The elite promote diversity...because it prevents unity (against them)

[CreakyJoints]

I hope the OP is not interpreted as a call to hate the "alien" as if they are the enemy. It was simply to illustrate a pernicious form of divide and conquer, since it has been known in psychological research for decades that people are much more likely to distrust and get violent against people unlike them. Basically, the "redirected aggression" stemming from various forms of oppression (such as deteriorating financial prospects) is more likely to manifest in physical violence and avoidance of unity when the group is very diverse. And I don't think there is any doubt that most of the large companies, and especially FAANG, as well as various members of the "elite" such as Bill Gates, Bezos, Zuck, Dorsey, etc have all been very avid promoters of diversity in the workplace. When the elite is so keen on promoting a specific idea it is probably because it is in their interest, and the article in the OP simply gives a possible explanation behind the diversity push. At this point, diversity is almost a national strategy in most Western countries at all levels of society, not just in business.

I also hoped that wasn't the case, but a cursory glance towards the comments is very, very disheartening. There were so many things they could have focused on in this piece, but I believe that's how the majority of their readership will interpret it. I think that was also the intention of the original Business Insider article, and perhaps it was also the intention when the document itself was leaked in the first place. It feels rather like a tactic to distract from their other horrific practices or to deflect blame somewhat. Diversity is, after all, a very hot topic right now.

I think @tankasnowgod also made a good point just now as I was typing this that it could easily be used as a wedge in scenarios where language barriers become an issue. Changing people's shifts so they are unable to work at the same time as people who might be considered agitators, or even from colleagues they are more trusting of is a fairly common union-busting tactic, I believe, so it stands to reason they might also pick workers based on their inability to meaningfully cooperate. Again, the other factors they track are quite worrying too: news that Amazon routinely survey their workers for 'loyalty' seems rather dystopian in itself, and there are still a number of things they don't mention in either article which might be worse.

Again, I agree with all of this, but I think in answer to your point and also to @LucyL's post, that it is possible it is the other way around, it may be a case of them being opportunistic rather than a case of diversity being a bad thing by definition. I also agree that its cynical use as a tool of oppression is widespread by colossal bastard-corporations at this point, but again I don't believe it is the problem itself and it could just as easily be used (and should be used) as a unifying banner against them once people stop being suspicious each other and begin to direct that to those in control.

Thank you all for your responses, by the way! I feel like this has been quite a constructive discussion so far and I really appreciate how measured and reasonable it has been.

 

[Peatful]

I gotta find my picture of me n Mike.
Many years ago, he hit on me at an airport. Planes were grounded for hours. I think he was just bored. I was in a magazine shop looking at architectural digest. He was over my shoulder saying, "nice". And, "Oh that's pretty. I like that too." I was just sortof laughing inside, not knowing who this jokester was. And then he says, "You wanna go get a drink with me?" I looked back and almost fell on the floor. "MIKE!" I started laughing. He said, "I ain't that funny-looking, am I?" Which made me laugh hysterically even more. I declined the drink but asked for a picture with him. He was very sweet about it. I gave him a hug goodbye and said "luv ya Mike."

View: https://youtu.be/pgcHBcQRlpw

One of my favorites.
He found this wisdom through suffering.

 

[Cloudhands]

I dont think theres anything wrong with diversity. But i think forcing diversity only for the sake of having a colorful work staff vs hiring people fit for the job is stupid. I think hyperfocusing on diversity does the opposite of what it claims its intentions are. Hyperfocusing on diversity calls to attention the differences between humans, and creates distinct contrasting boundaries based on things like skin color etc.

 

[Regina]

View: https://youtu.be/pgcHBcQRlpw

One of my favorites.
He found this wisdom through suffering.

Amazing.

 

[Rick K]

When I think of critics of Diversity (especially diversity simply for diversity's sake), the two people that come to my mind are Pat Buchanan and Muhammad Ali.

There's a part of this Politico article on Buchanan that sums it up perfectly-

‘The Ideas Made It, But I Didn’t’

Pat Buchanan won after all. But now he thinks it might be too late for the nation he was trying to save.

www.politico.com

...



So, publically, the "Woke Capitalists" would vehemently disagree with Buchanan, and even fire him for his views. But privately, they seem to agree, and use "diversity" to further their own economic interests, and as a weapon against the general public.

Here is a clip of Muhammad Ali, saying basically the same thing-


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HqiWFLsgVi4

I would like to add my thoughts on cultural diversity. What I'm going to say is way overdue and I will probably get shot but it needs to be said. I hail from Canada and found great reason to despise the Quebecois. When the Romans conquered so many countries, if any one nation gave them grief they simply broke the people into very small groups and scattered them among other nations to quell their rebelliousness. The French in Canada were left to their own devices and so maintained their autonomy and grew to a point where they launched terrorist attacks in Canada and years later voted to secede. They burned the flag and booed the national anthem. Now I most certainly am an anarchist but I am also a nationalist. If the french think they are special I, if I were king, would have marched them all at bayonet point to the St Lawrence River and sent them back to France in leaky dinghies. I do not accept the term African American or Chinese Canadian or anything else that puts the country or continent that your ancestors are from BEFORE the country you were born in. If you think it's so important to state that first then go back there and piss off.
This does not promote "cultural diversity" but most assuredly promotes cultural dissonance and the breakup of national pride and agenda. When I lived in America I flew the American flag in my front yard and never spoke of Canada. I vigorously supported the American constitution. I exhorted people to vote. When I heard a report on NPR in 1992, while living in N.C. that Los Angeles county wanted to educate black kids in some primitive street speak called ebonics I was like Hell No. Learn from Canada. To appease the Quebecois Canada became officially bilingual. That only emboldened them to push harder for secession and it really hurt the economy across the country as it seemed that Canada was heading to civil war in the 1990's.
To hammer my point ad nauseum, if we don't stand together then we are easy pickings for the shuck and jive crowd like Gates and the Rockefellers etc who find it so easy to strip away our rights because we don't band together and kick their asses. Ever since the false flag event of 9/11 people have lived in fear that "they" were going to get us if we didn't strip away our civil liberties and rights and let big brother run amok. Most young people now have no idea what they are entitled to as they are used to living under the thumb of dictatorship. United we stand....

 

[Rick K]

I hope the OP is not interpreted as a call to hate the "alien" as if they are the enemy. It was simply to illustrate a pernicious form of divide and conquer, since it has been known in psychological research for decades that people are much more likely to distrust and get violent against people unlike them. Basically, the "redirected aggression" stemming from various forms of oppression (such as deteriorating financial prospects) is more likely to manifest in physical violence and avoidance of unity when the group is very diverse. And I don't think there is any doubt that most of the large companies, and especially FAANG, as well as various members of the "elite" such as Bill Gates, Bezos, Zuck, Dorsey, etc have all been very avid promoters of diversity in the workplace. When the elite is so keen on promoting a specific idea it is probably because it is in their interest, and the article in the OP simply gives a possible explanation behind the diversity push. At this point, diversity (of all kinds, especially gender/sexual) is almost a national strategy in most Western countries at all levels of society, not just in business.

Doesn't this just weaken everyone involved as now the diverse groups fight over funding and attention and their specific rights? How can they ever see a common cause and band together for real change when they are so busy infighting? The collective ego at it's finest.

 

[Daniil]

I would be very surprised if all this "left" ideology was imposed from some good motives.

 

[Drareg]

The article is seemingly about unions and corporations manipulating their employees, but the same ideas apply on the scale of societies/countries too. Diversity - in the workplace, in the arts, in science, in the govt, and in society as a whole - suddenly became a hot topic some time in the early 2000s and its "importance" has not waned since then. If anything, it has dramatically intensified over the last decade and has become a core principle of the "woke" segment of society. Yet, the fact that the elite corporatocracy is actively promoting/funding diversity in every aspect of society should give a pause to any sane human who knows how money works and what the elites spend their money on - i.e. things that give them more and more control over the "plebs" (us). I wonder if there is some critical value for that "diversity index" beyond which not only is there no unity of any sorts but the structure breaks down - i.e. a riot in the company store when applied to a specific corporation, and civil war when applied to society as a whole. Also, since rioting/wars are arguably disruptive for business, I wonder if there is some way for companies or govt. to control the diversity index and prevent it from going too high, when needed...

@Drareg @Regina @tankasnowgod

https://archive.fo/1khJw

Leaked Amazon Whole Foods Docs: Workforce Diversity Helps Prevent Unions

Leaked internal documents from Amazon-owned Whole Foods reveal the company rates their stores using a 'diversity index' and determined the threat of unionization is 'higher

www.informationliberation.com

"...Leaked internal documents from Amazon-owned Whole Foods reveal the company rates their stores using a "diversity index" and determined the threat of unionization is "higher" at stores with "lower diversity."

From Business Insider, "Amazon-owned Whole Foods is quietly tracking its employees with a heat map tool that ranks which stores are most at risk of unionizing":

This should give you a clue as to why our Woke Capitalist rulers are so eager to preach the mantra of "diversity.

Yep, we knew this though, they know a united front will take on the ruling class hence why we have thousands of identity groups, the White ruling class need a buffer for protection, the trick is to not allow any group to be united, black folks are getting thrown in with trans and gay folks, many in the black community are against this, not all black folks are communists, some are republican or Democrat, men versus women ,this lists goes on. Many sincere lefties are realizing what has happened are trying to unify everyone on the left buts its too late, folks are pathological in their identity.
Low skilled migrants are necessary for this also, high skilled migrants would join in the revolt.

The one group that isn’t divided is the Muslims and the demographic is growing, can’t wait to see how the ruling class deal with this, will the mainly White ruling class start to get nervous if their White demographic declines to quickly, I’m sure they will, many European countries are now specifically documenting Muslim integration, job rates and much more, Denmark has ended its open door migrant policy so we are told, the White ruling elite will not be allowed to continue if Muslims control the demographic, they believed Muslims 2nd and 3rd generation would integrate into native cultures, they haven’t and are even more stringent in their views.

With regard to looting the psychotics in advertising at big corporate groups see this as free advertising, nobody loots the mom and pop shoe store for a reason, it’s always Nike, Rolex etc ,I can see some woke adverts on the horizon, "Our product is so good folks are willing to risk jail to own it".

The wokists are now desperately trying to label the word "woke" as a racist dog whistle, they continually try to change the meanings of words, they are doing this too quick and it will wear thin with the public.

The human ponzi scheme of migrants continues on, protects the elites from organized revolts and they profit from consumerism, this is why they are pumping climate migration, they know it’s getting more difficult to justify wars but still want migrants as consumers and dividers.

 

[Drareg]

I would be very surprised if all this "left" ideology was imposed from some good motives.

Alison Mcdowell covers all of this on her website and YouTube channel, wrenchinginthegears.com, the elite are pushing wokism to justify a new digitized social system, it’s a for profit system, social impact bonds will be a word entering the MSM amplifier relentlessly.
Its also a tracking system, geofencing, open boarders, you have to have certain passes to get into certain areas, essentially complete digital tasks and receive badges.

Essentially it’s fascism, corporate and state run social impact bonds, it follows the paradigms used for slavery in the past but now it’s digital, all of the NGO’s will start pumping this new system soon under the guise of equality and wokism in general, the NGO’s are the frontline of the new digital slave system masquerading as the left.

Corey Morningstar is a genuine lefty investigative journalist who covers a lot of this also, the left have been payed masterfully by the ruling class, it’s a complete humiliation for the left how easy they were taken over.

 

[haidut]

Doesn't this just weaken everyone involved as now the diverse groups fight over funding and attention and their specific rights? How can they ever see a common cause and band together for real change when they are so busy infighting? The collective ego at it's finest.

I think it can weaken everyone, if the diversity reaches some critical level. It is probably an inverted-U curve in terms of diversity benefiting society. Some levels of diversity lead to expanded worldview and novelty, which probably results in improved economic growth and financial prospects for everybody. However, with increasing diversity, there seems to come a point where too many distinct homogenous groups at the same place/time get into conflicts and, if this is combined with decreased economic growth so the groups feel there is not enough for everyone, this situation quickly turns into a dog-eat-dog world, factionalism and ultimately some sort of large scale social conflict.

 

[haidut]

The human ponzi scheme of migrants continues on, protects the elites from organized revolts

Right, but as you said there seems to be a critical point where if you let too many migrants in, especially if they are of the kind that refuses to integrate, this can quickly turn against the elites as well. I wonder if the elites are even aware of these future consequences or are just too oblivious trying to implement the "Great Reset" to care about this ticking time bomb...that has already started to explode in some places.

 

[Mr Joe]

I think it can weaken everyone, if the diversity reaches some critical level. It is probably an inverted-U curve in terms of diversity benefiting society. Some levels of diversity lead to expanded worldview and novelty, which probably results in improved economic growth and financial prospects for everybody. However, with increasing diversity, there seems to come a point where too many distinct homogenous groups at the same place/time get into conflicts and, if this is combined with decreased economic growth so the groups feel there is not enough for everyone, this situation quickly turns into a dog-eat-dog world, factionalism and ultimately some sort of large scale social conflict.

That's all the point, especially since the end of the WWII. Elites have learned that when they go too far, nationalism rise. Importing other populations (usually from lower developped country, where a woman do 3/4 or more children) and promoting abortion (for local woman) is the best way to provoke huge demography change, and creating slaves. Adding to that the study @haidut has posted on the impact of mental slavering state due to higher serotonin, you undersand that all this sheet is very well premeditated. May God give us strengh and patience.

 

[Tarmander]

This was a talking point of some republican podcasts a few months ago. I believe if you look at articles from the NYT on diversity and the timing of the wall street "1%" protests from years back, they line up really well. The whole left has been hoodwinked into ignoring actual issues.

 

[Mr Joe]

This was a talking point of some republican podcasts a few months ago. I believe if you look at articles from the NYT on diversity and the timing of the wall street "1%" protests from years back, they line up really well. The whole left has been hoodwinked into ignoring actual issues.

"ignoring" aha


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G45WthPTo24

 

[PxD]

I also hoped that wasn't the case, but a cursory glance towards the comments is very, very disheartening. There were so many things they could have focused on in this piece, but I believe that's how the majority of their readership will interpret it. I think that was also the intention of the original Business Insider article, and perhaps it was also the intention when the document itself was leaked in the first place. It feels rather like a tactic to distract from their other horrific practices or to deflect blame somewhat. Diversity is, after all, a very hot topic right now.

I think @tankasnowgod also made a good point just now as I was typing this that it could easily be used as a wedge in scenarios where language barriers become an issue. Changing people's shifts so they are unable to work at the same time as people who might be considered agitators, or even from colleagues they are more trusting of is a fairly common union-busting tactic, I believe, so it stands to reason they might also pick workers based on their inability to meaningfully cooperate. Again, the other factors they track are quite worrying too: news that Amazon routinely survey their workers for 'loyalty' seems rather dystopian in itself, and there are still a number of things they don't mention in either article which might be worse.

Again, I agree with all of this, but I think in answer to your point and also to @LucyL's post, that it is possible it is the other way around, it may be a case of them being opportunistic rather than a case of diversity being a bad thing by definition. I also agree that its cynical use as a tool of oppression is widespread by colossal bastard-corporations at this point, but again I don't believe it is the problem itself and it could just as easily be used (and should be used) as a unifying banner against them once people stop being suspicious each other and begin to direct that to those in control.

Thank you all for your responses, by the way! I feel like this has been quite a constructive discussion so far and I really appreciate how measured and reasonable it has been.

Diversity is IMO almost always a bad thing, by definition.

There is plenty of research literature out there showing that ethnic diversity lowers social trust. On the flip side, nothing is gained from it. Diverse countries are no more productive, peaceful or creative than non-diverse ones. There is zero upside and tons of potential downside.

On a more personal level, my parents came from the old, diverse Yugoslavia (six republics, three religions, four languages and two alphabets in one country). We all know how that turned out. There was also a sort of “unity in diversity, we are all Yugoslavs” mantra that was one of the official propaganda narratives for decades, but once the first bullets started flying the whole thing turned into hell in a hand basket in a matter of weeks. The ones who got it the worst were the mixed couples and families, because they couldn’t fit in anywhere. For example, I have an uncle who married a woman from a different ethnic group and they had to flee to another country because her people, who were their neighbors and friends up to that time, threatened to put a bullet in his head unless he cut ties with his people and switched sides.

I grew up in South Africa, another diverse rainbow nation - eleven languages, four racial groups, numerous religions, at least a dozen officially recognized tribes and ethnic groups. The place is a social powder keg but again the official mantra is a “unity in diversity” type thing. The occasional intertribal massacre or call to genocide whites is downplayed and swept under the rug, for example.

I think it’s ruinous and the elites that push these policies are drunk on their own power. I don’t think they know what they’re messing with, or maybe they do but don’t care because they figure they’ll be immune from consequences by virtue of their wealth.

 

[Regina]

I remember Nietzsche said in Beyond Good and Evil that, "you'll never get another Goethe."
I thought of that when listening to this magnificent troupe from 04/2019. Have they been able to practice since?

The whole 2 hrs 44 mins is so worth your time. If not now, when....


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwVW1ttVhuQ

 

[Jon2547]

The elites have been working to prevent unity against them since long before the time of Christ.

It is the reason that Monogyny was made the law of the land a thousand years ago.

And it is the reason why they hate families that are led by the husband/father. They view sovereign families as a threat to them.

It is why sitcoms in the 1970s promoted the notion of divorced women raising families without a man.

 

[Missenger]

I grew up in South Africa, another diverse rainbow nation

Bolshevist africans paid to destroy everything certainly are diverse aren't they.

 

[haidut]

It is the reason that Monogyny was made the law of the land a thousand years ago.

Do you mean that monogyny was established to oppose the elite or that the elite promoted monogyny to oppose unity?

 

[Jon2547]

Do you mean that monogyny was established to oppose the elite or that the elite promoted monogyny to oppose unity?

It was established to favor the elite because large self-sufficient families are dynamically opposed to centralized control.