The True Agenda

Once again, Simpson makes an entire Crossroads post featuring his misconstruction -- whether deliberate or inadvertent, I'll leave it to you to decide -- of something I've written.

First, note that neither Patrick Young or Simpson anwered the question in its entirety: Would you advise me how important it is — compared to other important things in life — to have a level of comfort with people of all cultures?

The boldfaced segment was ignored. I again leave it to you to surmise why.

Remember, I'm using the word "diversity" as a synonym for the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism, a point I've made more than once in these posts and comments, because so many people see it that way. Personally, I don't see them as synonyms, but have used it that way for the purpose of this discussion.

And considering that "diversity," as the leftist doctrine of multiculturalism, is being used to radically transform our culture, it behooves us to determine, as best we can, what the ultimate transformation is to be, and whether it is positive. Or, stated another way, whether it's any better than what it is to replace.

And he continues his propensity for lying, with this: And, as usual, when she says “white people, especially Southerners,” she overlooks (1) the fact that not all southerners are white (except in her segregated/exclusionist fantasy world)

A college-level teacher ought to know the restriction of that phrase to white Southerners is not overlooking Southerners of other races. You can't include other races in their hostility toward whites (Southern or otherwise) because THEY don't.  Do you suppose this man, who throws off on my level of knowledge and her intellect, cannot understand that very simple grammatical construct?

.....and (2) that not all southern whites are the same.

But we're talking about multiculturalist flogger blanket concepts and targets, not the reality of the Southern white population. Remember, Patrick asked me to answer the questions I posed to him. My answers, which are the basis of this whole exchange, describes my views not as they are, but as they are seen by prejudiced viewers, and distorted by multiculturalist thought.

Our Confederate heritage apologist pretends to know a lot about the people she despises.

Ah, but not nearly as much as floggers and floggerettes pretend to know about the people THEY despise. Besides, I don't despise anyone. But flogger hatred of Confederate heritage defenders, and flogger love of hideously denigrating those they hate is constantly showcased on Simpson's flog, and to a lesser degree, on other flogs. For example, Kristin Konate putting her address on Facebook and accusing the Flaggers of doing it -- and Simpson repeating this lie. That sort of thing happens repeatedly at Crossroads.

But you would think she wouldn’t be so stupid when it came to the diversity of the student population at ASU, where I work. You can find the figures for 2012 here.

I didn't say anything about the "student population" at ASU.
.
Indeed, she’s so fixated on African Americans that she overlooks this point: she defines diversity in terms of race and then in terms of African Americans, suggesting just how narrow her interests are and how limited is her understanding of the concept of diversity.

I mentioned blacks because that's the racial group harped on the most by floggers.

What this final answer shows, however, is the poisonous brew crafted by mixing hatred, ignorance, stupidity, fear, and insecurity together.
And what that statement shows is more of Simpson's deliberate misunderstanding of the starting point of my arguments -- i.e., What I Believe As Distorted by Multicultural Thought. Indeed, accusing someone critical of the doctrine of multiculturalism of hatred, ignorance, stupidity, fear, and insecurity is pretty much par for the course for multicultural elitists, and even their rank-and-file followers.

There’s no argument here for homogeneity or “sameness” here based on the supposed merits of these concepts, but an endless rant that suggests just how fragile white supremacy really is.

Of course there isn't because I'm not arguing for homogeneity or sameness. That is the charge made against those who oppose the multicultural agenda. I'm arguing that the "white culture" so despised by the multicultural elitists -- however they, not I, define it -- and so often portrayed as evil and in need of replacement -- is no more evil, inept or inferior than any other culture, including multicultural ones. I am saying that preference for sameness or difference, for similarity or dissimilarity, are two sides of the same coin.

I have presented in my answers to Patrick Young my beliefs as they are distorted by "diversity" champions and multicultural elitists, which their followers may not be knowledgeable about. (Some diversity-followers have positive motivations and either do not know about, or reject, the true agenda of the elitist leaders.)

 Now I'll state what I believe without the false filters.

I believe that the doctrine of multiculturalism (as differentiated from a personal preference for diversity) is an agenda for radically changing western culture being pushed at the top by people who neither believe nor practice it, and who certainly do not intend to live in the wreckage it will create. Yes, wreckage of western culture is their goal. How successful they will be remains to be seen.

Since I believe what they would replace western culture with would be far worse, I am opposed to the doctrine of multiculturalism and the agenda of its elitist pushers. It is part of the leftist/progressive spectrum, in which multiculturalism is socialism lite, socialism is communism lite, and communism is not lite. (See my previous post on "The Hive.") I also believe these are steps or stages the elitists have determined must be traveled to reach the ultimate goal.

Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked.  http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/COM.ART.HTM

Every system or undertaking devised by man will be flawed, but some are much worse than others. Other ideologies put into practice have been mega-death producers, but not on the level of 20th century communism. Any human pursuit that results in the incomprehensible horror, suffering and death represented by those figures ought to be opposed. Any steps leading to it ought to be exposed and resisted. The doctrine of multiculturalism as conceived and practiced by the west's cultural elites is a very early step to that end.

Diversity simply means difference. Personal preference for difference and personal preference for similarity are both personal preferences. But when "difference" becomes political -- when preference for it becomes a political agenda to be used in the advancement of leftist/progressive objectives on the way to the ultimate totalitarian goal -- for example, when laws are broken in order to allow "immigration"* in numbers designed to radically alter the demographics of our country, disrupt and neutralize its identity and cultural cohesiveness in preparation for destroying and replacing the existing culture -- it takes on a whole new meaning and the agenda, along with its destructiveness, ought to be opposed. That agenda has nothing to do with the rosy picture painted of America's future of "diverse" citizens joining hands and singing Kumbaya or whatever -- but most of us won't know it until the bleak and bloody future becomes the present.

   UPDATE   UPDATE    UPDATE   UPDATE    UPDATE   UPDATE   

Remember one of my responses to Patrick Young in the comment thread of a previous post included this, "...why do they choose to live and work in such white, basically un-multicultural areas and teach at such white, basically un-multicultural institutions? They talk a good diversity-talk. They don't much walk a diversity-walk."

"They" in that passage refers to the floggers and in response to it, Simpson said, "But you would think she wouldn’t be so stupid when it came to the diversity of the student population at ASU, where I work. You can find the figures for 2012 here."I reminded him that I didn't say anything about the "student population" at ASU. I said institutions, and in the case of a university, that would include students, faculty and administration. 

Tonight, I came across some interesting figures that might explain why he wanted to look only at student diversity because when you look at faculty diversity, ASU gets a lot less diverse and more white:

--Faculty Diversity--

African American.....2%
Asian American ..... 9%
Hispanic................. 7%
International............ 5%
Native American......1%
White.....................75%
Unknown.................1%

 http://colleges.niche.com/arizona-state-university/diversity/#ixzz2pycKTMI5

Note that at ASU, there are three times more white faculty members than all other non-white groups combined.  Unfortunately, this website, Niche.com, did not have figures for administration and staff, but you have to wonder if the trend of the higher you go, the whiter it gets, continues.

_____________________
*Refusing to differentiate between lawful immigrants in reasonable numbers and illegal immigrants in staggering numbers reveals a multicultural agenda, IMO.