Asians v. Diversity, Inc.

Diversity is a fascinating concept. Superficially, its aim is to topple racism by creating pathways to power for historically underrepresented peoples, particularly in the context of an ethnically diverse society. Nevertheless, once one delves a bit deeper into the claims and protestations of diversity’s various adherents, it becomes apparent that diversity can only function through the implicit acceptance of a racialist & essentialist hierarchy. Were equality and diversity naturally occurring phenomena, diversity & equality shills would not exist. Should perfect equality and diversity be achieved tomorrow, there would be no further use for them. Therefore, their very existence is predicated upon the perpetual existence of a natural hierarchy that can never be changed, but can only ever be contorted and manipulated to achieve their desired outcomes. Simply put, they necessarily believe in the supremacy of whiteness and in the inferiority of non-whiteness. They believe that this is the natural state of things, and would continue to be so, but for their interventions & ministrations.

Diversity’s raison d’etre is directly challenged in the following three ways:

  • When whites refuse to play along (diversity minus whites is just vibrancy, about which no one cares)
  • When certain non-white groups succeed without diversity
  • When successful non-white groups are forced to duke it out with less successful non-white groups over an ever diminishing portion of the pie.

Asian-Americans are becoming hip to the fact that diversity is fundamentally a loser’s creed: the successful have no place at the table. They are becoming painfully aware that Diversity, Inc. has no use for them, as it can neither use them to destabilize the system by ginning up envy and hatred amongst their numbers against the more successful (i.e., Black Lives Matter), nor can it use them for purposes of rent-seeking (e.g., extort gimmedats from living whiteys to atone for historical sins committed by dead whiteys). They are realizing that they are being penalized for their success, and that to have a fighting chance: diversity must be dismantled. An Economist article gives us the lay of the land:

MICHAEL WANG, a young Californian, came second in his class of 1,002 students; his ACT score was 36, the maximum possible; he sang at Barack Obama’s inauguration; he got third place in a national piano contest; he was in the top 150 of a national maths competition; he was in several national debating-competition finals. But when it came to his university application he faced a serious disappointment for the first time in his glittering career. He was rejected by six of the seven Ivy League colleges to which he applied.

Diversity cannot countenance minority merit. It can only accommodate minority under achievement.

“I saw people less qualified than me get better offers,” says Mr Wang. “At first I was just angry. Then I decided to turn that anger to productive use.” He wrote to the universities concerned. “I asked: what more could I have done to get into your college? Was it based on race, or what was it based on?” He got vague responses—or none. So he complained to the Department of Education. Nothing came of it. “The department said they needed a smoking gun.”

Looks like Diversity, Inc. just created another shitlord malcontent. This shitlord and other Asian shitlords like him will be a problem for the system. Unlike their white shitlord analogues, they can still plead historical oppression AND are unencumbered by white guilt.

It is their educational outperformance that is most remarkable: 49% of Asian-Americans have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 28% of the general population. Whereas Asian-Americans make up 5.6% of the population of the United States, according to the complaint to the Department of Education they make up more than 30% of the recent American maths and physics Olympiad teams and Presidential Scholars, and 25-30% of National Merit Scholarships. Among those offered admission in 2013 to New York’s most selective public high schools, Stuyvesant High School and Bronx High School of Science, 75% and 60% respectively were Asian. The Asian population of New York City is 13%.

That Asians outearn and educationally outperform almost all other groups in America (except Jews, methinks) is a well-known fact that directly challenges the diversity narrative. If they’re non-white that must mean that they’re oppressed too, right? Except they’re doing better than whites by a long shot. How does Diversity, Inc. explain this little wrinkle?

By the way: open borders will only exacerbate the diversity industry’s problems over the next few years by bringing in waves and waves of people who have the capacity to become ridiculously successful by merit alone. . .and who won’t give a single fuck about the other minorities lagging behind:

Surging immigration is likely to increase the disparity between Asians and other groups, because recent immigrants are even more highly qualified than earlier cohorts: 61% of recent immigrants from Asia have a bachelor’s degree, compared with 30% of recent non-Asian migrants.

It should be interesting to see how this plays out over the next few years. My popcorn is at the ready and is extra salty. . .quite like the rueful tears of the diversity pimps will be as they watch their hustle collapse under the weight of Asian excellence.


One Comment

  1. They don’t actually believe in natural superiority, because they don’t believe in anything natural. They believe everything is a historical process, a process of oppression and class struggle. Where we see productivity or success they see power and control, and they think everything maps back to plain simple masters-and-servants model and in the particular case of race it is simply masters and servants having different color.

    This crap all goes back to Hegel, it probably cannot be understood without understanding the Phenomenology, but I guess to really understand that you gotta be somewhat wacky already as that book is simply not written for a normal mind. I cannot struggle through it, to me it is “are you even for real? is this supposed to be about this one planet here?” The most relevant chapter to understand this madness is “Independence and Dependence of Self-Consciousness: Lordship and Bondage.”

    Anyhow, I guess a fundamental difference between left and right is that if you see two random people and all you know about them is that one has higher status than the other, the leftie will assume the higher one somehow oppresses and loots the lower one and thus the difference is fundamentally evil in nature, the higher one is simply the worse of the two, morally, while the rightie will assume that the higher one is probably smarter, more productive or something like that, a higher achiever, and thus in a limited sense be a better one than the lower one.

    In other words the difference probably reduces to different models about how just the world is. Perhaps there is such a thing as as just world fallacy on the right, but there is surely such a thing as an unjust world fallacy on the left. The unjust world fallacy would state the bigger asshole you are the more succesful you become, and thus success is automatically suspicious.



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s