The True Meaning Of Diversity

This article originally was published on Roosh V.

Diversity is when merit, skill, and ability is downplayed in favor of a person’s race, sexual orientation, or other identity affiliation. Diversity goals have the inevitable result of ensuring that less qualified applicants are given academic and employment opportunities over other applicants who are objectively more qualified. There is no means to achieve diversity for the sole sake of diversity without discriminating against other individuals or groups that are more capable.

Diversity policies were implemented in America because of claims that structural discrimination caused minority groups to lose out on opportunities in spite of equivalent or superior qualifications. To solve this problem, America has embraced a legal policy of openly discriminating against majority groups. While this was usually constricted to race, it has broadened in recent years to include sex.

A diversity program like affirmative action in the past benefited black men, for example, but white women have successfully hijacked the definition of diversity to include themselves. A white woman who claims to have “black friends” will not criticize a program that gives her a position at a Fortune 500 company over that of a black man who has more qualifications. Diversity programs that used to benefit historically marginalized races now increasingly focus on giving white women, homosexuals, and transsexuals more of the diversity pie.

How much damage does diversity programs cause in the short term on the individual level? Is a white man who has to go to UVA instead of Harvard really suffering? On such a scale, damage is hard to perceive or measure, but if we look at it from a societal level and measure the economic and intellectual growth of a nation when compared to its nation peers that do not use diversity programs, logical deduction shows that those nations that have been infected with the diversity virus will lag behind when it comes to scientific research, political leadership, organization, and innovation.

Over the course of decades and centuries, a nation that uses diversity as a measuring stick to promote its citizens in industry, politics, and intellectual culture will experience less growth and achievement than countries that do not. This is compounded over many years, and as described in The Rise And Fall Of The Great Powers, can allow an inferior country to overtake a formely superior country in dominance and hegemony.

Let’s do an example that shows how a slight decrease in a nation’s growth rate can lead to an unambiguous decline. Country U has a value (i.e. GDP) of 100 with a growth rate of 6% per annum. Policies of diversity, however, have caused a slowing of corporate growth, with a continuous rash of failures in companies led by women who were promoted because of their sex over more qualified male applicants. The country’s annual growth rate slips to 5%. In 100 years, here is their compounded value:

100 x (1.05)^100 = 13,150 economic units

Country C is experiencing brisk industrialization and achieves 7% yearly growth, no doubt helped by their lack of diversity programs. Their initial value is only 20, one-fifth that of country U. Nonetheless, country C will surpass country U in 100 years:

20 x (1.07)^100 = 17,354

If country U did not employ diversity programs and were able to maintain its growth at 6%, it would have double the value of country C:

100 x (1.06)^100 = 33,930

Over the long term, any variable which decreases a country’s growth rate can cause a decline relative to other countries that do not implement the damaging variable. In 100 years, country C will be better able to compete against country U for the planet’s scarce resources and also provide its citizens with a higher standard of living. If its military is strong enough, it could come to dominate country U using a combination of hard and soft power, as the United States does to dozens of nations today.

My simulation is quite rudimentary for two reasons. First, we have no exact number of how much diversity can decline a country’s growth rate besides the fact that is must do so by a value greater than zero. It could be 0.01% or greater than 1%—this number is unknown. Secondly, there are hundreds of variables working together to determine the growth rate of a specific country that prevents it from being constant over such great lengths of time.

In spite of these flaws, the simulation does show the long-term damage caused when a national policy of diversity in any country promotes inferior and less skilled citizens into roles that are vital to economic growth. Even a barely noticeable decline in the yearly growth rate, something that diversity programs would provide, is enough to severely damage a nation over the long run and make it vulnerable to strengthening nations that are hungrier for resources or planetary domination.

Whenever you see the word “diversity,” replace it with the word “decline,” because that’s exactly what it does to any organization or country that implements it on a wide scale. The second that merit is removed from the highest priority of a system is when that system will decline relative to other systems that don’t use diversity. In a country such as the United States, the most economically successful nation the world has seen, diversity is a needless poison pill that guarantees it will fare worse in the future.

Nature will punish any system, organic or inorganic, that forsakes its own survival by going against selection of the strongest unit that is most capable at the task given to it. Unfortunately, this will punish the Western world in future generations, all for bowing down to the altar of diversity.

Read Next: Social Welfare Creates A Society Of Sluts