Essay/Commentary

Californians say “Fuck No!” to Diversity

The Post-Marxist Catechism considers Diversity among its highest and most righteous causes. It promises a world where “privilege” and meritocracy will be stamped out and the color of one’s skin and ethnicity—one’s immutable traits (think caste system)—will rise and determine one’s access to life’s wonders and riches. White Folks might also access the good shit—maybe not in this life, but certainly in the afterlife—by supporting measures that put Diversity above mere mortal needs. 

After BLM Riots and Protests this summer, the most progressive state in the union (65 Biden 33 Trump) was thought to be a solid “Yes” on the Prop. No-brainer that a Prop described on the ballot as “Allow(ing) Diversity as a Factor in Public Employment, Education, and Contracting Decisions,” would get the nod.

The Prop hoped to roll back the ostensibly sclerotic and regressive, but more importantly racist and sexist existing state law which “prohibits discriminating …on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin.”

The “Arguments For” in the Official State Voter Guide couldn’t just come out and say “Hey, we’re against prohibiting discrimination,” so they looked to the Intersectional Bible for rhetorical guidance.

The “Argument for” included a direct attack on the Prince of Darkness himself, quite predictably: “…our shared values are under attack by the Trump administration’s policies.  We are seeing the rise of overt racism: white supremacists on the march, the daily demonization of Latino immigrants, Black people gunned-down in our streets.”    

To make sure that such twaddle would mesmerize the electorate as designed,  the backers raised 16 million.  A full 6.5 million came from some white middle aged woman, Quinn Delaney, who owns a development company that builds “boutique hotels” in Oakland and lovely quasi-rural housing in the heart of wine-country.  The Prop calls for POC and women to get special consideration in terms of government building contracts and the like. These people would replace “older white men,” (unbelievable, but that’s the language used on the ballot) who’ve obviously had their turn cashing in and needed to stand down.

In Ms. Delaney’s case the Prop proved to be a twofer: Her husband, also co-owner and principle of that company, is Black.  Likely, as they watched Oakland burn this summer—between sips of Duckhorn and bites of foie gras—they were deciding just how much they might need fork out to get on the right side of history and those contracts. The anti-Prop 16 folks raised 1.4 million in small donations, which is just about what it takes to buy a nice condo in San Francisco.  

In terms of Academia, everyone, of course, knew this proposition was targeting Asians.  Their nearly mechanical drive and merciless focus have landed them in the top UC’s far beyond their numbers in the population: per Social Justice, a reality that simply cannot stand. They should get 4.5 GPAs, score in the 90th percentile on their SATs, do ballet, piano, and work at the Soup Kitchen downtown on Saturdays and content themselves with enrolling at UC Riverside or Long Beach State. Blacks account for only 6 percent of the state, whereas Latinos account for 40%, so there was no confusion about what race was trying to steam roll this Prop over the body politic.

Post-Marxism was in shameless display in this Prop. Its sickening slander of white people was so noxious it turned off even POC; nearly half of Latinos and Blacks rejected it. Perhaps people imagined a scenario where Magic Johnson (a mega-developer) got a contract and Armen Hagopian, a recent refugee of the war in Artsakh, who hoped to put up a little market somewhere in Glendale, was asked to “Just listen for once!” Twenty five years ago, Prop. 209 was ushered in with a 54 to 45 vote.  This week, Prop. 16 was defeated 56 to 44.  Some things they never change, and some things shouldn’t.

Share and Enjoy !

0Shares
0 0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *