Diversity’s Dilemma

There’s a sort of prisoner’s dilemma now facing a federal judge in the ongoing Harvard race discrimination court battle. As you know, the prisoner’s dilemma is a game theory that suggests self-interest will compel two confederates to betray each other when cooperation would benefit their mutual self-interests. For those unfamiliar with the court proceeding, in it plaintiffs allege that Harvard’s diversity regime is racially discriminatory against Asians rather than merely the whites against whom it was intended to be racially discriminatory. As a result a race other than whites was denied legal protections, which runs counter to the country’s principles.

A prisoner’s dilemma subsequently arose between Asian advocacy groups on one side and college admissions and Big Diversity on the other. As collaborators, they both want the elimination of whites from elite universities, but they also have competing interests as well. Diversity mongers view discrimination against Asians as a bearable price to pay for discriminating against whites. If it took losing the former to banish the latter, there’s not an Ivy League administrator alive who would furrow their brow. That’s a collateral effect of the left’s racial demonization: getting rid of the demons is job one.

That can have impacts beyond the obvious. Asians, like Sarah Jeong for instance, agree that whites need to go; though certainly not at the cost of Asians. That would be discriminatory. Why not just stop admitting dumb blacks instead, they ask in extremely veiled terms.

This tactical conflict amidst strategic alignment created the prisoner’s dilemma we now see playing out in a federal courtroom, the only venue where national policy is now concocted. In this dilemma, Asians and Diversity would benefit by cooperation. Asians could simply front-channel their discontent through colluding media outlets, and institutions like Harvard could pronounce their dignified acquiescence and deny a few more white kids out of each class in exchange for more imported test-mill output from Peking. That’s not ideal for either, but still good collectively for both.

But game strategy says that’s not likely to happen, since one or the other can likely get everything they want by betraying the bargain. And that’s what has happened. Asians, naturally infuriated by being treated like whites, have gone straight to the head of state: a federal judge. In doing so they have sown the potential for both to lose.

If Asians win, diversity as state religion could simply be tossed out like a segregated southern school house. Asians labor under a satisfying delusion that perceived merit will perpetually carry them forward. In reality, mandated diversity has always been their friend and mortally wounding it will accrue to their detriment in ways they have almost certainly not considered. But, of the world’s seven billion minorities, the death of Diversity would cut Asians shallowest, and so they betrayed their POC partners for a wider berth at the Western trough. On the surface that seems reasonable, though in reality both will have lost.

But if Asians lose this case, they risk relegation to a semi-formal state of whiteness. The court could carve out another principled exception to America’s sacred principle of non-discrimination. Taken even further, a thorough judicial enshrinement of Diversity might even mandate strict university admissions in alignment with population demographics. If Diversity is Godliness then you better start getting right with scripture. What makes this particularly amusing is that diversity has been rhetorical subterfuge for anyone-but-whites for so long that its peddlers forget the term has a separate dictionary meaning. Thus a literalistic court could take them at their word and require full proportional diversity in higher education. That would be very bad for diversity indeed.

This could represent a template-altering loss for both plaintiffs and defendants. That’s because the percentage of white gentiles at Harvard isn’t 63% and the percentage of Jews isn’t 3%. Though perhaps Asians would be satisfied if the result of their suit was to go from a current 20% of Harvard to their population’s diversity mandate of 5.6%.

It’s all quite a conundrum. How can whites reconstruct their country in a way that only harms whites? Is there a differential equation for calculating that?

Advertisements

67 thoughts on “Diversity’s Dilemma

  1. Pingback: Diversity’s Dilemma | Reaction Times

  2. Porter, your wit makes it all a little more bearable.
    “Straight to the head of state: a federal judge”

    Clicking through the links led to this Obama era gem from “Big Diversity”

    GUIDANCE ON THE VOLUNTARY USE OF RACE TO ACHIEVE DIVERSITY IN POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION
    Ensuring that our nation’s students are provided with learning environments comprised of students of diverse backgrounds is not just a lofty ideal. As the Supreme Court has recognized, the benefits of participating in diverse learning environments flow to an individual, his or her classmates, and the community as a whole. These benefits greatly contribute to the educational, economic, and civic life of this nation.

    Benefits like getting kicked in the head in an 8 to 1 attack in the classroom where for some reason your parents think it’s okay to send you rather than sacrificing everything to avoid it.

    • Yeah, but think of the benefits of learning self-defense. That’s a valuable skill. Sadly, I never learned it in my youth, since it seemed so unnecessary due to lack of diversity in my education. Regrets, I’ve had a few…

  3. It occurs to me that Asians, if they’re going all in, really should get on the Meritocracy / White Train. Their diversity gibs have probably been played out, and strict meritocracy would obviously serve them better. Under strict Diversity policy their slice of the pie is pretty minuscule in the West, even if Whites are completely excluded. Intelligent grinders with cultural aspirations to rule as Overlords would do better to side with Team White for now, and angle to become the new Jews. In fact, picking fights with Team Jew, who are unexpectedly being exposed as subversives, would endear them to a growing portion of Team White, as long as Team Chink is careful not to criticize Israel (our Evangelical portion would have a shit-fit, naturally). Their biggest concern is to avoid the anti-semitism label, and so far Team Jew seems reticent to go there.

    For example, I believe that one of the reasons Hispanic immigration has gotten this far is that Whites naturally compare Hispanics with Blacks, and when they do, they like Hispanics better, which helps grease the rails of Hispanic immigration. See California and Ron Unz, for example. Asians would do well to invite a comparison with Jews, because Whites will like them better (although that would be a tougher and more fair fight than Hispanics (or anyone) vs. Blacks).

    So, what is Team White to do with the Asian vs. Jew issue? I like the old “Let’s you and him fight.”

    • Right you are, Major–the biter bit! The enemy intended it would be the wogs vs. the goyim. Ha ha ha! American universities being the laughing-stock of the world; Asians paying six-figure tuitions to have their offspring converted into Sarah Jeong-type automata can only work to Aryans’ advantage. We need to found (or re-found) our own, private, real universities, and shun Enemy corporate “jobs” requiring (((higher-education)) credentials as an entré.

  4. The zipperheads aren’t Harvard’s only problem. A group called FASORP is also suing them (and NYU) on behalf of–SHOCK, HORROR–white men.

    “Faculty members of FASORP who submit articles to the Harvard Law Review are being subjected to race and sex discrimination because the Harvard Law Review gives preference to articles written by women and racial minorities at the expense of articles written by FASORP members who are white or male,” the Harvard complaint reads.

    In December, speaking over the phone for a Federalist Society Teleforum, a conference call for members of the conservative group, Mitchell said that bringing the suit against the Harvard and NYU law reviews is “just the start”; he plans to bring more litigation against schools with similar diversity policies.

    The law reviews at Harvard and NYU are “easy targets,” Mitchell said, because they explicitly state their diversity policies online. He urged listeners to inform FASORP of “other targets that could be ripe for lawsuits in the wake of Kennedy’s retirement.”

    “Harvard and NYU are the only ones who are foolish enough to admit it on their own website,” Mitchell said. “We sued Harvard and NYU just because they were so open and obvious about what they were doing…but most of the other institutions that engage in these practices have done it in a much more quiet, underhanded way.”

    On the call, Mitchell also claimed that Harvard and NYU give preference to “homosexuals and transgender people,” and suggested that this might constitute sex discrimination under Title IX.

    “One of the ironies of this litigation is [that] I’m arguing for the broad, liberal interpretation, the Obama interpretation of sex discrimination, by saying that sex discrimination includes discrimination on account of sexual orientation and gender identity, and therefore Harvard’s policy that gives preferences to homosexuals is illegal under Title IX,” he said. “I can’t really see how a Harvard lawyer can answer this—are they going to say, ‘oh, no, no, no, Title IX doesn’t cover sex discrimination, therefore this policy is perfectly okay as applied to homosexuals and transgendered people?’”

    https://www.chicagomaroon.com/article/2019/1/15/uchicago-law-grad-sues-harvard-nyu-law-reviews-all/

    Suggested new motto: Harvard, now fag- and wog-free!

  5. This is one of many ways I see this ‘diversity coalition’ falling apart when moving forward. The left’s problem in all of this is that they depend on a lot of small groups banding together as one bloc to defeat their worst enemy – heterosexual white people. But in doing so, they are relying on a lot of different groups that don’t actually like each other or get along. Blacks and Hispanics don’t like each other. Asians don’t like blacks. Jews and Muslims. Blacks and Hispanics also tend to not be very ‘understanding’ when it comes to all the LGBLT nonsense either. I could go on, but you get the point – they’ve turned this entire edifice into some kind of oppression Olympics where things are presented as a zero-sum game – any newly favored ‘oppressed’ group is getting this attention at the expense of the others. Mainly this is hurting blacks and they are starting to realize it. It seems like LGBLT groups are starting to get too much attention, and blacks don’t like it as they see themselves at the top of the oppression pyramid. Asians are slowly starting to learn that they too will suffer under this regime.

    All of this would be funny to watch, and it is in some ways, until you see the damage such things cause across the board. How much economic activity is sacrificed on such things? Difficult to add it all up, but the answer is definitely ‘a lot’.

    • No, they will continue to win because they have one single goal, even if they don’t know it.

      The manipulators in charge have a religion that they follow religiously and never deviate from. This is why they always advance towards their final goal no matter how absurd their actions appear or how severe their setbacks may seem to the uninformed observer.

      Actually this is no setback at all because no divine energy is expended here. This is just insects blowing smoke at each other while they sit like effendi and eat.

    • Non-whites are a regulatory burden. Asians are the low cost providers. The Diversity impetus (and lower wages for H1Bs) thus drives demand for Asian employees far more than their alleged merit. You may make very high quality sedge hats, though your income will still suffer if hats are no longer mandatory.

  6. One item that goes completely unremarked upon in these discussions is the moral irrelevancy of merit in context of nation. No father puts his neighbor’s kids through college rather than his own because the former have higher SAT scores. It’s an absurdity presented as unquestionable when applied nationally. Thus Americans are supposedly obligated to grant high prestige admissions and occupations to foreigners if warranted by their merit.

    No, we aren’t.

    Asians can compete for the best schools and jobs in Asia. I wish them well. We actually have countries and institutions for us—hypothetically, I mean.

    • Flip this around, too. One of the reasons high-functioning ‘minorities’ feel comfortable promoting Diversity for their short-term gain is socializing the cost on a foreign populace, namely us. It’s well known that a lot of Jews have, either consciously or unconsciously, the idea they can just jump ship to Israel once the rats get finished killing the crew they’re busy robbing.

      Part of the reason for this public defection is that the Asians (read: Chinese and their dupes) feel the same way. China is a bigger, stronger, culturally-closer Israel. You don’t often read weeping OpEds in the Washington Post about how Shanghai University’s admissions policies discriminate against Jews and Blacks. Only slightly more often than you hear about Tel Aviv University discriminating against Blacks and Asians.

      • Have you considered that there are so few whites in your classes not so much because they are discriminated against, but because they don’t exist?

        Look at the schools feeding the universities. Then look at the elementary schools feeding them. Then look at the maternity wards feeding them.

        White genocide is so real. Still, its very hard to notice for most people. That is the wonder of it all.

        • not so much because they are discriminated against, but because they don’t exist?

          It’s not one or the other. It’s the other, caused by the one.

          White wombs didn’t stop popping out babies all of a sudden because P.D. James flipped an off-switch in her basement; rather, our women stopped having children because we (and (((we))) ) decided it was more important to sacrifice our children on the altars of Moloch (e.g. Powerpoint, cubicles, cats and Planned Parenthood, to name a few) than to raise them.

        • Yep. Demographic statistics are patently false. Rural America has the diversity big cities had 40 years ago, and if you just glance around in big cities, they appear to be 80% diverse. Considering we are still fed the “11 million illegals” line, it’s obvious there’s no lie too large to utter regarding America’s population.

  7. Perhaps another dilemma confronting the diversity lottery that is the Ivy League admissions process is that on closer examination the percentage of Whites among the student body that can be whittled down is much smaller than we realise. That is of course if we only mean gentiles when we say Whites. We often hear about the percentage of students who are white as being 43.5%, but remember that category includes both gentiles and Jews. How many of those 43.5% are Jews? My guess is that the gentiles are the minority, an increasingly tiny minority.

    Increasing the numbers of Asians at Harvard without paring down the numbers of Blacks and Hispanics will start to impact Jewish admissions. And that is a dilemma.

    • We often hear about the percentage of students who are white as being 43.5%

      Maybe over the whole university, but not for fields which actually matter for the building or maintenance of a technical civilization. (I love the arts, and I think philosophy is the bedrock of any civilization, but you won’t find any of that at uni anyway.)

      I teach an introductory-level physics course that is required at my (second-string, but prestigious enough in that bracket) university for all STEM majors from straight Physics or Statistics down through CS to civil engineering all the way to sociology, biology, and medicine.

      The percentage of whites in my class, including Ashkenazim, over several years now is in the single digits. And white men are a minority of that figure.

    • Affirmative action was originally designed by Jews to have less Jews in universities. The Jews were such nerds they were taking over entire campuses and the places got really really boring.

      This occurred back in the 1920s and 1930s. It’s all forgotten now.

      • Would also love to see your mental machinations at work on this. But, it’s short-lived. We’ve all seen small children at Christmas or B/day with a bunch of presents to open. They unwrap one, give it a minute of attention then rush to the next, leaving a mess behind to move on to the next shiny package… That’s the left.

    • Major, I hate to miss a deadline but I’m too damn tired to concoct anything tonight.

      I don’t like letting the blog lie fallow since it’s really my preferred medium, and the commenters are far superior. But tweeting takes a tenth the time and a hundredth of the mental cycles. Given my deficit of both lately, I haven’t summoned the discipline to take the higher road.

      I’ll make another landing attempt tomorrow.

  8. The one and only reason why this is even an issue, is that in order to admit more Asians, the university have to decrease the admission number of Jewish students.
    If we were talking about decreasing the number of WASP students in order to take on more Asians, the university would discriminate against WASP Students without any problem whatsoever.

  9. I saw a post this week over at another well-known outpost of Hate this week discussing the idea of voting for restoration versus voting for acceleration. I’ve wondered some of that myself. If Trump ends up cucking out over this Wall issue, is it time to start voting for Democrats to speed up the collapse? I’ll put that question to Porter, and some of the other regulars here. Is more voting just shooting a cadaver full of antibiotics, and should we start working for the election of Democrats?

    • Voting isn’t the answer either way. The game’s completely rigged, and always has been. Voting is intended as a distraction, to dissipate the energies of those who would otherwise politically organize and exercise real power.

    • There is no guarantee that we will win on the long run.

      This is war. Culture War, but war nonetheless.

      We must not help the enemy with our votes to gain more power to carry out their White Genocide plan!

    • Please no.
      There are only a few sources of joy in politics.
      One of them is the Lib outrage over Trump’s election.
      Of course the Libs are winning on every front, but they don’t know it.

  10. Found your site from Credit Bubble Stocks.

    Words of Wisdom to all here; Avoid Zero Hedge, it is complete nonsense, nothing there, and probably Russian propaganda.

  11. I just came up with a limerick:

    There once was a blogger named Porter
    who decided to write something shorter
    so he snuck off to Twitter
    while his fan base grew bitter
    will you please quit fuckin’ around, we’ve been more than patient here.

    (I had a little trouble with the ending)

    • Hahaha

      Major, the people here are probably the biggest reason I’ll be back.

      You can unearth good insightful commenters on most platforms, presumably. Though the rate of return on twitter is very low.

      Then again twitter takes very little of my time, and I wish I could say how little of that I’ve had for the past year.

  12. I’m beginning to suspect Porter has gone radio silent on this here blog in preparation for announcing his Presidential campaign for 2020.

    Vote Porter 2020; he’s the only one who’ll sign the executive order more helicopters.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s