Heather MacDonald – political commentator, essayist, attorney and bestselling author of The Diversity Delusion – tells it like it is, on the danger of this delusion to the university, and to the nation.
What is “the diversity delusion”? In brief, the belief that America is awash in discrimination, and that any perceived inequality or lack of “parity” (equality of opportunity is no longer enough; now the expectation is equality of outcomes) in race or gender in any field is the result of systemic, institutional (or individual, or both) racism, sexism, etc.
MacDonald notes that there is a cottage industry of both pandering to and actively fomenting this fear on campus, and she is not the only one to note her fear that this may eventually lead to civil war, by breeding hate among students in our colleges and universities.
Nota Bene: This belief may ultimately, I fear, create a self-fulfilling property.
If someone, or a group of people (in this case primarily white, heterosexual, Christian men, although white, heterosexual, Christian women are not immune, in this age of “intersectionality”) are told “You hate me, you’re prejudiced against me, you’re putting me down!” the initial response is likely to be shock and sadness: “No, man! I’m not! I don’t want to do that!”
The goal of the Left, of course, is for this message to be internalized, to “Oh, wow, man, I guess I am… what do I have to do to make up for it?” The answer to that is “There’s really nothing you can do to totally make up for it, because you’re you’re a straight white Christian male, but you can make reparation by becoming an ‘ally’ and kowtowing to us constantly.”
But unless this happens, and maybe eventually even if it does, the ultimate result is going to be resentment. “Why do you keep harassing me, man? I’m not doing anything to you!” And eventually, that resentment is going to, as I say, create a self-fulfilling prophecy: “You know what, man? I really am starting to hate you, now!”
And that is when it stops being about suppression of difference (ironically, a thing the Left used to claim was bad, but now actively utilizes to advance its agenda), and may begin to edge over into the civil war that MacDonald and many of us fear. Lord, have mercy upon us!
The governor of West Virginia has invited the disaffected counties of Virginia to leave the Old Dominion and become a part of the mountain state. The loss of these counties and their “deplorables” would mark an end to what little is left of the Old Dominion’s influence in the counsels of the nation.
To be honest, I have historically had mixed feelings about the very existence of West Virginia (despite my great love for John Denver’s splendid song about her) – no offense whatsoever intended to the good people living there!
But it is, to say the least, deeply ironic that the same Federal government which refused to allow the Southern States to secede from the Union – launching a horrific, bloody war to bring them back by force – was perfectly okay with allowing a separatist rump legislature to secede what is now West Virginia from the Old Dominion.
But that’s history. And history, important (indeed, vital) as it is, is sometimes taken over by current events! Given the present situation, in which (as this essay notes)
“Governor Northam and the leadership of the misnamed Democratic Party [believe] they [are] in a position to issue diktats expanding abortion, curtailing the second amendment, and punishing those who dare to criticize them,”
I am now more than half-tempted to believe that West Virginia was actually saved by an act of Divine Providence to be – potentially – a safe haven for conservative counties now part of the Old Dominion (and perhaps my home State of Maryland, too).
Whether or not this will prove possible remains to be seen, but even the prospect is encouraging. And if it does (as, again, this essay points out),
“Virginia, which is now a microcosm of the country’s culture wars, could lead a new secession movement that could go a long way to relieving the considerable pressures along the fault lines of conflict in America.”
It is true that, as author John Devanny comments,
“West Virginia may not be acting from pure motives in encouraging the secession of Virginia counties from the Richmond Junta and into a union with West Virginia. Tax revenue, economic development, and congressional representation are at stake here. But so too are the important cultural issues.”
As he also accurately notes, America is a nation built on secession. “Secession” of settlers from their native lands, the great secession of the United Colonies from Great Britain – led to military victory by General, later President, George Washington (whose birthday today, February 22nd, is) – in the American War of Independence, and of course the attempted secession of the Confederacy from the Union, in the War Between the States (which this essay also discusses, as background).
In the mid-19th century, the great divide in this country was between North and South, and although slavery played a role, it was by no means the only factor, as Davenny recounts. Nor did the divide begin in the 19th century, nor was the South the first to consider secession – points which the dominant narrative conveniently ignores.
But now, the great divide is between the urban, mostly coastal, “elites” – what Democratic presidential hopeful and multi-billionaire Michael Bloomberg has openly, arrogantly, and largely erroneously called the “intelligentsia” (with its implication that all who oppose this new quasi-aristocracy are unintelligent and uneducated, the “unwashed masses” his ilk were born to dominate), and the so-called “deplorables” (e.g., those still “bitterly clinging” to God and guns – my people, in other words) in what used to be called “America’s Heartland,” but is now disparaged by the “elite” as mere “flyover country.”
The divide seems to be growing and hardening, and if something doesn’t happen to change, could end up as bitter as the divide over States’ rights, the tariff, and slavery was in the mid-1800s. And if that happens, a similarly bloody outcome is not, unfortunately, entirely inconceivable. Are we seeing a glimmer of a way out, in which States and counties realign themselves into more amenable configurations? A rebirth of authentic Federalism?
It is too early to be sure, of course. The idea that whole counties might “vote with their feet” (as well as the ballot-box) and actually switch States would have been unthinkable even a few years ago; but with the Governor of West Virginia actively inviting it, and some Virginia counties apparently considering the option, it just might be the safety value we need to keep the pressure-cooker from exploding.
Speaking personally, as much as I love Maryland, I would be very happy to join a West Virginia that protected my Second Amendment rights, did not consider that killing unborn children right up to delivery (and in the case of some radicals, possibly even after) was somehow virtuous, and in general respected those of us the “elites” deplore.
“Democrats conspired with foreign agents, lied, cheated, and denied due process to Donald Trump. If they were willing to do that to a duly elected president in order to obtain power, what should Americans expect them to do to them should they refuse attempts to be disarmed?” […]
“Democrats want this war. Someone should tell them they should be careful what they wish for.”
I fervently hope and pray that it doesn’t come to that – that the worst may yet be averted. But if it does, I think this article is correct: the radical Left is going to get a radical surprise.
“You accuse us of overturning our patrie by rebellion, but it is you, who, subverting all principles of the religious and political order, were the first to proclaim that insurrection is the most sacred of duties.” — French Royalist rebel to the newly-installed Jacobin government in 1793
I disagree with the author of this piece’s knee-jerk anti-Trumpism, and more generally his assertion of what amounts to moral equivalency between the President’s supporters and America’s radical Left. But that doesn’t mean the essay’s depiction of the situation in which we find ourselves is wrong. Sadly!
As America slips into what many are calling a “cold civil war,” not a single Democrat running for president is willing to condemn Antifa, the contemporary version of the Brownshirts that terrorized opponents of the Nazis.
I still think “Red Guards” is a more historically and ideologically accurate comparison for Antifa than the “Brownshirts,” but I also realize it has less resonance, and less recognition value. Such quibbles aside, this essay is sadly all too correct.
“Antifa activists constitute a dedicated, organized national violent organization openly suppressing political opponents, something that ought to be condemned by everyone, not just those whom they seek to silence.
“Antifa now is arming itself. History teaches us that armed thugs pave the way for monstrous political oppression. Yet the leaders of the Democratic Party are now becoming complicit with armed thugs…”
A good friend of mine (and a fellow Anglican priest) posted this on Facebook yesterday, quoting another clergyman who commented,
“In the choice between the civilized and the uncivilized, one must always choose the civilized.”
Indeed! Today’s Democrats are full of hot air about supposed “white nationalist / supremacist terrorists,” but – as this essay points out – haven’t a word to say about their own Antifa thugs, who represent the far greater threat to peace and stability. Projection at its finest!
My friend who posted this added, in a reply,
“What the Jacobins did to France, and the communists to Russia, Asia and other parts of the world, Antifa would do here if they had the power to do it. That’s why they must be crushed. It’s also why any connection that can be established between Antifa and the Dems must be highlighted.“
“If progressives and socialists can at last convince the American public that their country was always hopelessly flawed, they can gain power to remake it based on their own interests. These elites see Americans not as unique individuals but as race, class, and gender collectives, with shared grievances from the past that must be paid out in the present and the future.”
From commentator Jesse Kelly, quoted in this essay:
“For too long the people on the Right (myself included) have called the American Left ‘socialists’ or some brand of that. But it’s dawned on me they’re something else entirely and I can’t quite put my finger on it. Even the commies loved their country. This is something worse.
“The commies didn’t want to flood their countries with illegal aliens and deport nobody. The commies would never have allowed government schools to encourage young children to question their gender. Or allowed a young boy to dress in drag and dance for men. I can’t stop thinking about that Gallup poll showing only 22 percent of Democrats are proud of their country.
“Something has really shifted. It’s not UN-American. It is ANTI-American. That’s not communism. That’s an insurgency.”
For those who may not recognize the name of Rapinoe, she’s the captain of the American soccer team that just won the World Cup – which should be an opportunity for celebration of American national pride and success, right?
Except that she’s refused to sing the National Anthem, made derogatory comments about the nation she represents, refused to attend the traditional White House congratulatory visit (before she was even invited!), and danced on the American Flag after a teammate dropped it to the ground following the victory.
(Accounts differ as to whether this was intentional or “accidental” – I find it difficult to conceive of “accidentally” dropping and stepping on Old Glory, but then I’m an old fogey about such matters. Major kudos to a third teammate, Kelley O’Hara, for rescuing the flag.)
In other words, Rapinoe actively and/or casually disrespects the country she represents, the country that has made her (in the eyes of some, at least) a superstar. That, coupled with the fact that she’s also a very active proponent of LGBTQ issues (being the sort of lesbian that used to be called a “butch dyke” back in a less politically correct age), makes her an icon of contemporary “SJW” Leftism.
The kind of Leftism, in other words, that Steve Deace (author of the linked essay) is referring to when he comments,
“If conservatism is actually going to be capable of being an effective movement going forward, its adherents need to realize that its foes aren’t primarily driven by a political ideology. No, they are devout knee-benders to a spirit of the age cult, whose iconoclastic goal is the dismantling of Western Civilization, or Judeo-Christendom, for the purposes of installing a totally different culture.”
These people don’t just have different political views from the rest of us, the kind that used to enable Senators and Representatives from the Democratic and Republican parties to debate issues passionately on the floor of Congress, and then go out for a beer or bowling afterwards. No, they have a radically different worldview, an alien and foreign ideology compared to those of us who still have a God-and-country, mom-and-apple-pie view of the world.
Like it or not, this is a war – a cultural civil war, though so far fought mostly with words rather than weapons – and the outcome is still very much in doubt.
As to the linked essay, as I’ve said so many times: read, mark, learn, and inwardly digest. It may be eye-opening for you, or it may be further confirmation of what you already knew or sensed, but either way, we need to know what we’re up against.