Using Fugazi Diversity To Attack Liberty:
How The Left Attacks Liberty In Their Fight For Fugazi Diversity
Fugazi adjective fake, false, not real, not genuine
noun a fugazi. “That’s a fugazi” (About a fake jewel, from “Donnie Brasco”)
Fugazi diversity; Applying lowered standards and expectations on the individual to accomplish a goal of diversity for diversity sake. A willingness to abdicate the rule of law with the purpose of increasing diversity for diversity sake. A willingness by those in government to stifle free markets and hold up lawful economic growth in order to maintain the economic diversity of a neighborhood.
Diversity is not a bad thing, but this isn’t about real diversity, it’s about “fugazi” diversity or “fake” diversity (diversity for diversity sake). Which seems to be the obsession of most on the left. For many democrats it appears that “diversity” is the sole objective of all their wants and desires. They will stop at nothing to ensure their fugazi “diversity” is wedged into every nook and cranny across our country. They benevolently believe that diversity of race, religion, gender, and economics will ultimately lead to a more enlightened utopian society. This is because they were taught that diversity, not liberty, is the progressive’s ultimate measure of success for a civilization. They mistakenly assume that the opposite of racism and oppression is diversity, when in reality it is liberty and the expectation of civility. But the progress of true diversity rooted in liberty moves far too slow for the modern liberal.
Simply encouraging the honest nature and hard work of legal immigrants who come to America to start a business and raise family, is not efficient enough for the liberal. They find more efficiency in supporting sanctuary cities, combatting urban renewal, and lowering standards and expectations of newly protected classes of people based on skin color and gender orientation. For the left, growing this fugazi diversity requires a soft bigotry and the ironic insistence that any attempt to discuss it is itself “racist”. So let’s discuss it.
Fugazi Diversity To Fight Gentrification
A willingness by those in government to stifle free markets and hold up lawful economic growth in order to maintain the economic diversity of a neighborhood.
Liberals often try to remind us that urban renewal and gentrification is bad for minorities, that the best solution is to force investors and contractors to construct section eight housing amongst expensive lofts and new developments. Then they insist that a “diversity” of income will make a neighborhood more attractive, but to who? Have you ever seen a nice neighborhood and thought to yourself “a section eight building would really make this place better”. When the truth is, intentionally locating government subsidized residents in the middle of expensive retail and lifestyle neighborhoods does little to actually help the individual gain personal responsibility and the desire for self-sufficiency. Not to mention the very real blows to property values and school quality.
These truths may be called racist by liberals, but they fail to see the real diversity that inhabits many of these newly gentrified neighborhoods. They fail to acknowledge the true diversity in front of them, the young business professionals of Indian and Middle Eastern descent, the Ethiopian doctor just out of med school, the young Chinese IT specialist, or the Brazilian restauranteur who want to live in a nice neighborhood and send their children to decent schools. This type of diversity isn’t efficient enough for the liberal, these people don’t need government handouts, therefore they don’t add to “diversity”.
While the left is quick to make claims of “white flight” when large numbers of middle-class families move to the suburbs because they wanted better schools for their children, they never hold the same expectations for the minorities they claim to to care about. The liberal actually assumes quite the opposite expectation. They assume that minorities are prisoners of their circumstances and have no inherent desire to improve their situation, therefore any improvement must be built by government on the backs of others. Unfortunately liberals do retain support for their fugazi diversity by perpetuating this victimhood mentality. However, Americans with integrity realize that true diversity is achieved with equal expectations on all people. This is why many legal immigrants have no problem succeeding in America, they already have higher expectations on themselves. Fighting gentrification in the name of fugazi diversity is really a fight against liberty. Click here for more about Gentrification and Diversity.
Fugazi Diversity In Place Of Immigration Laws
A willingness to abdicate the rule of law with the purpose of increasing diversity for diversity sake.
Nothing exemplifies fugazi diversity more than the attempt to blur the definitional line between legal and illegal immigrant. The willingness to trade an expectation of lawfulness for political gain. Sanctuary cities are the front lines for Democrat politicians who want fugazi diversity over the rule of law. The safety of their citizens, the quality of their schools, nor the efficiency of their emergency rooms matter as much as their desire for fugazi diversity. Democrat mayors and city council members of sanctuary cities hold at least one of two beliefs; the first is that they believe the “diversity” and commerce created by illegal immigrants is beneficial enough to compensate for the safety risk imposed on the citizens (I wonder what Kate Steinle’s parents would think about that), the other is their belief that hispanics are simply incapable of comprehending the purpose of immigration laws, therefore should not be expected to follow them.
The wanton disregard for the rule of law and the sovereignty our national borders by the leaders of sanctuary cities has done immeasurable fiscal damage. Citizens pay higher auto insurance rates due to uninsured motorists in sanctuary cities. Residents wait longer at emergency rooms, and schools have become overcrowded and strained with the necessity of having to teach an increasing number of non-english speaking students. With real diversity and legal immigration we do not see these problems escalate to the level that most Americans are currently dealing with. Neighborhoods in America with large Muslim or Indian populations do not create these types of burdens on law enforcement, schools, and hospitals. But that type of true diversity is not efficient enough for liberals. The issues we encounter in sanctuary cities are synonymous with cities in general, but they are multiplied when fugazi diversity overtakes an expectation of lawfulness.
The liberal’s double standard on border enforcement is also evidenced by their lack of desire to criticize Mexico for enforcement of its own southern border and far stricter punishments for those who enter Mexico illegally. All the while they scream at the top of their lungs that America’s own enforcement is rooted in xenophobia and racism.
Fugazi Diversity and The Media Treatment Of Donald Trump
Applying lowered standards and expectations on the individual to accomplish a goal of diversity for diversity sake.
I’m going to keep this section short, there is no point in listing all the examples as it would take all day and tomorrow would simply deliver us more. If you want to see the consequences of fugazi diversity, look at the people who violently protest Donald Trump, look at their incivility, listen to their demands. They do not want American diversity though liberty. They do not want diversity with the expectation of civility and lawfulness. Much of our media seems incapable or unwilling to cover these protestors with the honesty that law-abiding Americans and legal immigrants deserve. When Donald Trump speaks of border enforcement, the left screams “racist”, yet not once has Trump vilified the legal immigrant. When Trump speaks of national security and vetting Muslim immigrants from terrorist states, the left screams “racist”, yet Trump has not vilified America loving Muslims. The lacking ability of Trump to better articulate his positions has in deed opened the door for such criticism. But that does not change the disingenuous nature of the media when covering and reacting to his campaign pronouncements (They did the same to Romney and he never said anything remotely controversial). Liberals in the media ignore the multitude of jobs and opportunities Trump has created for people of all races in America and abroad, all the while finding his campaign to be the perfect opportunity to double down on their desire for fugazi diversity.
We need to start asking, do Democrats actually believe that more illegal immigrants and potentially radicalized un-vetted Muslims are a requirement for a country to be considered “diverse”? Is a soft bigotry and a lowered expectation of civility necessary for us to be more “diverse”?
There are examples of fugazi diversity at universities across our country, where admission requirements disregard grades and merit for race and nationality in an effort to diversify the student body (which actually harms Asian Americans the most). There are examples of fugazi diversity all over Europe where governments have enacted laws prohibiting free speech as it pertains to criticism of Muslim refugees. Fugazi diversity is at odds with liberty because it does not hold equal expectations, it does not allow people to exist freely, rather it encourages reckless social engineering. It does not value civility and liberty, rather it values government and liberalism as a means, and diversity only for diversity sake as its end.
No Constitutional Conservative is ever against the true diversity of those who legally seek our liberty and share our proud desire to be American.