Posted under Affirmative Action & Globalism & Immigration & Political Correctness
Without differences, there are no unique perspectives. Without unique perspectives, there is no innovation.
So says an ad for Lockheed Martin, which features a photo of a Black woman and an Asian woman beaming over a model F-22 fighter jet. It’s not clear if their evident pride is from the weapon these multicultural Vulcanettes have apparently forged, or from their invention of “innovation” itself. The ad concludes:
One company. One team. Where diversity contributes to mission success.
“Diversity” figures prominently in American business and government. A recent release from General Patrick J. O’Reilly of the U.S. Missile Defense Agency, entitled “We’re Diverse and Mission Ready,” cites “diversity” as an agency priority: “Our inclusive workforce consists of a balanced cross-section of individuals working in various disciplines. Together, they enable us to advance all facets of our engineering and acquisition responsibilities.”
That settles it: We’re in the grip of Trofim Lysenko’s legacy.
Like Bill Gates, who showed up with his quirky but functional DOS operating system when mainframe king IBM branched out into personal computers, Trofim Lysenko was a man who emerged at a critical moment with the right background and the right gimmick. In the Soviet Union of the late 1920’s, Stalin was consolidating his power and forcing the peasants onto collective farms, which were touted as superior to private farms. But grain production slumped and the peasants resisted.
Lysenko claimed he had the answer. A peasant without formal training in biology, and a true believer in Leninism, he argued that wheat seeds could be conditioned to withstand the bitter Russian winter, thereby quadrupling their output. Lysenko’s so-called “revolutionary” technique suited the Party’s purposes so well that he was made head of the Academy of Agricultural Sciences. From that position, and backed by Stalin himself, this “peasant scientist” promoted his ideas for expanding grain production through the application of Party doctrine to agriculture, often resorting to arresting and even executing dissident scientists.
Not only was Lysenko a good communist, his humble background made him perfect for leading his fellow peasants into accepting collectivized agriculture. But more significantly, Lysenko insisted the wheat he altered passed on its new characteristics to offspring. The Party leaped onto this idea and proclaimed it as an alternative to the “bourgeois” and “fascist” Western science of genetics. In Stalin’s last years in power, genetics was even officially condemned as “bourgeois pseudoscience.” The Soviet elite fully appreciated and exploited the ideological repercussions of Lysenko’s theories. The Party had to grow more than just wheat; it also had to nurture its budding political power. Its thinking was that by adapting Lysenko’s methods to humans, future generations of Soviet citizens could be made smarter, more productive, stronger – and most important, free of troublesome bourgeois traits, and thus more self-sacrificing and obedient.
Lysenkoism, however, doesn’t just refer to Trofim Lysenko’s method of treating wheat seeds, but to an ideology that trumps science, experience, tradition, and common sense. In fact, despite years of energetic advocacy and fudging of disastrous results, the Soviet agricultural system abandoned Lysenko’s methods and theories by the late 1950s.
Nevertheless, Lysenko’s legacy lives on today in the United States. The American version of Lysenkosim proclaims we’re more productive, smarter, and more moral when we replace our traditional demographics with people from all over the globe. Central is the redefinition of “nation” away from shared history, language, and heritage toward proper thought. In his famous “Alligators in the moat” speech on immigration this May, President Obama assured an El Paso crowd that anyone who stumbles, sneaks, dashes in, waits patiently in line, or is even born here, is an American – provided one thinks the right way, or as he put it, “What matters is that you believe in the ideals on which we were founded; that you believe that all of us are created equal, endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights.”
Enforcing this new and improved version of citizenship keeps the government very busy. For example, in Dayton, Ohio, the Justice Department has ordered the police department to lower testing standards to allow more minority candidates to pass the written exam. California’s prisons can no longer separate inmates by race, despite the deadly effects of letting White, Black, and Latino gangs duke it out. And states already facing runaway deficits must spend an additional $900 million to comply with the No Child Left Behind Law, which seeks to eliminate that pesky “achievement gap” between whites and minorities in the integrated school system.
The foreign policy implications of American Lysenkoism are profound. Our leaders justified America’s military interventions in Serbia, Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq in the name of building nations where different groups would prosper in liberal democracies. Forced integration as foreign policy received a hearty endorsement at the 26th observance of Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, when Jeh C. Johnson, the Defense Department’s general counsel, blessed the Pentagon’s wars with the words, “Every day, our servicemen and women practice the dangerousness — the dangerous unselfishness Dr. King preached on April 3, 1968.”
The parallels between Soviet and American Lysenkoism tend toward the eerie in some instances. While no one’s been executed yet for questioning approved thought on race and society, dissenting opinions have brought careers to abrupt ends, as in the cases of James Watson and Larry Summers.
Meanwhile, the populace receives a steady diet of approved thought from government and its propaganda machinery in the form of documentaries and traveling museum exhibits that challenge common perceptions with the question, “Are we so different?” Why, the very notion of race, we are informed, is nothing but a “social construct.” Indeed, the American Anthropological Association dismisses the study of racial differences as a “pseudoscience.” Lysenko would agree.
And maybe it is. But as with the theories of Trofim Lysenko, we will have to judge it by its fruits. Or lack thereof.
rjp on 30 Nov 2011 at 4:30 pm #
If, Indeed, the American Anthropological Association dismisses the study of racial differences as a “pseudoscience.”, then why do so many institutions offer degrees in racial studies?
According to the Wikipedia page he wrote about himself:
Johnson’s first name (pronounced “Jay”) is taken from a Liberian chief who reportedly saved his grandfather’s life while Dr. Johnson was on a League of Nations mission to Liberia in 1930.
Maybe, but I doubt it.
As for the image, it’s a picture of an HR woman and an engineeer?
Diversity means one thing, in most cases you’ve hired 33% of an employee for 100% of the price. The word Diversity wouldn’t even be in use if there were only Asians and White people, because employment would be based on merit. Asians are only included in multi-cultural speak to temper down the “gimme gimme” of the unqualified black people and increase the numbers since black people can replace Asians in the numbers but Asians can’t replace blacks.
Bruce on 30 Nov 2011 at 5:11 pm #
I work for them (at a different division – I’m sitting in my cube as I type this). Men like us made F-22 and F-35 happen. If there were ZERO diversity, F-22 and F-35 would be just as good of a product, maybe better. When I go into engineering meetings now in 2011 it’s almost always either ALL men like us or 90% men like us with one woman like us and/or east asian man.
Women of the same background as the one above the F-22 model do a good job staffing the EEO/Diversity office and Ethics office. Only they have the high level of moral authority required to do this important job.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 30 Nov 2011 at 5:45 pm #
rjp,
So true. And if race is only a social construct, how is it possible for diversity to magically add different viewpoints?
HarrisonBergeron2 on 30 Nov 2011 at 5:47 pm #
Bruce,
Personnel Depts usually overrepresent minorities. It makes the company look minority friendly.
rjp on 30 Nov 2011 at 6:59 pm #
…. do a good job staffing the EEO/Diversity office and Ethics office.
Roles that would be unnecessary without themself. Roles created to employ people who would otherwise be unemployable at Lockheed except as janators, recetionists, and cafeteria staff. Low level HR is mindless processing of paperwork completed by the actual employees. EEOC/Diversity is complete bullshit. Ethics should be part of Legal unless there has been a new type of Ethics created.
rjp on 30 Nov 2011 at 7:02 pm #
And if race is only a social construct, how is it possible for diversity to magically add different viewpoints?
Nice Harrison.
Personnel = HR (Human Resources)
Paul Kersey on 30 Nov 2011 at 7:19 pm #
http://stuffblackpeopledontlike.blogspot.com/2011/08/falling-skies-derbyshires-black-tax.html
You failed to mention that Lockheed’s produced fleet of F-22 Raptors are all grounded…
That picture is the reason why: diversity is a greater concept than manufacturing a quality product in Black-Run America (BRA).
roho on 30 Nov 2011 at 11:38 pm #
What crap!………If an industry is tax funded, bloated, alive with kickbacks and political graft, long after inificiency is the norm, it can still function…………..Real free enterprise can’t.
RonL on 01 Dec 2011 at 8:24 am #
Lysenko was a a dangerous fool. However, there is something called epigenetics, the idea that environment affects genetic expression. And there is some evidence that genetic expression can affect genetic inheritance.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090412081315.htm
Bruce on 01 Dec 2011 at 12:02 pm #
Ron,
Agreed. Hereditarians don’t say that 100% heredity is correct. They start (usually, I think) from a 50/50 model and work from there. It’s the environmentalists who want (“want” being an important point)to prove that 100% (or nearly 100%) environment is correct.
Aaron on 02 Dec 2011 at 6:34 am #
HB and RJP: Are you guys stupid or dishonest or what? Are you really suggesting that diversity can only add differing viewpoints when it’s biologically based? Do you know what the term “social construct” means?
Aaron on 02 Dec 2011 at 6:45 am #
I apologize for the tone of my previous comment. Unfortunately there’s no Delete button.
The substance of the comment still stands, though.
Bruce on 02 Dec 2011 at 12:35 pm #
@ “Paul Kersey.”
Neither F-22′s successes or its failures are a result of african women being involved with the program.
Bruce on 02 Dec 2011 at 12:48 pm #
Aaron, please elaborate on your objection.
As someone who works for LM (we make the F-22 MLD), I can tell you that LM’s diversity program is largely (though not exclusively)about race. They pretend that it’s not in order to preemptively squash the objections of white male employees like me who are subjected to the company’s diversity propaganda on a daily basis.
But maybe I misunderstood the substance of your objection.
HarrisonBergeron2 on 02 Dec 2011 at 2:33 pm #
Aaron,
The “social construct” argument is pure Lysenkoism. If it were true that race does not exist, we wouldn’t have such remarkably similar results in the racial gaps in American schools. Approximately 1300 school districts produce the same results, with northeast Asians at the top, followed by Whites, Hispanics, and Blacks.
What ARE they doing to those kids to get those results?
Egalitarians must also deal with their “CSI problem”: If race isn’t real, how do forensic scientists identify corpses by race? The liberal Wired magazine admits it’s a problem here: The Inconvenient Science of Racial DNA Profiling.
Kudos to Andrew Sullivan for exploring a taboo topic.
On Christian Cultural Marxism. Russell Moore and other Useful Idiots. | Conservative Heritage Times on 16 Sep 2012 at 12:49 am #
[...] has been going on rants about “white supremacist Darwinists.” Moore must subscribe to Trotskyite Lysenkoism? Or Liberal Creationism? In reality, from what I can see, most of the anti-Moore criticism seems [...]
On Christian Cultural Marxism. Russell Moore and other Useful Idiots. | UNITED SKINHEADS on 16 Sep 2012 at 10:02 am #
[...] Moore has been going on rants about “white supremacist Darwinists.” Moore must subscribe to Trotskyite Lysenkoism? Or Liberal Creationism? In reality, from what I can see, most of the anti-Moore criticism seems [...]
On Christian Cultural Marxism. Russell Moore and other Useful Idiots. » Moore, Cultural, Christian, Christianity, Marxism, Moores » Solid Right on 01 Feb 2013 at 3:13 pm #
[...] has been going on rants about “white supremacist Darwinists.” Moore must subscribe to Trotskyite Lysenkoism? Or Liberal Creationism? In reality, from what I can see, most of the anti-Moore criticism seems [...]