The Great Takeover: D.E.I. and Human Resources
This article is in progress...
n the shadows of corporate America, a new force has emerged, quietly infiltrating the highest levels of power in some of the world's most prominent companies. They carry with them a potent ideological weapon: Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (D.E.I.). As they infiltrate the ranks of Human Resources departments, these individuals set into motion a series of changes that could forever alter the foundations of industry. In this explosive overview, we will delve deep into the origins, objectives, and consequences of this growing phenomenon.
At the heart of this ideological movement are individuals who have become deeply entrenched in Marxist thought. These zealous ideologues have made it their mission to spread their beliefs across the corporate landscape, often under the guise of promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion. Many of them have backgrounds in academia, where they have been exposed to radical professors who indoctrinate their students into becoming an activated revolutionary. Armed with a fixation on equal outcome, they have turned their sights on the business world, with potentially disastrous consequences.
Their entry point into the corporate sphere is often through Human Resources departments. As HR representatives, they wield considerable influence over hiring practices, internal policies, and organizational culture. Once embedded, they begin the process of implementing D.E.I. initiatives, reshaping the company from within. Some of these initiatives include mandatory diversity training, hiring quotas, and restructuring managerial roles in a manner that scrutinize and root out the opposition.
The consequences of these D.E.I. initiatives can be profound, with wide-ranging implications for both individual employees and the companies they work for. At the core of the issue is the incompatibility of equitable outcomes with the meritocratic principles that have long been the foundation of Western societies. As these D.E.I. policies take hold, they erode the importance of individual merit and achievement, favoring instead a system that prioritizes the redistribution of power and resources along predefined social and economic lines.
This ideological shift has unmistakable parallels with socialism and communism, both of which condemn the idea of a free market and instead seek a society where wealth is distributed evenly among the people. The key difference, however, is that D.E.I. proponents target their efforts at the level of individual companies, rather than seeking to impose their views on society as a whole. Nonetheless, the end result is strikingly similar: a weakening of the foundations of industry and a shift towards centralized control.
The infiltration of this ideology raises crucial questions about the future of industry and the values that underpin our society. As we have seen, the spread of these policies can have far-reaching consequences, both for individual companies and for the wider economy. The challenge now is to approach this new landscape with wisdom and discernment, ensuring that we remain steadfast in preserving the principles that have made our society prosperous and resilient, without succumbing to ideologies like D.E.I. that may not align with the core values of industry.
Among the major corporations that have adopted D.E.I. strategies are Google, Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Amazon, IBM, as well as Carnival Cruise Line and its subsidiaries (Princess Cruises, Holland America Line, Seabourn). As these powerful entities embrace D.E.I. initiatives, they set the stage for a wider adoption of these practices throughout the business world. But what are the limits of this infiltration? How far will Human Resources representatives go in pursuit of their ideological goals?
As we continue to examine the infiltration of D.E.I. initiatives into the corporate world, we must question the long-term implications of this trend. What might the future hold for companies that have fully embraced these policies? Will they continue down the path of incorporating radical activism into its policies, or will they recognize the potential dangers and change course?
Among these concerning developments are the increasing reliance on algorithmic decision-making tools that operate under the guise of ‘promoting fairness’ and ‘eliminating biases’. These tools, however, introduce new forms of discrimination by prioritizing applicants based on immutable characteristics such as race or sex. The algorithms are as biased as the data and assumptions they are built on, and they appear to perpetrate the very issues they claim to address.
Another potential consequence of the widespread adoption of D.E.I. initiatives is the chilling effect on open dialogue and dissent within organizations. Employees may feel pressured to conform to the prevailing orthodoxy or risk being labeled as intolerant or even bigoted. This climate of fear can stifle creativity and innovation, as individuals become reluctant to challenge established ideas or propose alternative viewpoints.
Moreover, the focus on equitable outcomes can lead to the neglect of genuine diversity – the diversity of thought, experience, and perspective that truly drives innovation and progress. When companies prioritize equitable outcomes over the cultivation of a rich and skilled talent pool, they risk stifling the very qualities that make organizations thrive.