The purpose of DEI was not "anti-white discrimination." That is among its mechanisms, but it isn't its purpose (or even what it predominantly does).
DEI cannot be understood outside of its Soviet origins.
First of all, though, something like 75% of the recipients of DEI hiring are white, with a majority of them women. DEI cannot be "anti-white discrimination" if three quarters of the people it hires are white. Something else must be going on.
That something else is DEI using issues of identity like race to positively select for candidates who have the right "critical" mindset about the world. That is, it was meant to recruit, install, train, and identify for advancement candidates who are more aligned with the Woke Marxist agenda (regardless of their race, sex, sexuality, etc.).
It did this in the name of "diversity," but here's where we hit our first need to understand the Soviet programs upon which it is based. The Russian word for diversity is raznoobraziya (Разнообразие). Vladimir Lenin, the first Soviet dictator, regarded raznoobraziya as "diversity in form with unity in content."
That's a dialectical formulation ("struggle and unification of opposites") for diversity. People would come from different backgrounds but only be allowed to participate if they think the same way. Sound familiar?
Raznoobraziya, as a precursor program to the D in DEI as we have it today, was a program that used "diversity" as an excuse to hire socialists. It didn't prohibit hiring Russians, so long as they were socialists too, but it used claims to "diversity" as a means for hiring socialists from "diverse populations."
Raznoobraziya was a part of a broader 1920s Soviet program called korenizatsiya (коренизация), which is usually translated as "indigenization" but would more accurately be rendered as "putting in roots." It is closer to our "inclusion" programs of today but not an exact parallel.
Josef Stalin, "the national socialist," alongside Lenin, implemented korenizatsiya under a similar dialectical formulation: "national in form and socialist in content." It's the same thing put differently.
Woke Marxism treats various identity groups as if they are ethnic enclaves with their own history, culture, "ways of knowing" (epistemologies), and people. They see them as mini "nations within a nation" and effectively leverage an ethnonationalist model for them from the inside. This is the playground of korenizatsiya in an American-flavored way.
Instead of actual nations like Georgia and Ukraine inside the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), we have identity-based ethnic enclaves like "Black Nationalism" and "LGBTQ Nation," but the mechanisms are the same for korenizatsiya. Different cultural groups, all of which are to come to see themselves as legitimately subsidiary to socialist thinking and organization, are deliberately and strategically included in the political structure of the whole ("national in form and socialist in content").
The goal of korenizatsiya was to create circumstances by which minority nationalities were in many ways favored so long as they bent toward socialism and then to place those national identity socialists into positions of power to increase total socialist representation and to advance agendas through people who couldn't easily be criticized or contradicted.
The Soviets used a doctrine of defeating "Great Russian Chauvinism" to accomplish this (cf. Mao used defeating "Han Chauvinism"). The idea would be that if, say, a Georgian socialist were put in a role or recommended a radical policy and was criticized, the critic could be accused of a kind of bigotry against non-Russians ("Great Russian Chauvinism"). Sound familiar?
On the positive side of this programming is selecting ideologically aligned candidates or arranging circumstances that increase the probability of hiring ideologically aligned (or alignable, through DEI trainings) candidates.
On the negative side of this programming is discriminating against ideologically unaligned candidates and arranging circumstances through that discriminatory practice that decrease the probability of hiring ideologically unaligned (or unalignable) candidates. Furthermore, there's identifying unaligned and unalignable employees and getting them out.
A third dynamic of importance beyond selection and discrimination is to be able to hide behind diversity and inclusion to advance more radical agendas, which no one will speak out about for fear of being accused of racism, sexism, etc., which activists are primed to accuse them of, including through legal action.
Thus the D and I in DEI are organized around selective recruitment of Woke Marxist activists for the purposes of Communist entryism, not around discrimination. The discrimination is a tool that's used to justify it so that it isn't admitting that it's straight Communist entryism, but as the statistics bear out, it's not even the dominant dynamic at play.
This means that most of the young white men who were excluded for sexual-racial reasons over the last decade were being discriminated against specifically to maximize the chances of bringing in Woke Marxists or people who could be converted to Woke Marxism, and who had identity-based advantages in advancing radical policy and action. Being white and male is mostly only incidental to this operation except at the point of application. Most hiring managers were not aware of the Soviet recruitment and entryism program they were a part of.
The criterion of "socialism" the Soviets used was not just favoring the USSR and its leadership (obviously) but also being ideologically committed to Communism and its doctrine of "actual equality," fakticheskoye ravenstvo (Фактическое равенство). Today, we call that "equity," which refers to a radical redistribution of economic, social, and political capital.
Thus, the E in DEI is the excuse upon and around which the whole DEI program is built. What is actually being screened for are people who will advance the radical equity agenda, using diversity and inclusion as proxies and a smokescreen.
The excuse is that we need DEI (diversity and inclusion, particularly) because of something called "disparate impact," which poisoned our thinking and civil rights law. This doctrine insists that if there are differences in average group outcomes, there must be discrimination operating somewhere in the system that's producing it (which is false). Thus, inequality (or inequity) is proof of need of diversity and inclusion (and DEI) policy and activists who will implement it.
Since those outcomes manifest in demographic realities (e.g., proportionally more white people than black people employed in a particular industry), discriminatory policy, justified on the "disparate impact" doctrine, is implemented in the name of correcting it. But that correction is pushed in alignment with the DEI (raznoobraziya, fakticheskoye ravenstvo, korenizatsiya) model just described because it is operational (where identity itself is not).
Thinking of DEI as "anti-white discrimination" therefore completely misses the point while creating greater identity-based inflammation. It isn't that discrimination wasn't happening. It's that it wasn't the point, which is even evident in the numbers as they came out in reality with some 75% of the beneficiaries of the programming being white in the first place.
DEI was about installing Soviet-era Communist ideology (with American "Woke" characteristics) into the entire Western and American institutional apparatus, to "bore from within" and complete "the long march through the institutions." It was not about discrimination for discrimination's sake.
The way it can be defeated is by recognizing it for what it is and undermining the logic of its implementation and protection, which is the disparate impact doctrine. In America, Civil Rights legislation and 14A clean up most of the rest, and quickly.
Getting reactionary identity-based consciousness by focusing on the injustice of the discrimination that it used (though for other purposes than the superficial one people experienced) is a fatal mistake, and we can see how again by looking at the Soviet Union.
Eventually, by the late 1920s, korenizatsiya (etc.) failed in the Soviet Union, and Stalin had to change course (Lenin was dead by then). Stalin solved the massive ethnic strife problems by Russifying the Soviet Union under a doctrine that Russians were "first among equals" (another struggle and unification of opposites dialectical formulation, btw).
The idea was that everyone in the Soviet Union would now be Russian but on socialist terms, and Russians themselves would be "first among equals" in this regard. That was his implementation of a reactionary policy that still advanced Communism in response to the growing ethnic resentment (mostly in Russians) generated by korenizatsiya.
The Woke Right reactionary movement in America is treading this same path, which is still an advance toward identity-driven conflict and advancement of socialism.
That is, there's much more to the story than the one we're seeing pushed (AGAIN) by these guys, and I urge you not to listen or fall into the trap they're participating in setting for you.
No comments:
Post a Comment