What Has Diversity Yielded?

January 9, 2013 1

Mandeville, LA – Exclusive Transcript – Diversity for the pursuit of numerical diversity is going to yield exactly what it is yielding here today. This is why many, if not all, of the founding generation were loathed. They feared, fought against, tried to guard against universal suffrage, meaning everyone voting on everything. They knew what it would yield to. They’d seen what happened. They’d seen what happened recently in the Helvetic Republic. They saw what happened in the Roman Empire. They had ample examples of what happened in mass democracies. This is what you get with this diversity for the sake of diversity. Check out the rest in today’s transcript…

Begin Mike Church Show Transcript

Mike: If we walk through the exercise here, this is another great critical thinking exercise. We now have twenty female members in the United States Senate. I’m throwing this out here. Don’t get your “you know what” all in a wad. If you chart the course of the growth of the deficit, I wonder if there’s any correlation with the increase in female members of the House of Representin’ and the Senate. I just happen to know that that number has been inexorably rising every year, as has debt and deficit. I could make the conclusion that all of this diversity has yielded what? It has yielded this. Maybe we ought to have some more of it and then we can just exacerbate the end.

I want to know what the point of having diverse members of a cabinet or a governing agency is. If I’m to channel the radio, television and internet conservatives that I keep hearing I am not a member of, it should be easy to say the cause of all humanity is freedom and liberty, even though it’s not, then anyone, you would think, that aspires to be free or aspires to have and exercise their own rights and liberties — regardless of what their gender or race or creed or nationality or other idiosyncratic trait is that identifies them as a minority or constituency that makes all this diverse — don’t they aspire for all the same things? Here’s another question: If they don’t aspire for similar or same things, then why are they organized together as one government, as one people under one union? Can anyone answer that question for me? If you have people that all desire to achieve different ends, and they desire to achieve those ends whether they’re based on their gender or their race, nationality, creed, educational upbringing or whatever the case may be, what is the possibility they can actually agree on enough to make a go of this?

AG: I think I’m with the idea of diversity halfway, in the sense that you want numerous opinions so as to have a full discussion in terms of where the country should go, what policies we should enact. I think the false argument is that because someone has a different skin tone, or a woman compared to a man, or 35 years old instead of 75 years old, means diversity. I don’t think you should necessarily equate a difference in race with diversity of ideas. I think you’re buying into a trap that is not beneficial to the discussion. I think the actual diversity of ideas is a good thing, but simply equating diversity of ideas with diversity of creed, gender, race is a false step to make.

Mike: So numerical assignment is what these people are really after. That’s what diversity means to them. In other words, if twelve percent of the population is black, then twelve percent of the representation in the House and Senate ought to be. If fifty-three percent of the population is female, then we shouldn’t have twenty female senators; we should have fifty-three. Then you have to subdivide that. How many of those females are black? How many of those females are Hispanic? How many of them are of Asian descent? How many of them are of Hispanic descent? Just work the exercise out. You should carry diversity to the exact conclusion that they’re asking us to carry diversity to, or that they are ostensibly appealing to. You want diversity for the sake of being diverse. There is no real longing for a diversity of opinion. It is a diversity of designation. If you could designate someone as being a member of a group, then that group must be adequately and numerically represented in all of our affairs.

This is exactly antithetical to the way that we used to organize our affairs. My historical research is really coming in handy on this. Do you know why the Northern states — the Yankees loved to boast and brag that Massachusetts was the first state, I believe, to give women the right to vote? The Yankees were so far ahead of hick, hayseed, racist, bigoted Southerners who didn’t confer the right to vote on women. Let’s stick with the women here first. That means the suffrage movement was basically, again, aimed at the evil South. You know why the Northern states began asserting the right to vote? It was to gain a numerical advantage in registered voters over Southern states, specifically aimed at gaining numerical advantages so as to build the opposition to what it was the South was doing. This was not just all about slavery either. There was a detestation that was there from the beginning in any fair reading of the history. They’re the ones that began the practice in earnest. They didn’t begin diversity for the sake of diversity; they began it for very selfish and self-centered means. They had nothing to do with the great cause of humanity, which is freedom and liberty for all and everyone participating in divvying up the spoils.

Now that the gate hath been thrown open, now there is no distinction among those that may vote, zero. As a matter of fact, if you say you don’t vote, then you get excoriated by your fellow citizens as being some sort of a heretic. [mocking] “You’re a loser then. If you don’t vote, you don’t get to participate in the decisions. You don’t have anything to complain about if it doesn’t go your way.” Our relentless pursuit of diversity has rendered us very diverse-less as a people that is almost now incapable of solving the most mundane of problems. We can’t even solve a math problem now thanks to our diversity. [mocking] “Mike, what do you mean about solving a math problem?” Well, we can’t solve the math problem that is $2.6 trillion in revenue and $3.7 trillion in spending. That’s a mathematical problem. But we have diversity here. We have people that are in the need. We have to throw math out the window.

That reminds me, when it comes to all this and people going into the legislature saying this must be because I said it must be and my group says it must be. The old adage is that you’re allowed to walk in and say what you want but you’re not entitled to your own facts. You’re not entitled to say two plus two is five and I don’t have to believe it. Is that two plus two or is that 2.49 plus 2.49? I just rounded it off to two. It was actually 2.4. Now even two plus two equals five is not a certainty.

Diversity for the pursuit of numerical diversity is going to yield exactly what it is yielding here today. This is why many, if not all, of the founding generation were loathed. They feared, fought against, tried to guard against universal suffrage, meaning everyone voting on everything. They knew what it would yield to. They’d seen what happened. They’d seen what happened recently in the Helvetic Republic. They saw what happened in the Roman Empire. They had ample examples of what happened in mass democracies. This is what you get with this diversity for the sake of diversity.

Here’s the question, Andrew. If there were a real question of civil liberties, let’s just say you Andrew Gruss in your 30-story high-rise in Maryland, hanging out in the penthouse enjoying the BCS game desire to be safe in your personal, private residence and you desire that your papers and your belongings there are to be safe from government seizure as well. Does it matter the color of skin, gender, race or creed of the legislator that will sacrifice his or her own life to defend that even if Brutus promises to ram a sword up his gullet? Does it matter what the race or creed is of the person that’s going to defend your liberty to be safe in your persons or property?

AG: It does not.

Mike: It does not. If the pursuit of legislation and the pursuit of government is to protect the weak from the oppressive strong, what difference does it make what member of what race or what creed or what gender they are? The fact of the matter is that it doesn’t matter. Here is what does matter. What does matter is that if we can convince people that diversity is numerical and it must be representative of this group and that group, then you have a situation like the one that brewed in the ancient Roman Republic once they admitted the Goths and Visigoths into their ranks. Then you can have no common culture and no common sense of tradition or institution or values to organize any society around, meaning you basically have at will, fiat or ad hoc, government. If you have that then the strong, those that can martial forces together, are always going to rule roughshod over the weak and always going to control.

Let’s run the Church theory and let’s see if it produces exactly what we have today. I would wager you that not only does it produce exactly what is predicted, but it promises to continue producing it as long as you continue to input the same things into the formula. Again, if you wonder why Boehner and company and the general legislature cannot even solve mathematical problems today, it’s because it’s not built to solve problems. It is built to distribute the spoils of the new governmental system, which is a mass democracy. That’s the problem.

End Mike Church Show Transcript