Enforcing Thought Orthodoxy Over Dying White America
“Diversity” is all the rage these days in corporate America (outside of Silicon Valley anyways), academia, and the government. Of course, diversity in this context always means “no white people” or “no white males,” and is in truth a political propaganda term. As America slides further towards Third World demographic oblivion, a large industry of “diversity consultants” has sprouted up to oversee the transition and police the thoughts of white people who might attempt to resist their own dispossession and future impoverishment. These consultants charge enormous fees to inculcate guilt and passivity into white people. In a broader context, diversity is really a giant psychological warfare campaign aimed at breaking white America’s will to resist.
A Soviet political commissar shooting “politically unreliable” members of his own army.
Diversity consultants and diversity job-holders in corporate America provide zero valued-added to the company’s bottom line. In fact, they actually subtract from it because they often draw large paychecks and want to kick out productive white males. In truth, diversicrats are political commissars, similar to the political officers that used to be in the Soviet Red Army. In the Red Army, the commissars did not provide any value-added to winning the war, and actively subtracted from it by shooting their own men over petty reasons or paranoia. The purpose of diversity consultants is to enforce Stalinist thought orthodoxy on matters of race and gender, and to at all costs prevent whites from rekindling their group consciousness and working towards their group interests.
The Ultimate Social Science Hoax
“Diversity”‘s benefits in one picture.
Diversity in the workplace is claimed by (self-interested) consulting groups to have numerous benefits, but there is a paucity of evidence to support these claims – and certainly nothing that justifies the monstrous fees they charge and the enormous salaries paid to “Chief Diversity Officers.” Among other claimed benefits, diversity quacks claim
that getting rid of white males will lead to:
- “better decision making”
- “improved problem solving”
- “greater creativity”
All of these “benefits” are (purposely, I suspect) nebulous and difficult to quantify, making it difficult to put the claims of diversicrats to the test of the Scientific Method. There is simply no reason to think that bringing lower-IQ minorities and affirmative action beneficiaries will lead to any of the claimed benefits. Better “decision making” from my standpoint is done by solving huge mathematical optimization problems, not by bringing more blacks into the workplace. How does bringing in affirmative action beneficiaries, who have had an easier educational path than any white male, lead to improved problem solving? “Creativity” and “innovation” are overused buzzwords that could mean anything to anyone, and are virtually impossible to quantify. Oddly enough, what would actually lead to all of these claimed benefits is the kryptonite of diversiquacks: intelligence screening using highly g-loaded IQ tests.
Lazy, Overpaid Frauds Hurting the Bottom Line
A Google search suggests that the type of degree someone needs to fill a diversity job is mainly confined to worthless, female-oriented degrees such as:
• Counseling (dominated by women
• Psychology (dominated by women
• Social work (dominated by women
• Instructional technology and training (dominated by women
• Human resource management (dominated by women
• Organizational development (dominated by women
These degrees, as Aaron Clarey has discussed at length
, are Mickey Mouse degrees that require little work or study compared to hard majors like engineering and medicine. Hence why they are packed with lazy, stupid women.
A Thought Experiment: the White Male Team vs. the “Diverse” Team
A “diverse” group of young, black male drug dealers.
Diversity always means less white people, no matter how ridiculous the results will be. Consider a thought experiment. We want to start a new technology company, and several people are interested in offering their skills as top corporate officers. Who should compose our board of directors?
- A former member of the French Foreign Legion military intelligence division, who speaks French, several African languages, English, and Spanish. He is a white Brit.
- A professor of physics with 25 years of experience in his field, who has graduated multiple PhD students that have become professors themselves. He is a white American.
- A successful entrepreneur who has piloted his last three start-ups to profitability and large buyouts. He is a white Canadian.
Then let’s consider another team:
- A black crack dealer with multiple felony convictions, a domestic violence rap for assaulting the mother of his children, no mailing address, and a credit score in the mid 400’s.
- A mulatto diversity advocate that majored in gender studies, whose last several jobs were in political activism and community organizing.
- A gay, HIV-positive Mexican man who has no educational credentials to his name, but has spent the last several years of his life agitating for increasing Latino political participation in his city and more AIDS/HIV spending.
Which team would you want composing your board of directors? Which team is more likely to lead the company to profitability by leveraging the skills they have available? It is obvious that the first team has a far more diverse set of high-quality skills available, but in the Bizarro World of diversity quackery, this team is unacceptable because all three team members are white males. In fact, diversity commissars, by their twisted logic, would actually prefer the second team, solely on the basis of there being a hodgepodge of genders, sexual orientations, and races present. It doesn’t matter that the second team could never turn a legitimate enterprise profitable, and the skills they offer are worthless in the free marketplace. All that matters is that there is no white males on the team. Period.
Impact on the Bottom Line
Guess which road diversity leads to?
According to Wikipedia, 20% of the Fortune 500 have a Chief Diversity Officer on their board. If I was an investor in a company, I would grill the top brass over why they feel the need to have a “Chief Diversity Officer” on the board, what justifies his salary
, and how does the execution of his job lead to increasing my bottom line? The purpose of a company is not to provide high-paying full employment for miseducated, self-hating mulattoes and political activists – its purpose is to make me some money. What justifies the enormous salaries of these charlatans? What am I getting for my money by investing into this baloney?
The salary angle cannot be overlooked. Diversity quacks are massively overpaid
. With the educational credentials and non-skills these people bring to the table, they shouldn’t be getting paid anything more than $25,000 per year, and yet diversity officer jobs often reach into the six figures.
What Does a “Chief Diversity Officer” Do Anyways?
A chief diversity officer, hard at working converting taxpayer dollars into Starbucks coffee and crackpot theories.
was authored by two diversity charlatans, Dr. Damon A. Williams and Dr. Katrina C. Wade-Golden (both black). The document routinely refers to the “diversity agenda” or “the agenda”, but never actually comes out and says what the “agenda” really is. It is assumed the reader understand the agenda: to get rid of the whites on campus. It also goes into detail on the requirements for holding a Chief Diversity Officer position on a college campus. Much of the job requirements are bureaucratic drivel-speak, and do not discuss actual concrete skills that are required. The position, to summarize the document, is to be a “change management specialist” that makes minorities and women happy. A Google image search for “Chief Diversity Officer” returns a sea of mulattoes in suits.
The document confesses that NSF and NIH grants are no longer awarded on the basis of pure excellence, but special concessions are made if the faculty applicant is a member of “historically under-represented group.” The CDO, who often has no formal education in engineering or science, can apparently write letters of recommendation for the awarding of taxpayer money.
My favorite quote from document is:
“…diversity is an integral component to the successful fulfillment of the institutional mission, and a fundamental aspect of academic excellence in the 21st century.”
I was always under the impression a university’s mission was to educate its students, but apparently diversity has other plans in store. A “fundamental aspect of academic excellence”? I went to school with nearly entirely whites and Asians, and I didn’t suffer the worse for it. Heck, in graduate school virtually everyone in the department was white or Asian. We solved big math problems. We synthesized strange materials. We investigated structure-property relationships. We taught the undergraduates thermodynamics, fluid mechanics, and mathematics. And we didn’t need any diversity to do it.
What the Democrats Really Think About Diversity
NOT Silicon Valley or SKDKnickerbocker.
SKDKnickerbocker is the Democratic Party’s premier propaganda vehicle and crisis communications firm. If there was ever an outfit that ought to be practicing diversity, it should be this one.
Look at the sea of white faces. There’s a few token minorities to be sure, but the staff is overwhelmingly white. The Democratic Party and Silicon Valley have revealed their preference that diversity is a bunch of garbage. When you really want to get serious work done, send in a bunch of white guys and Asians to do it.