As Stephen Hicks writes in Explaining Postmodernism:
Postmodernists say that the West is deeply racist, but they know very well that the West ended slavery for the first time ever, and that it is only in places where Western ideas have made inroads that racist ideas are on the defensive.
Hicks describes this rhetorical approach as tactical, the use of contradictory discourses as a political strategy.
Last week, The New York Times published something that fits Hicks' description perfectly. As the New York Times has a habit of doing, the article was not posted in the "Opinion" section. In other words, the state of the Left is so dire that overt racism passes as ordinary news, or, in their eyes, as a Celine-Dion-worthy chest-pummeling performance that the rest of us see clearly as virtue signaling.
RELATED: Democratic Socialism spun as 'innovative, millennial-friendly' — here's the reality
The article's title alone is enough to send any sane reader running: "New Hampshire, 94 Percent White, Asks: How Do You Diversify a Whole State?"
Here's one of its major conclusions:
Part of the problem, Rogers J. Johnson, president of the Seacoast N.A.A.C.P., told the group, was 'a lack of recognition as to the seriousness of this problem.' He said that many people in New Hampshire view race as an issue in the South but not in the North.
The article advocates—and, believe me, this entire article is purely a work of advocacy—the self-flagellation we've seen on repeat…the recent controversy at Starbucks and the consequent "sensitivity training" come to mind.
In workshops and panel discussions, people wrestled with ways New Hampshire could draw people of different backgrounds. Their suggestions included: a better understanding of licensing and skills that refugees bring with them so they could more easily work here; a system of rewarding businesses that hire a more diverse array of workers; a central location with a database, speakers' bureau and training opportunities that could help companies understand what "diversity and inclusion" means and how it could benefit them, and a focus on keeping workers as much as hiring them in the first place, since many leave after finding the state inhospitable.
The words "diversity and inclusion," especially when lumped together, have taken on an entirely different meaning under the rule of postmodernists. Typically, they signify a hidden racism. An anti-white sentiment. How does that help anything? We should be working together, everyone, everybody, all of us, and the first step is to reject these contradictory discourses masquerading as journalism. In reality, they're carefully-crafted political strategies, and, if they reach fruition, nobody ends up winning.
