One of my favorite ways to waste time is by watching House Hunters on HGTV, and all of its various spin-offs—Caribbean Life, Lakeside Bargain Hunt, Beachside Bargain Hunt, Mexico Life, Island Life, and House Hunters International. For those of you unfamiliar with these shows, the premise is simple: A person or persons goes shoppping for a new house/condo/apartment in some location; they visit usually three properties and at the end they consider all factors and make their pick. During the last few seconds of the show it cuts to a couple months later and we see them in their new home where they gush that they’ve never known a life so perfect and sublime. Which is of course complete hyperbole, but hey, it’s TV and hyperbole is how TV rolls. For me the show is a relaxing way to run through a couple of cups of coffee in the morning as I gird my loins for the boring yet relentlessly demanding and occasionally soul-crushing meat grinder of the American middle class. Yes, the whole experience of House Hunters is pleasantly anodyne.
Well…except for the arrant postmodern leftist social engineering with which it loves punching you in the face over and over again. That part I could do without; but unfortunately, it’s par for the course in America today, because the version of morality in the uber-rich (and uber white) juggernaut of leftism which controls all of entertainment, virtually without rival, involves little more than the virtue signaling of “diversity”, where gay and brown people must be displayed in televised fabrications of reality in numbers utterly inconsistent with their actual population percentages.
But this is not what I really want to talk about. Sure I could go on about how the last time I saw a mixed-race couple that wasn’t on television, even in the massively diverse DC metropolitan area where I grew up and still spend a lot of time, was in 2010, and they were friends from church who were politically conservative. I could talk about how statistically whites make up over 60% of the population in this country, but if House Hunters is our guide, we can expect to see white people in public at a rate of maybe one or two every other Thursday. I could explain that the numbers of home buyers in the US are overwhelmingly white and straight, but not on House Hunters, where your next door neighbors are just as likely to be craft beer-drinkers Chaz and Cody as they are to be soccer parents Steve and Becky.
But I don’t care about that…at face value. That is, I don’t have a problem with the “what”. Gay or brown, white or straight, go on with your self. I despise nothing more than individuals submitting to an abstract social standard defined solely by group identity. To me, that is the Devil. Be what you want and do what you want. I don’t split individuals into collections of races or orientations. The only people I hate are liars, theives, abusers, and murderers. Because they are the ones depriving others of their choices and the ownership of their existence…they are the expression of Satan. Not gays, not brown people, and not straight white men.
What I have a problem with is the “why”, and that is what I’m going to talk about in this article.
When it comes to “diversity” as a means of social progressivism, what is the assertion? Well, let’s take television as an example, since I brought up House Hunters. Why do “minorities” (and I use quotes because “minority” in the political sense has nothing to do with math, but with socialist collective identity)…why do “minorities” need to be portrayed on television in disproportionate numbers? Because postmodern eithical mores assert that they have a basic right to identify themselves in popular expressions of the greater culture. In other words, people are said to feel better when they can regularly observe others who share a collective characteristic. Minorities, we are told, feel more included, not when they are welcomed as individuals into society based on personal merit and value, but when they can identify with their own kind according to race, gender, and/or sexual orientation. And one of the most effective and effcient ways to do this—to ensure social “justice” and “compassion”—is to show large numbers of minorities in media like television. That is, to promote a version of reality on TV where straight white people observe members of their group less often, and minorities more often.
So…what’s wrong with this? After all, white people have dominated the airwaves for 90% of television history. Is it really a problem for shows to assert the idea that there is more to the human race than just white people?
The problem here is that these are trick questions. The questions assume something that isn’t true:
A. That we can ensure social equality by appealing to greater diversity.
B. That it is rational to encourage a minority individual’s identification with the group as a means to dismantle the dominant group…at least in a way that will promote peace and general social cohesion.
The first, A., always makes me laugh because it is clearly a contradiction in terms. The idea that diversity as a social ethic will spawn equality is impossible by definition. The more you amplify distinctions between groups, the less equal you necessarily make these groups. This is elementary logic. And this is why equality between groups always comes at the expense of, not the benefit of, the majority group. That is, the dominant group must be considered inherently immoral before you can proclaim the need for equal representation of the minority group or groups.
The majority group is the reason there needs to be greater minority group representation on television in the first place. The majority group is the whole problem, you see. The majority group, by being the majority group, is ipso facto commiting a sin by its very existence. Its inherent moral failure is the fact that it IS at all. The majority group, by being what it is, existentially and by definition, detracts from the minority group. The fact that it exists at all presents a problem for the minority group in that the minority group is thus necessarily under represented, likewise existentially and by definition. So the majority group, which causes the minority to be the minority, is bad, and thus is not of equal moral value as the minority group. Its existence is why there needs to be justice in the form of greater representation of the minority group on television. There thus can be no fundamental equality in diversity. The very reason we need diversity in the first place is because the majority group doesn’t have it. So when the left talks about diversity being an ethical obligation, they are NOT including the majority in their social utopia. They are not including white people.
To allow the majority to exist is to deprive the minority group of its social virtue. To represent the minority group as the minority, for example, on television, by showing its members in numbers only commensurate with their national population average, is to consign it to social marginalization, and this based upon the a priori ethical assumption that it is socially unjust for the majority to express itself (e.g. on television) as the majority. Which, once the majority is no longer allowed to express itself…well, the majority is no longer allowed to exist. Because being, and the expression of being, are corollary. No matter what we are told, the claim that white people should not exist as the majority is to claim that white people should not exist at all. Because, you see, according to collectivist (e.g. leftist) metaphysics, white individuals are not existentially distinct from whiteness—that is, their collective group identity. So if whiteness is the majority, and the majority is evil because it by definition makes the minority the minority and thus diminishes the minority’s social value, then white people are de facto evil. To assert the elimination of the white majority is to assert the elimination of white individuals.
Sorry if that’s a bucket of cold water, but it’s the truth. Once you are defined according to your group identity, and that group is defined as evil, then YOU are evil. And thus, you must be destroyed.
You may argue that all we need to do is make the majority no longer the majority. Once white people are no longer the majority in this country, then they will be moral. They will be acceptable to the social Marxists who advocate equality by appealing to spurious collectivist ethics…which always result in mass murder, by the way. But the entire moral degeneracy of the majority is inexorably tied to whiteness. You cannot have a majority unless those in the majority group all share the same collective characteristic…in this case, being white. The reality which historically has driven the state-sponsored mass murder of the immoral group—in our case, the white majority—is that if it weren’t for white individuals you wouldn’t have a white majority. If it weren’t for white individuals, there wouldn’t be a massive social moral offense by the majority against the minority. The idea then that you can separate the evil of the majority from the whiteness of the individual in that majority is a lie. This is a bromide for the masses to obscure the truth. Because white people will only accept the notion of diversity-as-equality if they think they are included in that diversity rainbow.
It’s a big old diversity club, whitey…
…and you ain’t in it.
To claim that all groups are equal, makes the promotion of more minorities on television a waste of time with respect to the goal of making them more valued. If ALL groups are of equal value, then what difference does it make who is on television? If there is no moral difference between black people and white people, collectivity defined, then who cares if the black person only ever sees white people on TV? He, as a black person, has the same existential worth as a white person, and vice versa. Thus, there is no reason he shouldn’t identify with the white people he sees on television, and no reason he should think that he will never fully find social value unless he sees other black people. So, the only way you can consistently argue that minorities need greater representation on television is if there is something inherently wrong the with the majority. Only by valuing the majority less can we claim that it is valuable to allow the minority to observe his group more on television. In short, if all groups are morally equal, then all of the distinctions between these groups ultimately become meaningless. If all groups are of equal social value, then we don’t actually have groups. We only have individuals. But that runs utterly contrary to the collectivist metaphysics which drive postmodern—which is really just old fashioned collectivist—philosophy, and therefore that notion is something that will not and cannot be accepted or conceded. Ever. Because it demands a rejection of the entire collectivst definition of reality…and that only happens after a nation has collapsed entirely, often washed away in rivers of blood. Mark my words, there is no salvation for a nation, not even this one, because all governments are inherently collectivist and all of them go the way ours is, socially, just with different group labels. It WILL collapse under the weight of its own contractions, period. It is a rational certainty. This is because without the philosophical premises which inevitably bring about its downfall, it isn’t that nation in the first place.
I don’t like this. I don’t advocate it. I’m devastated by it. But I’m merely the messenger of arrant cause and effect. They are inexorably bound. The life of a nation—its collectivist philosophical premises—is its death.
Here’s another problem. Putting more minorities on television in an effort to make minority people feel more valued implies that individuals identifying primarily with the group is a good thing. But if this is the case, why would white people want less white people on television in deference to greater minority representation? If identifying oneself primarily with the group is the means by which people are truly valued socially, then why would we expect white people to specifically reject this notion by advocating for that which diminishes white people identifying with their group? If group identification is good, then why should white people want less of it?
The answer by now should be obvious. Because white people are not good. It’s only good to identify with one’s group IF one is not in the majority. IF one is not white, THEN group identification is good…so goes the syllogism. Whiteness is majority, and vice versa. The majority is an illegitimate group because it, by definition, oppresses the minority.
And here’s the kicker. The majority never gets to be the minority. Because this is the root of collectivist metaphysics. Collectivist metaphysics denies the reality of the individual entirely. And thus, the “majority group” which oppresses the “minority group” has absolutely nothing to do with math. That is, it has nothing to do with how many individuals happen to be in the majority relative to the minority group. “Majority” and its primary characteristic, “whiteness”, is NOT a number. It is a metaphysical identity. Whiteness is absolute, and it is majority, and it is evil because it oppresses the minority. And therefore, even just one white person alone embodies the entirety of the collective metaphysical identity of “majority” and “whiteness” (the two being corollary). The only way to reduce the majority and thus bring about social justice is to end whiteness. And to end whiteness is in practicality to end white individuals.
Yes, it’s madness. But it is the philosophy of the postmodern left. Which is nothing more than the garden variety, mass-murdering collectivism we’ve had ever since man catastrophically decided that the “I” is a function of the “we”.
That is, ever since the beginning of time.