Select Page

Notice how diversity is sold as an almost holy aspiration? 

 

Diversity, Inclusion and equity have become the holy trinity supplanting the original, father, son and the Holy Spirit. 

 

I mean, it sounds really, really good. Who could possibly argue with the idea of diversity? 

 

Even the seal of the United States contains the Latin, “E pluribus unum” – Latin for “Out of many, one” and that’s as it should be. 

 

But more and more in the early 21st century that aspirational Latin phrase has been turned on its head and now means not, out of many, one, but out of many, many. 

 

And it’s all political. It’s basically a turbocharged version of multiculturalism where people are recognised for what they are not who they are. 

 

Nothing wrong with diversity in and of itself, but as a political tool, which is how it is now being weaponised it equals division not diversity.

 

As we are very rapidly learning, always look for the hidden meaning of what is said and what is intended. 

 

Diversity is another way of expressing identity politics and another method by which a wedge can be driven between ordinary citizens. 

 

When a nation is split up into group identities you are then by definition not a single cohesive group and it’s easier to control and set one against the other. 

 

Our politics used to be about Labor v Liberal (and even as recently as the 50’s and 60’s, Catholic v Protestant).

 

That is, the unions and the employees against the capitalist and the employer. 

 

It was pretty simple. It was class based with a working class, middle class and an upper class. 

 

What’s happened over the last twenty years or so is that the divide has narrowed so that these days, most people are either in the middle class or behave and think of themselves as middle class. 

 

Even billionaire types like Gerry Harvey and say millionaire like John Singleton or Dick Smith more align with a knock about middle class, despite their wealth. 

 

Even the unions are getting out of the union business and into the Super business. 

 

So with the lower class moving into the middle class and the Uber wealthy maintaining a more middle class frame of self reference, there is less to exploit politically. 

 

How do you stir up division when people are not divided and you have a relaxed comfortable, majority middle class with skin in the game and too much to lose?

 

As John Howard said in 1996 when asked about the kind of Australia he envisaged, he said an Australia where “people are relaxed and comfortable”.

 

This is where diversity suddenly makes sense as a devious political weapon.  

 

What’s wrong with just being a team of “relaxed and comfortable” people from different backgrounds aspiring towards the same national goals with everyone pulling in the same direction?