Taking On The Regime’s Clergymen

The Left has been in power for so long, nobody even thinks to challenge them on these assumptions.

He’s convincing - but is he right? Source

I’m going try something new. A consistent critique I hear regarding my blog is that my essays are often too long. I’m sensitive to the fact we all lead busy lives and don’t have time to block out 15 minutes to read a long essay. At the same time, I try to keep my essays engaging as opposed to being ramble-fests, but again, I realize too long is just too long.

So today, I’m going to break down what was supposed to be a longer essay and publish them as shorter essays. I have a feeling it’s not a practice that’s going to last too long, but this is writing, writing is an art, and in art, there’s no harm in trying new things.

Here goes nothing.

Former Transportation Secretary and Democratic presidential candidate argues in favor of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in a debate:

Source

You can watch the entire debate here:

I’ll give Pete Buttigieg credit - he’s great at arguing his position. Many politicians have backgrounds as attorneys, but not even a lot of attorneys have the argumentative tack he does. That said, he’s only really effective against low-information people. We’re not low-information people, are we?

Let’s take him apart. Buttigieg’s argument is premised on false assumptions: diversity is always good, uniformity always bad. Inequity can be completely erased, total equity is achievable. Exclusion is always immoral, inclusion always moral.

The Left has been in power for so long, nobody even thinks to challenge them on these assumptions. It’s why someone like Buttigieg seems to win these arguments - you’ll win every argument you never need to defend. It’s no different from how the clergy used to win every argument: they won it because that’s what the Bible said, which is what God says, and God is never wrong.

But religious arguments have no merit in this day and age, right? Diversity can be good, but it also requires constant fine-tuning and management to avoid conflict. People don’t just get along. There are things you need to do in a diverse society you don’t need to do in a homogeneous society in order keep things running. That’s just a fact. Liberals are the first to say so, when it’s safe to do so. If something requires that much tinkering and messing around with and resources to make it work, it’s perfectly normal to wonder if maybe it’s not as useful as you thought it was.

From one of my essays earlier this year:

How can people of different races ever live in peace with one another if every misunderstanding turns into a public outrage? What’s the point of multiracialism if, ultimately, we’re forced to eye one another with suspicion?

So no, diversity doesn’t always make our lives better off. It often makes things worse. Not everyone was meant to live together. We seem to understand that at a personal level, so why is it so hard to understand this at a societal level?

Inequity sounds terrible, until you grow up and realize that life itself is a series of inequities. Order is achieved when these inequities either balance or cancel each other out. For example, we balance and cancel out strength inequities by enforcing laws which prevent the strong from abusing the weak. What we didn’t do is kill all the strong people, or prohibit strength (does sound like something the Left would like to do, no?). This is because strength in it of itself isn’t bad. It’s actually quite good and you need strong people to build and maintain society. Leveraging inequity to our benefit should be the objective, not eliminating it, because inequities will always exist, and trying to eliminate them will cost more than the alternative.

Exclusion seems immoral, until you become the beneficiary of it. Pete Buttigieg lives and works in circles that, by their very nature, are highly exclusive, since they provide access to power, privilege, and wealth. If they let anyone become a naval officer, Buttigieg might’ve forgone that career path as well, since he’d likely not benefit much from becoming one. We as a society focus only on the negatives of exclusion, but the fact is, civilization itself is a project of exclusion. We built walls to protect ourselves from the elements, from nature, and from hostile tribes. Within society, we build walls to protect community and individual autonomy, and frankly, from each other. Those walls are how we prevent conflict from arising. We all use walls, both figuratively and literally. We all benefit from it.

We live under a state of exclusion more than of inclusion, more than we’re aware, and certainly more than we don’t. Inclusion is great until you let the wrong one in. Then it might be too late. Of course, Buttigieg and others look at inclusion only in terms of race, gender, etc. - exclusion based on immutable characteristics is totally off-limits - but it’s delusional to believe America in 2025 engages in these sorts of exclusionary policies at a large-scale. There are a wide range of reasons why disparities exist. Not all of them involve prejudice.

If time is a flat circle, we’ve reached a point where the Enlightenment, which made it perfectly acceptable to question religious dogma, has produced it’s own gospel. Buttigieg’s argument works only because, as a society, we fail to question the premises under-girding his argument. Once you start doing so, his argument unravels quickly.

Any time someone says that a value-neutral characteristics like diversity, equity, and inclusion always make things better and uniformity, inequity, and exclusion always make things worth, they’re expressing dogma. Dogma should always be challenged. They’re the ones who are demanding complete submission; if they can’t convince us, then they better beat it out of us, like the Muslims do.

What do you think? Do you think Pete Buttigieg effectively defended DEI? Why or why not? Do you agree that his underlying premises are false? What are ways of challenging the establishment dogma, which amounts to religious doctrine?

Finally, most important, was this essay too short?

Talk about it in the comments.

Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.

If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!