Diversity And Equality Are The Biggest Lies Of 21st Century

I've been thinking about this for years. Recently, I read some Nietzsche, and he talked about something similar called the "will to power." The idea that an equal system will create a better human race has been flawed from the start. Enforcing equality and diversity blindly is a bad solution, yet the current political ideology has made us believe that these should be the norms in every organization, even in families and friendships. Today, I want to break down this myth, show you how flawed this thinking is, and give real-life examples of things we love that are actually the result of society's hierarchical nature.

Let's start with Nietzsche's book "Why I Am So Clever." The title alone sounds boastful. The main idea of the book is that some people are born superior and meant to rule others. He gives several examples to support this. I partly agree with him, but I believe that even if some people are born with certain advantages, it's still their environment that shapes their abilities. As we go ahead, we will see how people of West African descent, including African Americans, hold over 95 percent of the top times in sprinting, and then others were just lucky like Bill Gates getting access to computers at a very young age.

Why There Are More Black Runners?

Muscles have two types of fibers: white, or fast-twitch, which is good for power movements like sprinting, and red, or slow-twitch, which is better for endurance. Recent studies show that there are actually two types of fast-twitch fibers, one more efficient than the other. On average, white people have more slow-twitch fibers, while West African blacks have more of both types of fast-twitch fibers. This is a biological difference we can't eliminate right now.

The same idea applies to artists. While most children struggle with music at age five, Beethoven and Mozart were already surpassing adults. They had some extraordinary abilities that most people don't have. They practiced a lot, but they also had a head start. This pattern is seen in many exceptional people, like Einstein and Beethoven.

Even if we could remove genetic differences between people, we still wouldn't be able to create an equal society. The best we can hope for is an equitable society. Equal and equitable are very different concepts. An equal society forcefully puts people in positions of power, while an equitable society doesn't stop anyone from rising in their field. The government provides the basics, and from there, your luck, determination, hard work, resources, and genetics determine your success. 

We can't eliminate social differences without becoming a tyrannical society, like communist Russia, where individuality is sacrificed for group identity.

The Early Access To Resources

Take Bill Gates, for example. As a young kid, he had access to a computer when few others did. His parents drove him miles every weekend to use it, giving him a massive head start. Most kids his age didn't even know computers existed. He used one of the only computers in the entire city or state. Imagine having access to a tool so early that it would take your peers a decade or two to catch up, let alone the masses. Providing this to everyone at once is physically and practically impossible.

Diversity has become a hollow word that permeates all our social circles. Let's think about diversity more deeply. What do we mean when we talk about diversity hiring? What do we mean when we say a political system or organization can only be run by a diverse group? Race and gender dominate the conversation whenever we mention diversity. Let me show you many examples of how wrong we are about this, and I want you to be open-minded and ready to challenge your preconceived and false moral beliefs.

An Example From Critical Race Theory

Let's look into academia, with specific examples. Don't tell me India and Indians aren't doing the same nonsense. What is the most important quality to be a good scientist or researcher?

The example is taken from this book

Do you agree that being objective, neutral, and balanced are necessary qualities for a good researcher?

Now, let's see what Critical Race Theory says about this. It claims that these values have produced a bunch of white men ruling academia, implying that these values are bad and tyrannical, so we should replace them with diversity. When I came across this, I was dumbstruck by how illogical and irrational this conclusion is. According to Critical Race Theory, a scientist doesn't need to be objective, neutral, and balanced but should be of a different race to produce better science.

A major theme of Critical Race Theory states and I quote: "The colored intellectual's persistent battle to avoid being rendered inauthentic by the pressures of adapting to the white world and instead to take an oppositional stance by relying on one's true existential life, which is rooted in a world of color even though not stuck there."

In the context of the earlier discussion, just as Bill Gates' early access to a computer gave him an advantage that couldn't be equitably provided to everyone, the push for diversity based on race or gender ignores the critical qualities needed for success in fields like science and research. The focus should be on fostering individual potential and excellence, not on imposing arbitrary diversity quotas that may undermine merit and capability.

For instance, if you're hiring 10 software developers, and the best performers happen to be gays or lesbians, you hire them. If the top performers are heterosexual men or women, you hire them. Why impose quotas based on someone's sex or race? How is this relevant to hiring for a coder's position? Their diverse experiences do not change the math and logic needed to create software. It's baffling that society accepted this idea—it's completely idiotic. Diversity of thought should be prioritized over diversity of gender and race, and identifying diversity of thought is not difficult.

The Case of Harward Biased Admission

But let's explore this further with an example from the book "An Inconvenient Minority: The Harvard Admissions Case and the Attack on Asian American Excellence."

The percentage of Asian Americans in Ivy League schools versus their percentage in the U.S. population is 21% vs. 5.6%. Some might think this is good, right? But if these Ivy League schools removed their quotas, Asian Americans could make up more than 40% of the students. This seems like an overrepresentation. One Ivy League university proceeded without gender and race-based quotas it has around 45% Asian American students. This seems unfair to the rest of America, especially the Black community.

Now, consider the reason: the average Asian American child studies 14 hours a week compared to the 8 hours a week for the average American child. Why wouldn’t they surpass other groups? They have a significant advantage due to their hard work. They built this advantage themselves, not given to them.

In the name of diversity, why should someone who has studied six more years cumulatively give up their seat? This isn't equality or even equity; it's pure discrimination in the name of diversity.

It Is Mathematically wrong

Now let's do some maths and understand how discriminatory and divisive the idea of diversity is. This is a common theme in a lot of engineering schools and B-schools.

Let's imagine, that in an engineering college with a 1:10 girl-to-boy ratio, a recruiting company adopts 50-50% seats to maintain gender diversity. Given that IQ scores are normally distributed, we simulated the IQ scores of 10 girls and 100 boys. The analysis revealed that the lowest IQ score among the top 5 girls was 108.14, while the lowest IQ score among the top 5 boys was 122.17. This means that to meet the 50-50 gender quota, companies would hire girls with significantly lower IQ scores than boys, highlighting the inherent flaw in enforcing such quotas. This approach overlooks merit and qualifications, potentially leading to less competent hires simply to satisfy diversity targets.

This case illustrates a broader issue with diversity quotas in hiring practices. Enforcing strict quotas based on gender or race, irrespective of actual performance or qualifications, can result in unfair advantages or disadvantages. The focus should instead be on merit and capability to ensure that the most qualified candidates are selected, promoting true diversity of thought and skill.

First of all, I'm in no way in support of gender or race-based quotas, and even if you do at least do it in proportion of the population. In this way, at least this will be a little less discriminatory.

Diversity In Representation Is A Hoax

I'll use two more social cases, to show how flawed this diversity idea really is. I hope all of you remember the outcry of Black Lives Matter, all the celebrities posting videos saying that they are also responsible for the death of that black man. And I personally have full sympathy towards the person's family. But let's look at what happened afterward. After the incident, there was a huge outcry on social media, and a Black Lives Matter Organization was formed. Within a matter of months, they raised close to 100 million USD. What happened to that money, these people who were supposed to represent black people's interests bought mansions and went on cruises with that money, while talking about diversity and equality of rights and other bullshit.

And this behavior is true everywhere. For instance, the government in Uttar Pradesh during SPs and BSPs time was one of the most corrupt and lawless governments. They were supposed to represent a group, but what actually happened, the state went on to become worse and worse.

Diversity in the name of representation is a foolish idea, be it women's reservation bill in parliament or any other place. We want competent people, there is no guarantee that only women can represent the interests of women or vice versa. A good competent person irrespective of gender and caste, is more likely to craft policies that are better for everyone. Blacks didn't represent the interests of blacks and BSP and SP didn't of their own people. All the political parties just treat them as a voter base nothing more. These incompetent people are incapable of representing anyone's interest except their own. Diversity only works if it is not made at the cost of incompetency. 

Great organizations and institutes are not killed by a lack of diversity but by incompetent people. If you have an organization where all the women are competent, they can beat any racially or gender-based diverse group any day of the year. 

Some Recent Examples of B-schools

Recently, IIM Rohtak made headlines with a highly controversial admission decision. Out of 453 admissions, 434 offers went to female candidates and just 19 to male candidates. Social media was flooded with celebratory posts like "girl power" and "you go girl," filled with rhetoric rather than logic. The argument that girls have been oppressed and now deserve these opportunities is flawed. If someone is disadvantaged, they should be provided with resources, not handed opportunities unearned. For instance, we don't automatically qualify Indian men for the Olympics just because they lack representation; they must still meet the performance criteria.

It's not that women suddenly became smarter than all the men at this one institute. If we dig into the past to justify quotas, we might as well give them to those who fought in World War II or to African women over Indian women due to worse historical conditions. Such policies are detrimental to the competency of both organizations and society.

Those admitted through quotas are statistically likely to underperform compared to their peers. Despite this, they often feel superior and entitled. Quotas that give seats to less deserving candidates are harmful. Instead, we should offer financial support, scholarships, and resources, but not compromise on admission standards.

I've seen this firsthand in my undergrad years. Students admitted through quotas often showed little interest in their studies. Many struggled to secure jobs or engage in research, and their average grades were significantly lower than their peers. Not one of them wrote a research paper during those four years.

Quotas in higher education are even more problematic. For example, a daughter of a top judicial family, with ample resources, used the B-school-given victim card to gain admission through quotas, which is grossly unfair to truly disadvantaged women. These policies hurt not only the deserving candidates but also those financially poor women who genuinely need support.

Diversity Is Just Fucking Hypocrisy

It's clear by now that I don't support the current approach to gender and race diversity. Let's assume diversity is beneficial, which it can be in certain cases, but not in the way it's usually applied. Why focus only on gender and race?

Consider this hypothetical scenario: Hinduism has six branches, one of which is Charvaka (atheist). Should we give hiring preferences based on this? I'm confident that the difference in thought processes between a believer and an atheist is more significant than between a man and a woman. This is also diversity, but we don't consider it because it doesn't impact performance in an engineering school or business school. 

There is more diversity of experience when people come from different financial backgrounds compared to gender diversity within the same financial background. If we care about true diversity, let's use financial background as a criterion, but this is rarely done.

The idea of diversity is sheer hypocrisy. No one demands diversity in fields like plumbing or sewer cleaning; it's only emphasized for high-paying jobs. If we truly believe in diversity, it should apply to every stratum of society. And don't argue that it should start from the top. Whether an actress earns $10 million instead of $12 million is irrelevant. What's more important is providing means and resources to downtrodden women or any other minority group. Social change should start from the bottom up, not the top down. 

The debate about only 10 women being among the top 500 CEOs is pointless. What matters more is that the lowest 10% of women earn significantly less than their male counterparts. But you won't see this discussed on LinkedIn or Instagram because those advocating for diversity only care when it suits them.

Even Art Is A By-product Of Autocratic Systems Not Of Egalitarianism

Art is a byproduct of autocratic family dynamics, not egalitarianism. A prime example is the rivalry between the Medici family and others during the Renaissance. The Medici, an autocratic and influential family in Florence, used their wealth and power to commission and support numerous artists, leading to an explosion of artistic achievements. This patronage was driven by their desire to showcase their status and compete with other powerful families.

In contrast, an egalitarian society, where everyone is considered equal and power is distributed evenly, lacks the concentrated resources and singular vision needed to drive such artistic innovation. The competitive spirit and ambition of autocratic families like the Medici created an environment where art could flourish. They funded artists like Michelangelo and Leonardo da Vinci, not out of a sense of equality, but to elevate their own prestige and power.

This dynamic shows that significant artistic movements often stem from hierarchical and competitive social structures rather than from egalitarian ideals. The Medici's dominance and their rivalry with other powerful families catalyzed one of the most prolific periods of art in history, underscoring the role of concentrated power and ambition in fostering artistic excellence.

Wokeism Is Full Of Lies

The entire idea of diversity and equality is one of the most illogical and hypocritical concepts I've encountered. Those advocating for diversity and equality in every aspect of life wouldn't marry a plumber or cleaner if they themselves earn significantly more; they can't even imagine it. Even their friends are all from similar financial backgrounds. When confronted, they call it personal preference. What happened to diversity? If you truly believe in diversity, marry someone from a different financial background or with a different thought process. You won't, because it doesn't suit you.

I've been in liberal circles long enough to see that they are the most closed-minded people. None of them will accept a devout Hindu; they look down on them. Left-liberals need to feel intellectually superior, and they can't accept a right-winger in their circle because their idea of diversity is just victimhood wrapped in different flavors. People are afraid to compete, to face challenges, and to take responsibility. Instead, they claim their ancestors were oppressed and demand privileges without wanting to work hard. They lower the bar instead of striving for competency.

In the end, this idea of diversity based on gender and race is toxic and should be disbanded. If you want diversity, get people with different intellectual backgrounds, regardless of their sex or race. We should care about diversity only when all other parameters are similar. Using diversity as the main criterion while discarding competence and talent is one of the worst ideas of the 21st century.

I could delve deeper into Nietzsche's philosophy, but you might not like it and it would take too long. In short, be a warrior. Stop complaining, rise to the occasion, and be competent. Shed the victim mentality. Be a master, not a slave.

And if any of you still want to challenge me for a debate, I'm ready, ping me.