Retitled: Pro-Diversity's Need To Hide Its Is-Ought Transition, & Pro-Diversity In The U.S. Military

There is widespread official equivocation between the facts of diversity, and the evaluation of them. Why would this be done in such self-contradictory manner, as if the blank facts of diversity in the world, had to imply a positive evaluation of them? If all diversity is to be considered somehow good, and anti-diversity is part of the global diversity as well, this yields a contradiction-in-terms. The fact-value distinction gets blurred and indeed equivocated quite dishonestly, by the pro-diversity, who never even call themselves that, since they need to conceal their is-ought transition. How does it make someone good, meritorious, deserving or otherwise preferable, simply by being diverse from whites for example? The pro-diversity have a propagandistic concern not to call themselves the anti-caucasians; yet one may infer that having value just by being non-white, and sometimes by being also non-asian, is at least anti-caucasian. That the federal courts are the promoters and enforcers of this, and have the effrontery also to say they're doing it for the benefit of the majority, signals the need for a cultural overturning at least as great as that which could be obtained by privatizing all the government schools.
[originally today's posting was about the Princeton attack reported in the NYSun, which turned out to be a hoax]
Friday, December 7, 2007

Professional Race-Baiters Proliferate Cancerously Even As Officials Exhort Increase Of Anti-Discrimination
Professional race-baiters appear more frequently, and with more power and influence, wealth and publicity; the more that openness to diversity is treated as a value. As diversity increases, by immigration or mobilization domestically, so too does this formerly unknown class: the professional race-baiters. Today even the Army in wartime says our diversity is our strength, which shows that the push for division and conflict is an item of devotion throughout the government, to such extent that the basic survival impulse of having a cohesive military, with unity of loyalty to each other, can be jettisoned. Danger from without deters them little if at all, since division and conflict, kindled with increase of diversity, and patronage of professional race-baiters, are the favored routes to power domestically. The gamble for greatly increased power must seem worthwhile to these officials, who make out division to be strength. From www.army.mil , Dec. 3rd '07, does this sound as if diversity quota-filling is the highest priority, or that something else like highest preparedness or actual war-fighting might be, recalling that two wars are underway: "I will tell you that I firmly believe the strength of our Army comes from our diversity," Gen. Casey said,[...] that being at war for six years has kept the Army busy and focused on operations, but he feels that diversity should always be a priority."I started getting a sense, that because of everything going on, because of the war, because of how stretched we were, that it caused a perception that we were done, that we had licked this already, that people weren't paying (diversity) the attention that is due. So we need to do something to energize folks and change the focus of folks on diversity."? In wartime, you should make the priority be the promotion of minorities on a racial and ethnic basis, to get racial percentages of officers to match the overall proportions? How will this affect the morale of those who would have their promotions' timing be slowed down by half or more, so that some representatives of minorities can be moved up even ten times faster than otherwise? Or is this the brilliant macchiavellian politics which got a FAT 10% of the black vote for the president? The implication one is entitled to take as well, is that since diversity is said to be 'the strength', the white officers are the weakness, or, at least, not 'the strength', of the army, and this on a strictly racial basis. How is that not to be regarded as a racial provocation against the majority?

(Pro)-Diversity Is An Equivocation...
...which reduces to a contradiction-in-terms. It is stated as diversity, without being explicitly called PRO-diversity, which allows for the equivocation to be put over. That is, via the use of a suppressed major premiss. Diversity is non-evaluative, while pro-diversity is evaluative; but these two are treated as interchangeable. That is the equivocation, and one which may be reduced to a bald contradiction-in-terms.