How Did ‘Equity, Diversity and Inclusion’ Become the Mantra of Those Who Want to Exclude Dissenters Without Due Process?

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.