Why we must throw the DEI/EDI/DIE protocols into the non-recyclable waste disposal unit of history. This acronym stands for nothing more than DOUBLETHINK, EVIL, and IDIOCY.
Here is a short analysis.
DEI = (on the face of it) Diversity, Equity, Inclusion.
What are these things?
They are words. And they are perverted, inverted, twisted words. They are Ministry of Truth constructions. Each word means the opposite of what it is meant to mean.
Let’s take each one in turn.
- Diversity = Perverted Uniformity
- Equity = Perverted Partiality
- Inclusion = Perverted Exclusion
Why is ‘diversity’ actually ‘perverted uniformity’? Because ‘diversity’ does not mean complete diversity. It means a fictional or notional diversity. In fact diversity is a criterion of membership: if one ticks the box of diversity – however it is defined – then one has the state uniform: no longer imperial red but proud rainbow colours with add-ons. Diversity, wholly paradoxically, is a token by which one becomes a member of the system. Twenty years ago, Ian Robinson said that political correctness is the “unofficial solidarity” of the ruling class. Now it is more like an official ideology. If one ticks the boxes of, say, certain opinions about Race, Gender, Climate, Vaccines, European Union, then one can be as censorious, nepotistic, even corrupt, as one likes.
Why is ‘equity’ actually ‘perverted partiality’? Because, as everyone knows, equity ≠ equality of opportunity. It is, officially, equality of outcome between different identity groups (as an aspiration): but it remains an aspiration. In practice, ‘equity’ is an extremely selective package of preferences, in favour of exaggerating the oppression of certain chosen marginalised communities and engaging in certain, usually very limited, interventions to suggest that one’s corporation or university or other institution is so encouraging that a certain very limited number of talented members of minorities rise to their natural place, whereas, in fact, the entire thing is a stitch-up (in that some members of certain minorities are elevated beyond their actual desert) and a fig leaf (in that most other members of the same minorities remain exactly where they are, in ghettos).
Why is ‘inclusion’ actually ‘perverted exclusion’? Because, as Nigel Farage has recently discovered, as soon as Coutts declared itself to be an ‘inclusive institution’ the first thing it did was ‘de-bank’ him. In other words, it was the opposite of what it claimed to be. It was actually an exclusive institution. Inclusion is a token like diversity and is used in exactly the same way. If one can tick a box called ‘inclusion’ (defined arbitrarily) then one can go about the business of being even more exclusive than usual: and, as we see, in a particularly nasty doubleuntruthful groupthinking way, which is all the worse because its exponents are wholly unaware of being hypocrites and closet totalitarians.
All of this is really just the latest version of Antichrist. Jesus condemned all this:
Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the weightier matters of the law, judgment, mercy, and faith: these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
Matthew 23
If we replace MAC (mint anise cummin) with DIE then we have a perfect condemnation of the current Couttsian correctness. Our masters pay the tithe of DEI, and omit weightier matters of law, judgement, mercy and faith.
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Excellent article. Thanks.
If only….
Well it’s the globalists, isn’t it? People like Ivor Cummins have looked extensively at this and went right back in time to trace the origins of what we’re all experiencing now in our societies, with the various agendas being pushed by our puppet leaders and those shady, all-powerful entities behind the scenes. Kissinger’s totalitarian protege, Klaus Schwab, is one of the main orchestrators. Short clip here;
”Perfect short clip explaining all the madness currently being foisted on our world, and exactly who is responsible for it:
https://x.com/FatEmperor/status/1826254623847633405
I recommend watching the full documentary; Stakeholder Communism, when you have time. It really does a thorough job of showing us exactly who our enemies are. **Spoiler** It doesn’t conveniently boil down to one particular gender;
”In 2020, G20 governments, in collusion with the World Economic Forum’s Stakeholders, discretely and undemocratically enacted a global ten-year transition to an authoritarian political system, called Stakeholder Capitalism.
After propagating a Marxist idea that black and trans people are oppressed and indoctrinating us to fear climate change, the Stakeholders are mandating their pre-planned political system, which its criminal mastermind, Klaus Schwab, alleges is better for ‘people and planet’.
Will we push back before A.I. takes our jobs, our wealth shifts to the Stakeholders and we become vulnerable to tyranny?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1m4zZvyCxg&t=1s&ab_channel=YellowForum
He also mentions the Rockefellers, Rothschilds etc.
From the book 180 degrees….”There were clearly financial incentives for Rothschild, Schiff and others on Wall Street to see the Tsarist regime fall into the hands of the Revolutionaries. By offering financial support they could expect lucrative contracts in the future. But arguably the greatest prise, just as it had been with the establishment of the Federal Reserve in 1913, was gaining total control of the monetary system.
“The establishment of a central bank is 90% of communizing a nation”….Vladimir Lenin.
Thanks for the link, Mogwai.
No worries.
Let me know what you think.
The oikophobes want to demonstrate what they believe is their rectitude. They are amazed at what they believe themselves to be.
Patriotism is still to be lauded when it is Ukrainian. In the UK, the media describes the activities of Russian military aircraft flying near the country as if it were the Battle of Britain. Some residue of pride in national achievements is resurrected in a carefully managed way when convenient.
Perhaps it was inevitable that self-criticism should become pathological in a society that has abandoned the Christian idea of forgiveness.
Scruton observed that the USSR lasted long enough for its political software to ossify into hardware. Its educated elites were never oikophobes. But eventually everyone else became tired of the pretentions that it was a Utopia.
Is there some sense in the meaningless concatenation of phrases and metaphors that Starmer delivers without passion in the language of his speeches that some ossification or, even more revealingly, some lignification has set in among the UK’s elites?
I’m not that bright so I might have missed the point of it but the conclusion of Plato’s examination of the ideal society seemed to be that people like him should be in charge. Plus ca change!
I’ve always relished the irony of Michel Foucault’s analysis of the hidden power structures in Western society and the marked contrast to the open power he exercised over the children he so enthusiastically sexually assaulted on his frequent ‘holidays’ to North Africa. For some reason, this pervert’s disgusting behaviour is never questioned or criticised by his idiot followers in Western academia.
Their thinking is “well, yeah, he was a peado but he was one of us, a good guy, a nice progressive academic, like us”.
Just like Stalin. Yeah, sure, they were some excessive measures, but he was a nice progressive guy.
The woke elite and their ideological forefathers suffer from self-loathing and they project this self-loathing onto the masses and Western society in general.
The underlying reason for their self loathing is that at the spiritual world they serve evil forces. They may not be conscious of this but at the subconscious level this keeps troubling them. Ultimately, in the Biblical sense, you might say they are possessed by demons that project certain images into their heads which they then mistake for reality.
Despite our modern “enlightened” age, we are still exposed to the spiritual world; woke is not that different from worshiping the bad old gods of the Old Testament like Baal and Moloch.
I think that’s simply the so-called West tearing itself apart because of the many contradictions it’s built on. Eg, catastrophes of the 20th century of course get the Holocaust as mandatory mention. But the mountains of skulls Communist adherents of Pol Pot created in Cambodia never are. You won’t hear to the Tianamen massacre, the Boznian genocide, the genocide in Rwanda or Stalin’s murderous persecutions of people living in Soviet Russia he happened to distrust, say, the Wolga Germans, the Kossacks, the Krim Tartars, Ukrainiains etc.
But that’s only level 1 because while this stuff is rarely explicitly mentioned and probably never without an “But Hitler and the Holocaust!” reference being thrown in for good measure because politically motiviated mass murder is simply not like politically motivated muss murder. When it’s said that the German did it, this makes it a category of its own above anything else and regardless of the actual body count.
The millions of people we’d nowadays called civilians who starved to death because of the (technically illegal) English trade blockade during world war one never figure. It’s conjectured that these were 700,000 in Germany alone from the cessation of hostilities in November 1918 to the signing of the Versailles diktat, the blockade being kept in place to ‘motivate’ the Germans to actually sign it.
The moral highground you like claiming isn’t really yours and the so-called “left intellectuals” happen to know this as good as anybody else who has at least a passing knowledge of history of the 20th century. They obviously also don’t mind millions of Germans dying of starvation or being driven from the their ancestral homes as part of Stalinist pogroms. But they know that there are plently of other skeletons in the nicely polished closet.
Some honesty is urgently called-for on this area, say, admitting that history doesn’t tell us anything about bad guys being conquered by good guys but only of more powerful people prevailing over less powerful ones. People living in 1914 would have regarded this as self-evidently true and their consciences wouldn’t have troubled them about being in the first and not in the second group.
‘Dr. Benedict Beckeld observes that the elites of Ancient Athens and Rome became openly contemptuous of their own civilisations during the latter stages of their respective declines. In both societies, it was a phenomenon of the elites and the intellectual class. It was not shared by the people at large,’
Er, I wonder about this as an interpretation of the Antique decline and fall.
Classical civilization was raised on the sweat of slaves. When the tyrannical bureaucratic rule of Rome was threatened by Barbarians, the response of the Roman state was to increase its centralization of power and redouble police cruelty. Many civilized Romans preferred to live in barbarian controlled regions because there humanity and tolerance existed.
Intolerance worsened when Christianity became the official state religion of Rome in the 4th Century. The privilege the early Christians won for themselves they forbade to others. All religions but Christianity were banned. Burning alive was the standard punishment for refusing any submission to Christian domination. The aspects of security, lenity and tolerance that had been the benefits of life within the Roman empire disappeared. In becoming totalitarian and tyrannical the empire lost both its appeal and its purpose.
Many people who were not strictly speaking slaves were yet not allowed to leave the area of their birth or to change occupation. And these restrictions were passed to their descendants. How was their condition much different from that of slaves?
Roman society was partitioned into Honestiores and Humiliiores, serfs and lords. Here is where the modern parallels are really found. The Antique urban middle class disappeared. Recently we have seen a major persecution of our modern urban middle classes by modern Honestiores, resulting in a $40 trillion wealth transfer.
That the Roman empire was enveloped, toppled and destroyed by invading barbarians is true only in a highly qualified sense. Barbarians had been within the empire for centuries. They supplied most of the Roman army. The invading barbarians had only a fraction of the numbers of the standing Roman forces. Yet everywhere as they advanced the barbarians found people who welcomed them, cheered them on and swelled their numbers.
Many people who were not strictly speaking slaves were yet not allowed to leave the area of their birth or to change occupation. And these restrictions were passed to their descendants. How was their condition much different from that of slaves?
The change to an absolutist state and hereditary occupation for all of its subjects was enacted by the emperor Diocletian (reigned from 284 – 305). Christianity didn’t become state religion until 380.
Who is pulling the Left’s strings?
The Left seem to avoid protesting about today’s problems and national issues like homeless veterans and the 80,000 homeless young people and the housing crisis and crime and the steady collapse of law and order and corruption in government and the civil service and at all levels in governmental agencies and institutions and the indoctrination of schoolchildren or the decline of the UK tacitly acquiesced to by the Uni-party with none campaigning to reverse it.
They instead campaign to make problems like homelessness and the housing crisis worse by campaigning for ‘migrants welcome’ whilst ignoring the plight of their own indigenous peoples.
They instead want to impoverish the already impoverished by demanding reparations for the acts of long dead people who are unrelated to today’s living in more ways than one.
They are determined to destabilise established UK communities and attack established values.
They have no concern for the stupidity of the rush to ‘Net Zero’ nor question the supposed ‘scientific consensus’ which all academics must subscribe to if they don’t want to be cancelled.
They take sides in the impossible political wars like in Israel/Gaza/Palestine calling for racist genocide of Israel and Jewish people failing to recognise fault and true grievances on both sides.
One thing is certain – the Left are easily led down these paths and seem unable to think for themselves.
Very good. I hadn’t heard the term ‘oikophobia’ before, but will now be putting it to good use.
I thought it was an irrational fear of oiks like islamophobia.
However fear of Islam history has taught us is not irrational – at least for some versions of it.
Apologies to those muslims no one needs fear. The problem is it is impossible to tell which ones are OK.
Or at least not be looking that is.
How I miss Roger Scruton. A life gone too soon. (I had sent James Brokenshire an angry message about his sacking of RS back in 2019). RS had the decency and common courtesy to reply to one of my emails to him concerning his sacking. Me! A mere mortal! A decent man and a great mind.
Something that puzzles me about Foucault (whom I have never read but have always heard of as someone who advances the cause of left-wing ‘deconstruction’ and wokeism) is that David McGrogan regularly cites him (see today’s News from Uncibal for example) as someone who doesn’t so much advance that cause as retard it by explaining it. Perhaps Mr Gibson and Professor McGrogan ought to find a forum for debating the question.
I heard Foucault’s pendulum is a bit of a swinger.