Liberalism has always proclaimed great and grand ideas, ideas that it claims will improve, well everything. In the past fifty years or so equality has been one of those ideas. That the more equal everyone is then the better the world will be. In effect they were saying that equality means better.
Since the 1960's more and more laws have been made in more and more places that state that it is a crime not to enforce equality. The powers that be had decided that mere influence was not enough, people could not be trusted to do what they regarded as the right thing. What is most remarkable about these laws was that many people didn't need these laws, they believed and supported the arguments. Equality made things better, there was no downside to them.
Here we encounter a conundrum, if equality makes things better then wouldn't those people who implemented more equitable workplaces be more successful?
Wouldn't that in turn confine those who did not support equality to the dustbin of history?
But instead of allowing what they believed to be inevitable to happen, they instead made it compulsory. But here is something that has mostly been overlooked, while equality became compulsory it was not done all at once. It was spread out over decades and that means that the men who made these decisions were largely immune to the effects of these laws.
How often have you seen someone get up and say "we need more women" or "we need more diversity" in this company, industry or institution and that person is a White man?
My thought has often been, "well if that's the way you feel why haven't you resigned?". But they never did, instead they put in place some type of program that will not affect them, but that will impact massively on the next generation. These programs actively discriminate against White men, which is always denied. They actively discriminate in favour of everyone who is not a White man. But our equal society were discrimination is always described as wrong say that these things are not wrong because they right an historical wrong. The future man must be punished because of the past man and they call this fair and they call it just.
Today that voice is often a women's, but it is the same old tired rhetoric as before, more of them and less of us. But it has recently taken another turn, the screw has been tightened and it is also been speeding up. White men have been resigning and soon you will see White women doing the same. The way must be made for more diversity but that is stripping the veil from many eyes, something that Liberalism has been able to hide for centuries. It has been able to hide it's true aims behind something that smelt much sweeter. The destruction that it has inflicted is coming more and more into focus.
Destroying the future has consequences and they are becoming harder to ignore all the time.
To Help Support My Work
https://www.subscribestar.com/upon-hope
Upon Hope Blog - A Traditionalist Future
Another Article You Might Like?
I've noticed this trend in my work place as well. The punishment of whites fort past wrongs is simply justification for avarice. The Whites in charge enforce diversity as a form of career advancement. Some rent seekers make their entire livings off of diversity initiatives, as consultants, experts, report producers, or in-house HR types. But watch what happens when their own advancement and compensation is threatened by such initiatives. Then they fight like hell to keep their slice of the pie. Of course, their very careers are predicated on giving the store away to non-whites, so robbing from the future is he only option they have.
ReplyDeleteThis is an excellent comment!
Delete