November 19, 2018

Twelve Questions for Fauxcahontas and Her Progressive Tribe – Part I of III

Twelve Questions for Fauxcahontas and Her Progressive Tribe – Part I of III

Twelve Questions for Fauxcahontas and Her Progressive Tribe – Part I of III







Government agencies, workplaces and the media today are awash in “Diversity & Inclusion” (“D&I”).

Yet few have stopped to ask how we got to this state, why we’re here and, most importantly, where it is directing us. Dear Reader, in this series was ask those questions, and more.

After reading this series you will experience a “paradigm shift” and will never look at D&I the same way again.

Why “twelve questions?”

By asking pertinent questions – even while knowing that fundamentally they will probably remain unanswered, by being ignored entirely, deflected by changing the subject, or spun with non-responsive answers – the “asking” often reveals more than would any “answers” received. How can this be?

Because it tells us that the individual(s) avoiding direct responses have calculated that the negative implications of not responding such as appearing to be evasive – are still preferable to giving forthright responses. Which means that for them, the truth must be really, really bad.

This series, point blank, debunks the D&I agenda. By the time we’re done, its mask will be ripped off.

As we will see, it’s all a fraud that aims not only to increase discrimination, but also to make it a permanent fixture of our society … and more … and even worse.

The Progressives’ D&I agenda has (so far) enjoyed increasing success in manipulating our entire society – working at “fundamentally transforming” us – but not in a good way.

This has been accomplished because their deceptive narrative(s) have been largely unchallenged, or just superficially challenged.

D&I is a big subject it’s consuming government agencies, college campuses and workplaces across the land. To give it the critique that it deserves, this series is longer than average for posts here on New Zeal – though not that much longer.

Yet if you invest the ten-ish minutes (or less) that it will take read each of the installments and perhaps invest a bit more time clicking-through the embedded links and glancing at the supporting material – I can assure you will never look at D&I the same way again.

Indeed, many of you may feel the rising anger of those to whom the truth has finally been revealed, and realize that they’ve been deceived “for all these years.” And even greater anger concerning what this agenda is actually trying to pull on us.

In this Part I we will review how we got to be in the present state of “diversity and inclusion.”

In Part II we will explore what (to Progressives) “diversity” means, and ask a series of twelve primary questions (with additional clarifying and follow-up questions beneath) directed at the purveyors of D&I. Questions which by their very common sense nature, and sequencing, will themselves illustrate that what they’re peddling ultimately can’t and won’t work. Because it isn’t intended to work, as we’ll see in …

Part III, which will tie it all together: exposing the actual D&I agenda; what the Progressives intend to accomplish by it – and charting us a path out toward a genuinely better future for us all.

PART I: “Diversity & Inclusion” Uber Alles– How Did We Come To Be In This State?

Over a half-century ago, in response to the civil rights movement, the “Great Society” was enacted with the laudable goal of remedying the effects of the then recent de jure and de facto racial discrimination suffered by Black Americans since the Reconstruction Era.

The Great Society overall, and its specific statutes flew under the banner of equal opportunity and “on paper” does so to this day (as does a federal agency called the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission).

Norman Rockwell’s “The Problem We All Live With”

The stated goal was a noble one: seeking to redress the manifest injustices committed – by government, individuals and groups – against a perfectly normal human beings, based upon an immutable characteristic – their race. In other words, victims of irrational and so unjust discrimination were intended to be victims no more.

[By “unjustly” we mean solely because of the immutable characteristic of race, rather than upon individual merit or lack thereof. Immutable characteristic is a term of art in the discrimination arena, and so we use it throughout this series. In a nutshell, it is something one is born with and so is inherent to their genetic (and so biological) makeup, such as race and skin color – “differences” reflective of normal variations within the human species.]

The Great Society spawned de jure and de facto affirmative action that, on its good side, was intended to fast-track a rebalancing of social and economic opportunity for Blacks who, as a group, had been unjustly deprived of such. As a practical matter, when firmly applied, it flips the prior racism on its head, now providing de jure and de facto discrimination favoring to Blacks based upon that immutable characteristic.

Now more than fifty years on, affirmative action is an apparently permanent fixture of the apparently permanent Great Society.

As now practiced, affirmative action has provided individual beneficiaries not with equal opportunity, but a lifetime of preferences and privileges based not upon their individual merits, but upon their immutable characteristics – e.g., preferences and privileges in the form of lowered standards for college admissions; recruitments for first and subsequent jobs; and promotional opportunities within organizations. (And let us not forget government contract set-asides exclusively for “women owned businesses” and “minority owned businesses.”)

As time went on, other groups (besides Blacks) observed what was going on, how effective it was a redistributing opportunity and other preferences and privileges – and so (quite rationally) decided that they wanted a piece of that action.

A magic bullet was found both for maintaining affirmative action for the initial beneficiaries and for sharing the booty with new groups: “diversity.”

Tellingly, as diversity became ascendant, what had been key phrases that expressed the noble aspirations of the original civil rights era were pretty much flushed down the memory hole.

Phrases such as a color-blind society and equal opportunity are nearly extinct in today’s town square. (Though some have attempted, so far in vain, to bring attention to the diametric shift in stated goals by pointing out Dr. Martin Luther King’s sage call to judge men by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, versus D&I, which to function requires judging people based upon the color of skin – and an every-increasing array of other characteristics, immutable, non-immutable and outright arbitrary ones – as we’ll see.)

Those noble phrases, that were compatible with our nation’s founding principles, have been replaced by incompatible, Marxist-resonating terms and phrases such as inequality and distribution of income and privilege and social justice. The differences may seem subtle or inconsequential at first, but then …

Ponder the contrast between the philosophical underpinnings of our Declaration of Independence and its “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness …” against Marx’s godless and class-centric model in which individuals are fungible units within their class, while overlords (“Party officials”) determine their class, and the distribution of wealth (the fruits of individual’s labors) and liberties amongst all human beings.

Then ponder the concept that this new D&I regime is essentially just repackaged Marxism: instead of “economic class” it uses demographics (“diversity”); and instead of (directly) redistributing wealth – the end-results of labor – it preemptively redistributes the opportunity to generate wealth (i.e., college admissions and jobs / promotions). Now the significance of the change in terminology comes into sharp relief. (More on this in Part III.)

Of course, for every individual beneficiary of affirmative action / D&I preferences and privileges, there has to be a counterpart un-beneficiary who pays the price.

In the early years of affirmative action a reasonable case could be made that the individual beneficiaries were themselves direct victims of the recently outlawed de jure discrimination (and remaining / legacy de facto discrimination) and so, in weighing the equities, the beneficiaries had a more compelling case.

However, as the years, then decades (and now, generations) passed, the un-beneficiaries increasingly began to chafe about individually paying the price of the other side of the affirmative action coin, about what came to be called reverse discrimination. In particular, the idea of numerical or percentage “quotas” was proving problematic, as it provided fodder for those decrying reverse discrimination.

Predictably, we began to witness court challenges to reverse discrimination, such as the Bakke case of 1978, which struck down the use of “black and white” [pun intended] quotas, but otherwise essentially left “affirmative action” intact.

Still, as overt “discrimination” pretty much became eradicated from society, it became harder and harder to justify affirmative action to new generations.

The response – apparently borrowing from abortion law – was to “discover” heretofore unknown forms of discrimination amongst the penumbras and emanations of “traditional” discrimination, so-called unconscious bias; while a construct was created to (in effect) perpetuate the legacy of de facto, if not de jure discrimination, and so create a rationalization for maintaining affirmative action / D&I– apparently in perpetuity – so-called White privilege.

Speaking of unconscious bias (and its counterpart conscious bias), under the new diversity regime we could equate the unconscious bias to de facto bias, and conscious bias to de jure bias. In turn, under the Progressives’ D&I agenda, conscious and unconscious bias are not only permitted and encouraged, but REQUIRED.

The underlying premises of “multiculturalism” and “diversity” REQUIRE that – both individually and collectively – we consciously classify individuals based upon their immutable characteristics, non-immutable characteristics, or other arbitrarily selected diversity categorizations (more on this in a bit).

Ultimately, however, it is intended to condition us to unconsciously and reflexively practice that way of thinking; it is supposed to occur within us as if it were instinctive.

Such a categorization regime is an inherently biased and discriminatory regime.

Both forms of bias (conscious and unconscious) are, in turn, celebrated and institutionalized under the Progressive D&I agenda – and are used to discriminate in favor of those certain immutable characteristics, non-immutable characteristics, other arbitrarily selected diversity categories, i.e., those that are approved.

Simultaneously, both forms of bias (conscious and unconscious) are, under the Progressive “diversity and inclusion” agenda, used to discriminate against certain immutable characteristics, non-immutable characteristics, other arbitrarily selected categories, i.e., those that are unapproved or disfavored.

So ultimately the D&I agenda actually promotes and institutionalizes “classic discrimination” (if you will) – it’s just that the discriminated-against, and the discriminated-for, are different and, to a large degree, ever-changing.

Moreover, this new discrimination is much more complex. As will be seen in Part II of this series, this D&I agenda inevitably requires developing a hierarchy amongst the approved categories – they become competing approved categories.

Under D&I, individuals may simultaneously reside in multiple “discriminated-for” and “discriminated-against” categories, depending at any given time upon their combination of (then currently) approved diversity categories (if any). The question for them then becomes how it impacts them on a net basis, i.e., do they “net out” with advantageous preferences and privileges.

There are both ideological and economic interests driving this D&I agenda. For you see, entire industries have sprung up around (real or perceived) discrimination and D&I.

At the same time, there is a political agenda dependent in large part on fomenting perceptions of (permanent) victimhood and helplessness, while at the same time never, ever actually fixing the root causes of the malaise (as we discussed in Life Down on the Democrat Plantation).

There is also much broader, pernicious set of players and goals involved – ones potentially fatal for the United States of American – that will be revealed in Part III.

In 2003, in the case Grutter v. Bollinger (upholding preferential admissions to the University of Michigan Law School), the U.S. Supreme Court put its imprimatur on the concept of diversity constituting the new (subterfuge for) affirmative action. As recently as 2016, the U.S. Supreme Court continued its “commitment to diversity” in Fisher v. University of Texas.

Today there’s not a government entity or college, and nary a private company, that doesn’t impose and enforce “commitments” to so-called “Diversity and Inclusion.”

In academia, we’re starting to see employees (and prospective employees) forced to sign comprehensive <ahem> diversity pledges (effectively meaning that they dare not oppose, or even question, any “diversity” edicts from on high, lest they be terminated). This is not limited to academia; it’s coming to workplaces from sea to shining sea.

There’s an organization – the CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion™ – targeting adverse publicity avoiding corporate executives to “motivate” their compliance via a “pledge”: “As part of signing on to the CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion™, CEOs are committing to implementing all of the elements within the pledge.”

That pledge requires, among other things, mandatory “unconscious bias” training to employees – thus, D&I organizations such as CEO Action for Diversity & Inclusion™ are working to impose in the private sector what they are not empowered to impose by courts and legislatures.

D&I is now a major industry – hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of livelihoods now rely upon D&I.

There are entire state and local agencies charged with tracking demographics and enforcing “equal opportunity”; non-profit community groups requiring it to justify their continued existence and taxpayer funding; legions of consultants to provide training (for healthy fees); professors at (so-called) institutions of higher learning peddling “fill in the blank studies”; “diversity officers” at colleges and large corporations (something like the “political officers” in the former Soviet Union); and personnel in recruiting and HR departments charged with implementing quotas (a/k/a “diversity goals”).

They exist to ensure that citizen and employee compliance with D&I will be imposed and enforced; it is not to be an option.

Nor will questioning of the agenda allowed – as James Damore, former employee of Google, discovered the hard way. (The Complaint initiating his lawsuit against Google is quite the read – and it should be read, as it may portend the “diversity dystopia” future that awaits all employees in corporate America, at least if the D&I “advocates” have their way.)

Yet, while few of us have been left untouched by the D&I agenda on the march across our land, few have asked why there are no person(s), or organization(s), or group(s) that publicly claim credit for planning and executing this whole “diversity” thing.

Have you noticed that nobody claims speaks on behalf of, or answers for the D&I agenda; there is no one that claims (or accepts) ultimate responsibility for it.

How convenient! There is no one to be held responsible for the D&I agenda, and no one to answer for it.

Apparently, we’re supposed to conclude that it is all some sort of manna falling down from Progressive heaven, or spontaneous grass roots “social justice” emanating from below.

But it can’t work that way. It is too widespread; it has been too effectives at expanding and wielding power to have occurred organically.

So who, and what, constitutes (what we’ll call) the Diversity Deep State?

All societies and organizations and movements end up with leaders and hierarchies beneath them. Within the Diversity Deep State, what is its organizational structure, and who constitutes the Diversity Leadership?

Certainly this leadership includes academics, non-profit pooh-bahs, media figures and Democrat operatives – but who, specifically, are its members?

How is it structured – are there executives, officers and staff?

How do they agree which “diversity” categories are to be approved, and the order in which they are to be advanced?

Do they keep meeting minutes?

Who has ultimate decision-making authority?

How are they selected? How does one become a member of the Diversity Leadership in the first place?

For purposes of this series, we will direct our questions to Fauxcahontas (Elizabeth Warren) and her Progressive tribe – it is fair to surmise that she is not only privy to the Diversity Leadership, but is a member in good standing of it. So let her speak on its behalf, and be responsible for answering our questions.

And boy, do we have questions! (Those begin in Part II.)

But first, to conclude this Part I, let us review some definitions that will be used during the rest of this series:

Diversity Deep State: An ideological & political movement and burgeoning compliance and consulting industry melded together, that are promoting “diversity goals” – which essentially are soft-quotas to bypass the legal prohibition against hard or fixed-quotas – and other perks and privileges, i.e., Diversity Privilege (defined below) – based on a fluid cast of characters who are designated as “diverse.”

Diversity Hierarchy: The pyramid-like structure of Diversity Privilege being erected by the Diversity Leadership, and the relative position of individuals and groups within that pyramid.

Heterosexual White males are consigned to the bottom of this pyramid – effectively they are the only demographic barred from partaking of any Diversity Privilege. Instead, they serve as the baseline against which all other categories of “diversity” are measured.

For example, an organization measuring its “diversity goals” is required to track the ratios between categories; percentage of male to female; White to “minority” and so on.

Thus the presence of a heterosexual, White male lowers the “diversity ratio” in all measured categories that help meet the (soft quotas) of diversity goals: the LGBTadinfinitum to heterosexual ratio; the male to female ratio; the White to “minority” ratio, and so on.

A heterosexual, White female lowers the ratios in two categories (LGBTadinfinitum vs. heterosexual; White vs. minority), but increases “diversity” in one (male to female ratio) … as does a heterosexual, Black male (White to minority ratio).

Scenarios such as that illustrate the reason why a Diversity Hierarchy has to be created by the Diversity Leadership– otherwise, how to break the “diversity tie” between, e.g., the White female and the Black male?

A heterosexual, Black female in turn increases the “diversity ratio” in two categories (male to female ratio; White to minority ratio).

As we can see, the higher the number of diversity check-off boxes a single individual fits, the higher they rise within the diversity pyramid; the higher their rank in the Diversity Hierarchy.

Diversity Privilege (formerly known as “Affirmative Action”): Diversity Privilege is a lifetime of special privilege given in college admissions, then recruitment(s) and promotion(s) – purportedly to “increase diversity.” We’re multiple generations into this now. The beneficiary categories have been expanding, even as the root causes feeding the original pipeline of “inequality” (dysfunctional culture / union schools / mass illegitimacy) are being protected and promoted by Progressives in order to sustain and expand produce “inequality.”

Under Collectivist (Marxist) theory and practice, property interests (wealth) can and must be redistributed. One’s “diversity” – the sum total of their recognized, and so privileged “diversitycategories (while they may be labeled “rights”) – have de facto become property interests, as they have become inseparable from tangible monetary value.

In other words, the sum total of one’s “diversity” becomes something like a currency that has value – except that under this model while they receive value, they never have to exchange value – the currency stays with them.

Thus, in the end, this D&I thing actually operates like a classic Marxist “redistribution of economic wealth” – albeit pursuing the same ends by “redistributing economic opportunity.”

Now on to Part II

Mr. Wigand is the author of the book Communiqués From the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy, which is available on Amazon in both print and Kindle versions. Comments or questions for Mr. Wigand may be sentto:— he will make every effort to personally respond to each email.

Source: Trevor Loudon