Diversity is the Last Refuge of a Scoundrel

Jonathan I. Katz

The air is full of talk of “diversity”, meaning the ethnic and racial composition of populations, workforces and (especially) student bodies at universities. This is shorthand for concern about how many members of various “racial” groups are present. Most biologists doubt that race is meaningful in describing people, unlike dogs or cattle, but in everyday life the term “race” is used as a proxy for physical appearance.

It is remarkable that the harder it is to evaluate accomplishment, and the less accomplishment matters to an institution, the more concern there is with diversity. In the absolute meritocracy of a used car lot, all that matters is whether a salesman can “move the iron”, and no one talks about diversity. In large corporate bureaucracies, government and academia, in which accomplishment is hard to measure and has only distant effects on the success and survival of the organization, diversity is always on the agenda.

The concern for “diversity” can be an obsession. For example, at some universities the administrators appear hardly ever to think of anything else. Every public statement must drag in diversity, no matter how irrelevant. No platform or program is complete without a nod to diversity. The majority of public lectures concern diversity-related issues, with all the other areas of human knowledge and concern, from Shakespeare to molecular biology, confined to a minority (at my institution this was true for some years, but is now [2004] less so). Even the old-fashioned Southern racist occasionally stopped to think about the price of cotton.

Why am I so concerned about universities? Partly because I am a professor, so I see a university close-up every day. Most university faculties have less diversity of thought than the trio of Cotton Mather, Roger Williams and William Penn. But they don’t count, because they belonged to the wrong “race”. And partly because we subject our impressionable young people to them, as their first environment as adults.

University admissions are important because they are crucial to social mobility. That is where a young person with ability and character, but no special advantages or connections, ought to be able to leave his (or her) background behind and join an aristocracy of talent. The more university admissions are clogged with irrelevancies such as diversity, the less opportunity there is for the talented outsider, and the more the ideal of fair play is corroded. At some institutions only 10% of the places are open to applicants who are not members of some preferred group. Former presidents of Harvard and Princeton recently published a book (The Shape of the River) advertising the great advantages in life conferred by degrees from those institutions. Prejudice should not affect the award of this privilege.

In the diversity business what matters about people is their “race”, which is taken to determine character, intellect and moral value. That is the philosophy of National Socialism, with a different Master Race and (so far) no subhumans.

Most university administrators would object to the suggestion that they obtained their philosophy from Mein Kampf. So, let us consider a different hypothesis. University administrators are generally failed or bored academics who have chosen the camaraderie of the committee room over the rigors of the library or laboratory. Their proper task is to improve the quality of research and teaching at their institutions. But this is hard to do, and even harder to evaluate. Worse, the competition is trying equally hard; some institutions will rise in the pecking order, but others must fall, and their administrators are then failures.

Diversity offers a way out. It is easy to proclaim as a goal, and easy to achieve—simply meddle in the procurement, hiring and student admissions processes until whatever goal has been chosen is reached. Then congratulate yourself on your success, and announce that you will do even better next year. Even the most incompetent administrator can be a winner!

When someone talks about “diversity” he is changing the subject from his proper responsibility—doing his job better. At a university that is improving the quality of teaching and research. At a government agency it is serving the public. In a foundation it is carrying out the donor’s wishes. And in a profit-making corporation it is making money for the shareholders. The next time you hear or read “diversity”, substitute “Americanism”, another right-sounding (but now unfashionable) slogan. Both of these are excuses for not doing one’s proper job.

Diversity has another attraction. It offers the pygmy Napoleons of adminstration a chance to interfere in every decision made—procurement, hiring and (at universities) student admissions. It keeps them busy and justifies their existence. It is a protection racket—give them a percentage or they will prevent you from hiring or admitting the people you need, or awarding contracts to the lowest or best bidders. It provides administrators plenty of opportunities to do favors for their friends, a natural human desire which, in other circumstances, remains under an ethical cloud. It often amounts to breach of fiduciary responsibility, violation of a public trust, or theft. It is the fashionable form of patronage.

The quest for diversity leads to another poisonous idea, that all decisions should be controlled by a central authority. No power is delegated, no subordinate individual or independent institution is given responsibility, or can act on its own authority, because it cannot be trusted to arrive at sufficiently “diverse” results. This is a fundamentally totalitarian idea, that power should be centralized rather than dispersed, and diversity is the rich manure in which this poisonous seed is growing.

In 1964 Congress passed, and the President signed, a Civil Rights Act which forbade racial discrimination in most areas of American life. Recently, on dubious grounds, the Supreme Court partially suspended this act for 25 years. The list of submitters of amicus curae briefs in favor of suspension was remarkable. It included leaders of business, labor (odd bedfellows!), government and academia. Why?

The Act attempted to establish an individual right not to be subject to racial discrimination. This would increase the rights of individuals in oppostion to the power of institutions. Is it surprising that the leaders of those institutions would argue in favor of increasing their power and against the rights of individuals? This is why the people of California passed by initiative Proposition 209, outlawing racial discrimination by their state and local governments, over the opposition of leaders of both political parties and most large institutions.

The diversity movement is racist at its core. When dealing with people we should be concerned with intellect, talent, character and accomplishment. People aren’t dogs or cattle; race matters only to racists.

Someone who talks about diversity is probably a scoundrel.

Postscript: The February 13, 2004 issue of the Chronicle of Higher Education contained an article by one of the prominent advocates of “diversity” (a man named Stanley Fish, an administrator and formerly an English professor—surprising, in view of his self-proclaimed limited vocabulary—see the article for details). He asserted that there is no place for intellectual diversity at a university. This Fascist idea, that only one kind of thought is acceptable, is unfortunately very influential in many universities today. Thus, as Orwell predicted, fascism comes calling itself anti-fascism. In contrast, I assert that intellectual diversity is the only kind of diversity that has any relevance to a university’s mission.

…And Now For a Global Bank and a Global Currency

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
May 18, 2010

Since I was a child I hear about the possibility of one world currency.  Back then no one around me knew how to explain how thatwould come about or who would control it.  The answer to those questions are now clear.  Dominic Strauss-Kahn answered my childhood questions.  A Global Currency managed by a Global Central Bank.  The IMF chief said so in Zürich, Switzerland, during a meeting in which he confirmed his view that this crisis “is an opportunity”.

According to Kahn, the Global Central Bank and Currency would be a thing of last resort, in cases when the global economy is in shambles.  He said the new currency would be a “risk-free asset for the system independent of national currencies,” and that a “global central bank could also serve as a lender of last resort”.  How smart of Mr. Kahn.  The problem is that this ideas aren’t new and aren’t his.  The push for a global financial body has been in the works for decades.

The idea of a global body that controls the issuance of currency and all financial policy was created before the United Nations, the League of Nations and the European Union were born.  This principle of concentrating power and policy originally intended to amass control with the excuse it would avoid economic corruption and disaster.  However it doesn’t take too long to find out it is exactly the opposite.  Just as the creation of the League of Nations, the United Nations and the European Union did not end war, neither will a centralized supranational organization end economic unrest.  In fact, it will perpetuate it.

Let’s take a look at past events.  Since the United Nations was born, we experienced conflicts in every continent.  Those conflicts were not the works of countries against countries, but the destabilization came in the form of rogue groups sponsored by governments or their intelligence agencies.  Mossad, MI6, CIA, Taliban and the IRA are just a few examples.  Country-sponsored wars are a thing of the past, and in their letters of intent, the countries that pushed for the creation of the League of Nations and the U.N. knew they would not need such a tool because they also controlled terrorist organizations that would do the work for them.

In the world of economics and finances, the empires, or the countries that aspire to become empires also have their tools to carry out economic and financial terrorism.  The Corporations that initially were outside governments hired financial institutions to carry out their fraudulent activities.  Then, the Corporations became government and it got even easier to carry out financial terrorism.  Multinational Banking Corporations established a new order controlled by themselves, ended oversight and created policies that effectively turned them into the masters of the world’s economy.

So, the bankers did not need Al-Qaeda, MI6, Mossad or the CIA to bring the world to its knees.  That goal could be achieved from and through Wall Street, the IMF and Bank of International Settlements.  The creation of regional blocks to promote commerce and exchange was an excuse to consolidate power and resources.  This idea would later be tested at a global level by promoting the creation of a global financial entity which will control the issuance of money and the terms under which that money is lent.

What were the results of the concentration of financial and economic policy in Europe?  We are seeing them right now.  Iceland, Greece and now Spain, Portugal and England are in shambles.  Why?  Because financial homogenization is not meant to provide stable economies and sound policies, but to tighten controls and carry out policies that will allow the bankers even more.  The goal of the bankers has never been to have a stable economy with sound monetary policy, because in that kind of world they have less control and the wealth is not concentrated in their hands.

Let’s look at another example history provides us:  The creation and adoption of globalist policies like the free trade agreements.  NAFTA, CAFTA, GATT to mention a few, were the troops on the ground for the bankers.  The end of the industrial world, the end of Capitalism -as it successfully worked for some time-, gave way to open borders for cheap, toxic products to flow and illegal aliens to migrate.  Not only did the free-trade agreements ended industry, but also annihilated the social safety net in the nations of the western world.  While cities’ and towns’ monies were robbed and divested to imaginary financial products, illegal aliens sucked dry the already battered social services in every nation of the Americas and Europe.

Nowadays, the most influential politicians and pop culture stars plead for the nations to disrespect their constitutions and laws by allowing not only free-trade agreements, but the continuous flow of illegals through every possible place at the borders.  Enforcing immigration and constitutional laws is seen as racist and those proposing legal immigration are labeled as unjust, inhumane and simply lunatics.  This is exactly the result the banking globalists hoped for.  Dividing and conquering has never looked better.  Sound immigration policies are sure radical in a world where everyone unconsciously believes open borders are the normal thing and cheap slave-made goods are the best bang for their buck.

Now that we have taken a look back, let’s take a look forward.  What would a world with more concentrated power and control in the hands of the makers of the current crisis look like?  Let’s be optimistic and say it could not look better, it will not look better.  The centralization of power and governance at regional levels is what caused the mess we are in right now, so further centralization in the hands of those who financed Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Noriega, Pinochet, Saddam and who now control and finance the shadow governments of the United States, Great Britain, Asia and Africa, will spin the world even more out of control.  For their benefit, of course.  History doesn’t lie, does it?

Those who promised the end of wars, only brought more of it, and those who promised financial stability only created more inequality, poverty and misery.  Would you trust your house keys to the thief who stands outside your property to take care of it?  You wouldn’t.  You shouldn’t.  In the next election, wherever you live, vote yourself in and vote the crooks out.  That is the only way to defeat their agenda of conquest and slavery.  Many people are already actively working to end the global tyranny they created decades ago, so you are not alone.

Now, enough talk!  Let’s act!  Next, there is a list of some of the corporations in fraudulently in charge of the world today.  I am hoping you can deny them the privilege of running your life.  Stop using, buying or in any way consuming their products.  Let’s use their globalism against them.  A global boycott of their cheap, toxic and fraudulent products will be the first step.

Disney                              Adidas                         Time Warner                  IBM

Merck                              Napa                              Holiday Inn                    ACE

Old Navy                        Ford                              Seven Eleven                  USPS

Comcast                         Chevrolet                    Citgo                                  VISA

CNN                                 Dyncorp                       Pepsi                                  Chevron

Coca Cola                      True Value                   Kraft                                  Chrysler

Exxon Mobile             General Electric         Starbucks                        Westinghouse

Taco Bell                       Wells Fargo                  America Online             KFC

NBC Universal            American Airlines    Royal Dutch Shell         Bank of America

CBS                                  The Carlyle Group    GAP                                     Master Card

Master Card                Stop&Shop                   HBO                                     ABC

Nike                               Wal Mart                       Jiffy Lube                          JP Morgan

GM                                 Volkswagen                 Fox News Channel        Monsanto

Du Pont                        NASA                             Pizza Hut                           Syngenta

Microsoft                    Mc Donald’s                 Home Depot                    Safe Way

Burger King               Sony                                Dodge                                Intel

Staples                         Verizon                          Toro                                  John Deere

Firestone                    Bechtel                           MSNBC                             Goodyear

Amoco                        AT&T                               Mitsubishi                       Nestle

Feel free to suggest names of more corporations through the comment section.  Also, respond to our poll regarding corporate control of government below.

A Escape Valve Called Illegal Immigration

“I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs.”
Thomas Jefferson, 3rd president of US (1743 – 1826)

By Luis R. Miranda
The Real Agenda
April 27, 2010

As a Latino, I know what is it like to live in a less developed country. I lived in one for the first 18 years of my life. As a child, I understood I was not able to have it all, because my parents, a teacher and a secretary, could not give me what I wanted, but with much sacrifice what I needed. As a Hispanic, I also know what is it like to live in a country identified as developed, although not all illegal immigrationthe time. I lived 10 years in North America where everything is abundant and where opportunities exist. So history shows. However, these opportunities by many mistakenly identified as the American Dream, just do not fall into the hands; one must seek them out. The American dream never existed. It is one of those corporate inventions created to distract the masses.
For this, and deep study of history, the history that is not in the textbooks, I understand how illegal immigration has been used by corporations to promote their interests and destroy the last shining beacon for freedom. This has been happening for a long time, at least 100 years. Governments and economies in the hands of corporations use illegal immigration to destroy entire societies and consolidate resources.

Why is it that those who support compliance with immigration laws are described as racists? Because the groups that support illegal immigration, which are funded by corporations, believe that it is OK to apply the law selectively, as they see appropriate.

In the documentary Food, Inc., the producers show this trend. Illegal immigrants are brought from Mexico to work illegally at a meat processing company. To keep the immigration police at bay, the company agrees to allow weekly raids where 15 to 20 workers who are captured and deported to their countries. The next day, the meat company already has other illegal workers hoping to fill the empty positions left by their compatriots the night before. When these raids are reported in television news, the police’s action is praised as a show of strength against illegal immigration. What is not reported, is the corruption that exists in every one of these raids. The corporate media is also complicit in this exploitation because they use the news as a way to attract their audience while keeping them ignorant of the agreements between the police and the company and more outrageous, agreements between governments that allow this to happen.
It’s easy to advocate for the rights of illegal immigrants from the human point of view, ‘it is not human send them back to their countries of origin away from their families. But from a legal standpoint, cold and simple we can not have two standards. Either there is respect for the laws governing a nation, or the country will turn into complete anarchy, which is what the corporations want. That anarchy is what prevails in Latin America, and that’s why people leave their families behind to seek a better life.
Mass immigration to the United States, Canada and Europe is the result of the failure of politicians and Latin American leaders to provide his countrymen with better quality of life. It is also a consequence of the adoption of policies that corporations support as they are vital for their overall intention . These policies are forced upon those who are banished by multinationals to seek better prospects. Such prospects exist in places where income is ten times better for the same work, and where the money goes a longer way.
Illegal immigration to North America and Europe is a escape valve that relieves the pressure for irresponsible politicians who let the corporations take over their countries in exchange for indecent tips, positions of power and awards such as Nobel Peace Prizes. While politicians receive recognition, the people must give up their family and homelands to find humane living conditions. This lack of conditions is what makes that even countries with more resources than the United States or Canada, have higher rates of poverty. Corporatist bankers managed to keep the third world in poverty, as they consolidate their power and wealth in a few countries which they will demolish through each economic crisis. So it must be said and clarified once and for all: it is not the Gringos, or the Europeans who exploit immigrants, but the elites that control the governments.
Latin America is a clear example of this policy of consolidation. From Argentina to Mexico, from Nicaragua to Brazil, all countries are handled as chess boards in an effort to consolidate power and wealth. The direct effect of this action is extreme poverty and illegal immigration to lands with more opportunities. The immediate consequence of massive illegal immigration for the developed countries is the collapse of their economies by the overuse of its social safety net. Despite this, those who call for an end to illegal immigration, are called racist and inhumane, even though their requests have nothing to do with either race or humanity.

Here are several examples to help us illustrate the above points. Mexico has more natural resources than the United States. However, the gap between rich and poor is huge. The free trade agreement between the two nations, -a global policy of consolidation- exterminated the middle class and now there are only two classes: the feudal lords and the rest. Although the results clearly show what neoliberal policies and trade agreements like NAFTA and CAFTA are capable of, more countries in Latin America continue to adopt such agreements with Europe, China and the U.S. itself. The giant of the north lost last year more than 500,000 jobs a month due to the economic crisis caused by the same bankers who control the economic cycle. NAFTA made tens if not hundreds of companies molt their operations to Brazil, Costa Rica, Mexico, India, China and other developing countries. There, with little or no labor regulations, companies pay a fraction of the wages paid in Europe or the United States and legally exploit a workforce that in many cases is as qualified as that of the U.S. or Europe, as they have college education or receive training from the employers. The only difference is the color of their skin and nationality. Is this not the clearest example of racism? Of course, incompetent governments refuse to ask for better conditions for their workers in their own land.
In developing countries, the arrival of companies like Intel, General Motors, Citi, JP Morgan and others is seen as a triumph for their mediocre leaders. What is never revealed however, are the concessions made to the companies for them to arrive and remain in those countries. These concessions include but are not limited to total tax exemption, working long hours at unusual times for the same pay, little or no chance to grow within the company, competition agreements which limit or prohibit the arrival of competitors, zero taxes on exports and imports, zero production tax, zero social guarantees for workers and many others. The weak nations simply fall in the hands of corporate criminals and become the type of democracies where two wolves and one sheep decide what’s for dinner.
Brazil is another example of how globalization is applied to the detriment of society. Recently, President Luiz Inacio da Silva, who clamored for the creation of a New World Order and also pursues the chair of the UN Secretary-General, legalized millions of illegal immigrants from countries like Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Ecuador, -all running away from their crumbling countries- without making a thorough study of the possible needs or not of foreign workers in the country. The press and much of society almost knelt before Lula for his decision and qualified it as ‘successful’ and human. But what no one asked was whether the legalization of so many would affect the availability of jobs for Brazilians themselves. The move was applauded even more because the decision to legalize workers was mainly positive to collect more taxes to fund one of the most corrupt, lands in the planet, -it earned a 3.7 on the scale. That is super corrupt.

And what happens when a state or a country decides to establish limits on illegal immigration? Recently, the state of Arizona passed legislation to make authorities arrest and deport those who are illegally in the territory. Long before the adoption of the law, hundreds of people gathered outside the Arizonan Congress to demand the law was not approved as the media coverage provided its usual mediocre coverage, trying to turn illegal immigrants into victims of the new law . Although the law is not perfect, because it allows police to demand identification from those suspected to be in the state illegally, which violates privacy laws, it is an important step towards compliance with existing immigration laws. The Mexican government’s reaction was immediate, calling the law a disgrace and persecution of Latinos. President Felipe Calderon said: “They are entitled to be there, because they are model workers.” Why are they not given work in Mexico then? President Barack Obama also criticized the law saying “it threatened basic notions of justice” and said its implementation would be monitored to ensure it would not violate civil rights. It is clear that respecting the laws of the country is not a priority to Obama. In fact he is now actively working with Congress to pass legislation that would give the green light to legalize 30 million illegal immigrants in his country. It’s no surprise that the number of citizens who support his job is the lowest in the first year of any president. Only 29% in the latest survey strongly supports his actions, while 60% of respondents support legislation such as the one passed by Arizona last week against illegal immigration. See the result here.

The reform of immigration laws known as “Comprehensive Immigration Reform”, or the approval of no real legislation, is what corporations support, because it will allow them to continue their reign of exploitation of the people. This fact is simply ignored by those who want mass legalization. For them this issue is about race, which is a point that originates in the organizations paid by corporations to promote their interests, such as LA RAZA. The corporate media and pro-illegal immigration groups increasingly polarize the population with their anti-Yankee discourse, and pro-invasion of the south western United States, that many people erroneously believe belongs to Mexico.

Now both Democrats and Republicans – both controlled by bankers and corporations-, work in the drafting and adoption of the new law to legalize million and would also give them health care insurance of the type recently approved by the Obama administration. This policy will further weaken the social safety net and end in a total collapse of the democratic system. This is what the elites want to carry out their most precious process of consolidation in the history to control the natural resources and infrastructure the United States. It is a diabolical plan, no doubt about it. Polarizing the masses of people to keep them busy while the bankers steal everything, even their homelands. And what will happen when there is not a escape valve called the United States to absorb the pressure? What will all this anger pressure cooker called the third world go? Judge for yourself!

What to do about it? Educate current and future citizens about the true origin of such issues as illegal immigration, showing them the root of the problem so that it is clear people are able to seek for real solutions, instead of doing what is best for the interests of the powerful. If we have opportunities, a comfortable and dignified place to live, we need not go anywhere, but if we do, we will understand why it is better there than here and how we can improve.