frame of my adult (and most of my teenage) life.

I agree with the do versus just same I am issue, but don't limit do just to what brings in the cash.

Seerak said...

It lies to various groups of people telling them traits they were born with somehow give them value.

The flip side is that such traits can take value away.

"What you believe is no disgrace; the swinishness is in the race."

-- old National Socialist slogan (this version sources from Konrad Heiden's 1944 book "Der Fuehrer")

You're close to an important question: what is the source of a man's identity/character? 1. his own choices, or 2. his unchosen, or pre-determined circumstances (genetics, upbringing)?

It is not merely this use of ideology choice as defining one's identity that is the problem: it's the fact that in all such cases where the chosen ideology is Leftist. Without exception, these subscribe to answer #2. Those whose X in "I'm an X-ist" is non-Leftist may not necessarily be onboard with #2, such as "I'm a Christian" or "I'm a libertarian" (more below).

Have you ever sat down and thought about how the world of ideas, including politics, takes on a radically different look when you rearrange it by reference to this alternative? For someone who has never done this (which is pretty much everyone these days), everything changes completely and gets challengingly weird.

For example: how many times have you heard "nature versus nurture" as some sort of exhaustive alternative? Well, take a look at it: both of the alternatives are unchosen circumstances. That's not an alternative, it's a fucking trap. It's set up to exclude certain possibilities - all those under answer #1 - from the minds of its victims without their ever knowing that they existed. You can't get to "character" as you mean it here, from "determined".

Now take a look at political ideologies, and oh boy! All of a sudden, you find nearly ALL the mainstream political alternatives, including so-called "opposites" as measured by the conventional political "spectrum", all sharing the same answer to that question.

The Left, core conservatives, garden variety racists/sexists, modern feminists, Augustinian Christianity, communism, actual fascists and the aforementioned National Socialists all have answer #2 as basic fundamentals to their worldview. They differ only in regard to which determinants are the most important.

Who answers #1? Who upholds the idea that the individual is the author of their own character (and is therefore morally responsible for it)? Aristotle, the Enlightenment, Ayn Rand, classical liberalism, libertarians, and (somewhat) post-Enlightenment Christianity.

Oh, and the American Founding Fathers.

And lookit that, suddenly we find political liberty (and its inverse, tyranny) showing a strong, very nearly 1:1 correlation to this new spectrum, instead of being randomely scattered about its entire breadth as with the conventional "spectrum". Suddenly, the pro-liberty individual need not make annoying choices between which liberties are more important versus other liberties (gun rights versus the right to smoke pot, for example).

That sure does upend things. If you let it. If you are willing to get outside the trap.

(A note regarding Christianity: its vacillation between the two choices is IMO the dominant underlying force that sets the history of that religion, and of the West. Post Augustine, we get the Dark and Middle Ages; post Aquinas, we got the secular Enlightenment and the centuries-long civilization of Christendom. Today, both elements exist and can easily be found.)

Anonymous said...

Juan Carlos?

Rivitman said...

while the inferior of the two will say,

"I'm Christian"

Really. I'm inferior? How so?

Anonymous said...

Well shit. Under this line of thought I'd have to say I'm an unemployed college dropout. Would it be wrong to add "...that is enjoying the decline" at the end of that sentence?

Anonymous said...

I disagree. The contrary argument can be made that ethnicity, something you are born with, is also something you will die with. This also applies to gender. I will reserve my judgment on sexual orientation.

On the other hand, profession is changeable. A man may be clerk in his teens, a plumber as a young man, a lawyer in his prime, and a businessman as he matures.

As such, while gender and ethnicity do not confer worth, they are essential characteristics - the proper answer to "Who are I". Profession, on the other hand, is a mask which one may pick up and discard at will.

Laughingdog said...


If "Christian" is the only thing you can think of to describe yourself, you're the inferior one. A Christian who isn't just deadweight can at least say the useful things they do for their church.

General P. Malaise said...

I don't really think it is correct to make such a broad generalisation.

I don't consider my ocupation to be who I am. I am very proud of my accomplishments while choose not to let that define me.

I see and understand your point and agree with much of it.

I would tell you what I did if you asked me what I did, otherwise I might not if you asked me who I was. I would never identify myself by race religion or political leaning unless it was required to answer the question (if I chose to answer said question).

where would that leave me in your scale of judgement?

Anonymous said...

You should learn more about MLK. He wanted full on govt I interference in all sorts of matters involving race, which puts the lie to his character content line


Anonymous said...

Being a Vegan isn't a trait, it something you practice because of conclusions you came to by yourself. If someone tells you that it is because they don't want you to make them a ham sandwich one day. The big thing we do besides breathing and drinking water is eating so yes it makes sense to share this information.

Unknown said...

While I have never defined myself first and foremost by ideology (I might currently describe myself as a retired, homeschooling, loving father and husband), I can construct a scenario that would justify a person saying they are a Christian, for example, first and foremost. Suppose they had spent a life of profligate debauchery and, just when all seemed lost and they were headed for prison or the grave, they reformed themselves through learning about and adhering to a new way of thinking. Self-improvement IS an achievement, even if it doesn't produce anything for society.

Anonymous said...

Ahhhh you have perfectly articulated something that has rattling around in my head for awhile now

Southern Man said...

"Who I am" is not the same as "what I do for a living."

sth_txs said...

"Some of these people even think MLK was a raging communist and that the Civil Rights movement ended up expanding the size and reach of the federal government."

MLK was a womanizing corrupt scumbag. He plagiarized his doctoral thesis and was really a tool. He was on his way out as a nobody until he was assassinated. And if one is honest you have admit the federal government used the civil rights movement as a way to exert more control tell us what to do and justify it everywhere else.

Unknown said...

"MLK was a womanizing corrupt scumbag. He plagiarized his doctoral thesis and was really a tool. He was on his way out as a nobody until he was assassinated. And if one is honest you have admit the federal government used the civil rights movement as a way to exert more control tell us what to do and justify it everywhere else."

When you put it that way, it really isn't that far off to say that not all of the the Civil Rights Act was necessarily constitutional, just like with Roe v. Wade or that there are minority group organizations (think NAACP and Al Sharpton) who have grossly abused this act to lobby the government and get benefits for themselves. The federal government has probably also abused this act in many ways for themselves too. That's the position that Ron Paul held. I read something related to this here, but at the same time, I really keep thinking of this passage from The Declaration of Independence.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

It seems like a hard thing to talk about without coming across as being a racist. Would there have been a much better way to protect the civil rights of American citizens living in the United States than to have to resort to a massive federal legislation to do so?

Unknown said...

Tom Woods wrote this great post about nullification that I thought would be relevant to add. Nullification, according to him, was used a lot to battle pro slavery laws, and shouldn't have as many negative connotations by the mainstream "conservatives."

sth_txs said...

Robert, some people or cultures if you will, are simply not cut out for Constitutional liberties.

aaron said...

I would posit that in my definition at least, action is required to call oneself a Christian. Faith without works, etc.

Anonymous said...

The idea was never about protecting civil rights but the expansion of government

This goes back to the War of Northern Aggression, which was about tariffs not slavery, since lincoln was willing to protect slavery in the constitution


Sebastos1560 said...

It's not because the right is more stable and more efficient than the left that the right is right.

What if I told you I don't care about what I achieve, or how manly I am? What if I told you I feel like a worthy human being even if I'm an 18 year old on welfare? I'm sure you're quite proud of what you did for yourself (or for your aspirations) this past month, and during college. But what if you'd failed to pull yourself together in life? Would you insult yourself?

Personally, I don't feel like self-disciplining people are people at all whenever I talk to them. I fail to call it communication. I feel like I'm being manipulated by the lizard of authority in their souls.