Diversity Kiddies Create Their Own Reality

Once upon a time there was an argument between Bolsheviks and everyone else about how much of personal success is determined by industry and talent, and how much by sheer luck, prejudice, and connections. Now there is no more argument — or at least, not very much of one. No matter where you turn (corporate office-hives, the vast bureaucracies of the federal government, academia, show-biz) the delightfully Orwellian culture of “affirmative action” is spreading its tentacles. The more positions awarded to the lazy, the incompetent (blacks, women…), the more the Bolshevik thesis becomes partially true: personal success isn’t determined by industry and talent. At least not any more. And of course, the leftist cadres are the true believers. They know that every day they bullshit their way through professional problems that they are ill-equipped to solve; that makes it easy for them to imagine that all the remaining white males (the ones who, y’know, actually make the company profitable) are doing the same thing. The injustice of it probably makes their blood boil!

So, needless to say, they scheme all the more doggedly to have fewer positions awarded on merit and more awarded to their fellow diversity kiddies.

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Diversity Kiddies Create Their Own Reality

  1. The Bolshie case is that from the perspective of a proletarianized have-not itinerantly selling his labor-power as a market commodity, success is unrelated to personal factors and a function of wider system dynamics governing accumulation.

    Young right-leaning have-nots can’t entertain the Whig commonwealthman fantasy of the self-made arms-bearing freeman and his ancestral legal birthrights anymore, and so classical liberalism is dormant. Pre-socialist forms of anti-capitalism are intellectually near-extinct. Scholastic and patristic anti-usury has been unearthed again, but disconnected from any wider view of property and economy.

    What’s left is the class envy of right-wing populism, bound with race since race and class naturally overlap in societies with equalized environments (market-dominant minorities and whatnot). “If the Jews weren’t pushing degeneracy and sexbots on us, I’d have a wife and three kids.” “The globalist cucks only care about money and not nation.” “Twitter should be nationalized so they can’t ban me for shitposting.” (Here we have an intrinsic conflict between the desire for a return to propertarian freedom of association, and for some sort of a governmental “commons” of the civic body that gives a public space for unfettered speech.) And of course the eternal paradox of economic nationalism: paying off domestic capitalists to accumulate more capital in the name of fighting “rootless capitalism.”

    Like

    1. Hello Nigel, haven’t heard from you in a while. Hope you’re doing well.

      >an intrinsic conflict between

      I’d say it’s rather more straightforward than that: in a political conflict each side has articulated principles, and constraining the other side to follow its principles when inconvenient and getting them to openly abandon it are each victories, in a limited way.

      > And of course the eternal paradox of economic nationalism: paying off domestic capitalists to accumulate more capital in the name of fighting “rootless capitalism.”

      This isn’t a paradox, anymore than enfeoffing Franks to fight Viking raiders was a paradox. (I don’t doubt that you have a clear thought here, but it’s not yet visible.)

      >What’s left is the class envy of right-wing populism, bound with race since race and class naturally overlap in societies with equalized environments (market-dominant minorities and whatnot).

      From my POV, the real issues of right-wing populism are (a) immigration – cheap labor helps professionals, hurts poor natives and their communities; (b) segregation – court-ordered integration allows professionals to race away from violence by building increasingly more expensive bedroom communities, everyone else is in a worse situation; (c) decency – the continual ideological assault on traditional mores increases the power of leftism, satisfies professionals with their superiority to their inferiors, and destroys any coherent culture (“good” for those who can exploit the opportunities the carnage offers, bad otherwise).

      The concerns with the spoils-system is more about (a) the crippling of valuable enterprises (yes my friend, even the humble widget-maker has dignity…) and (b) the political dynamics of un-crippling them. Normally if try to solve a problem and your attempt badly misunderstands the problem, it fails in a way that dispels your preconception; here, the misconception that everyone is unqualified leads to a policy that brings the misconception closer to the truth.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s