I was Wrong: There is a Learning Curve in Multiculturalism, Sort of

By Nicholas Stix

I recently wrote that there is no learning curve in multiculturalism. And I was right, given the definition of a learning curve as

“Chart line representing the efficiencies gained from experience. Basically, it is a curve describing the relationship between the consecutive number of units produced (x -axis) and the time per unit produced (y -axis)….”

Barron’s Accounting Dictionary

For instance, in education, one learns that it most efficient to group together students who function at the same level, a method known as “tracking.”

But in multiculturalism, everything is upside down. Whereas, the sane definition I quoted above assumes that a society wants to improve, i.e., become more highly functioning, say by helping students realize their intellectual potential, so that they can best contribute to the economy and be informed, independent, self-reliant citizens, multiculturalism seeks to crush intellectual potential, have a collapsing economy, and ignorant, fearful, easily-led citizens.

And so, multicultural education throws together students of the most disparate abilities imaginable, with the most incompetent, lazy teachers that can be found, and devotes its resources to improving the least talented students, and favoring the least competent, ambitious educators.

The reason multicultural education officials and teacher ed professors keep on demanding more money for failed methods isn’t in spite of their failures, but because of them. Failure isn’t a bug in the system; it’s a feature.

Similarly, in a sane economy, a learning curve would chart, among other things, how private businesses and public agencies come to hire more competent, hard-working people to fill responsible positions. But multiculturalism is dedicated to hiring the least competent, laziest person to fill a responsible position, as long as that person is from an unconstitutionally protected group. Multiculturalists strive to create a world in which every city is Detroit, Mogadishu, New Orleans, etc.

I realize that many people refer to multiculturalism (as they do to Marxism) as “utopian,” but it is the very opposite.

Which brings me to feminists and rape hoaxes.

A criminal justice learning curve would chart how society developed practices that prevented the innocent from being railroaded into prison, while punishing as many bad guys as possible. Conversely, multiculturalism is dedicated to railroading the greatest possible number of innocent members of hunted groups, while protecting criminal members of unconstitutionally protected groups.

Thus, while intelligent people with decent instincts look at notorious rape hoaxes such the Scottsboro Boys case, and the Tawana Brawley and Duke Rape hoaxes, and ask, “How can we prevent such injustices from reoccurring?,” feminists ask, “How can we assure the reoccurrence of such cases, but without such undesirable results as the men being pardoned, acquitted or, God forbid, officially declared ‘innocent,’ which of course, no white, heterosexual male ever is.”

The rape hoax against Dominique Strauss-Kahn (“DSK”) failed because, as in the above-cited cases, non-feminists such as DSK’s high-priced attorneys, and even some Manhattan prosecutors were able to show that accuser Nafissatou Diallo is a compulsive liar.

This outraged feminists. Thus, one needs to have a victim who is safe from such charges, and a rapist who lacks the resources of the Duke lacrosse players or DSK.

The state of the art has now evolved to the point where one seeks a “rapist” who has minimal resources with which to fight the charges, and instead of promoting a “victim” who is a compulsively lying prostitute or gold-digger, one promotes a nameless victim, and instead of gambling on a trial that may fail to produce the desired results, one instead concentrates on destroying the rapist’s life, and driving him to suicide.

The case I speak of is the witch hunt, led by feminist “comedians,” against a young man named Eric Angell.

Angell made the mistake of trying to be funny about heterosexual sex in a way that did not portray all men as rapists and sexual harassers, at a New York City comedy festival improv show attended by feminists.

Angell, who was apparently an aspiring comic—I think he’s since been disabused of that notion—was in the audience, and got to tell a story of a seduction he was the male half of. It was a tawdry, embarrassing story, if you ask me, but it did have its funny aspects, there were four experienced, professional men comics on the stage to use his story to improvise jokes, and they provoked quite a bit of laughter from the audience.

Ever since that night, the feminist comedy “community,” various feminist bloggers, and Wikipedia have promoted the notion that Angell raped the woman he slept with, and variously contacted his comedy club (former?) employer, and expressed the hope that he will be driven to kill himself.

That’s feminist comedy, for you. By the way, apparently one typically applauds, rather than laughs at feminist comics, except for when they gloat about heterosexual white men getting raped in prison. In “Stand Up and Say You’re Sorry,” Kathy Shaidle has concluded from this and other incidents that stand-up comedy is in trouble.