Google has a Diversity Problem, & So Does the United StatesTitus Quintus
The widely-circulated, vaguely reactionary memo that got a Google employee fired for violating the firm’s ‘code of conduct’ by criticizing Diversity is only the tip of the iceberg. Throughout corporate America and especially Google, we find the perverse influence of a race- and sex-based marxism, one that tolerates its long-fought enemy of capitalism in exchange for increasing the wealth and status of some preferred classes relative to others. A peculiar sort of pragmatism has prevailed on the left, which now seeks to diversify “the oppressor” rather than simply dismantling him and scattering his assets.
Google does have a Diversity problem. There are costs involved in filling the organization with ideological commissars whose job it is to preach about achieving racial and sexual equality instead of adding value. (I am not sure why Google needs a ‘VP of Diversity, Integrity & Governance‘ other than for ensuring political correctness). Those costs are worth it, however, for the sake of Diversity and providing income and status to preferred classes. The cause célèbre of the liberal cosmopolitan is boards of directors and officer lists with more blacks, Hispanics, and women, and fewer white males. The people who made such organizations possible need to be thinned out, but their businesses can stay so long as they are diversified. In fact, such evil oppressive corporations can be reformed into ‘socially conscious’ enterprises if we just replace the white males with women and minorities. (I think people call this late capitalism). Also, there are literally no performance differences between these groups, which is why changing out the white males is better for the company’s performance, because there are literally no differences between men and women or between races, and as a result companies with more women and minorities perform better.
Diversity is a challenge for Google as much as it is for the United States as a whole, one which perpetually runs contrary to reality. As of writing, Google’s demographics on their “Diversity” page indicate the firm is 69% male and 56% white. The next largest racial group is Asian at 38%. For demographics specific to its “tech” divisions, 80% of employees are male and 53% are white, again followed by Asians at 39%. Turning to “non-tech” divisions we find out where most of the women are, as a much lower 52% of staff are men (still a majority). Of these employees, 61% are white while Asians retain second place at a reduced 23%. In the “Leadership” section, men are 75%, whites 68%, and Asians 27%. In every area of the firm provided, whites outnumber all racial or ethnic groups combined, and Asians in turn outnumber all groups less whites combined. Men always outnumber women.
The tech vs non-tech numbers more than explain the dissident software engineer’s views on Diversity, to say nothing of Google’s overall numbers. Google is not a “diverse” company and its attempts to promote Diversity are senseless. It’s already substantially Asian (non-European), and women are more interested in becoming special education teachers than computer programmers. It’s a predominantly white organization in a predominantly white country. It’s a predominantly male organization in a predominantly male industry.
Google’s own data shows that white males are critical to the firm, so trying to reduce the share of white males in the workforce must be entirely ideological. As a policy, Diversity is self-destructive, like a parasite slowly killing its host. It is an ideology and a moral paradigm rather than a natural interest of the firm. It is not the only ideology or the only moral paradigm, nor is it a universal good, contrary to what its zealots insist. Because its subject is non-Europeans and women, it doesn’t particularly care about questions regarding the success of Google and how its composition matters to that. Rather, it views them as obstacles to implementing Diversity.
It also ignores Asians and Jews as counting towards Diversity. Asians’ economic success as immigrants and minorities humiliates the proponents of Diversity, and makes their arguments, such that they exist, look poorly thought out. Asians have the highest median income in the United States according to the Census Bureau. So much for being oppressed. Jews are more complicated for Diversity. One option is to count them as “white” and target them for replacement the same as WASPs and white ethnics. Another route is to count them as separate, but then their gross over-representation in business would be made an issue of rather than tolerated, which is a perennial fear. However, since Jews are morally permitted to collectively resist any displacement (in Western countries), both of these ways of reconciling Jews and Diversity ideology they frequently support are non-starters. If anyone campaigned to de-judaize an American company in the name of Diversity, he would get un-personed. For now, neither Jews nor Asians are targets for replacement, only men of European background. (That’s not to say they won’t be next).
No one blatantly claims Google would be a better company if it were staffed 100% black or Hispanic women (maximum Diversity). At the same time, Google enforces policies that would bring it closer to those levels (promoting Diversity). This raises an interesting question—why stop short of replacing all Europeans and Asians and Jews? Could it be that a certain amount of non-Diversity must be maintained for the firm to be profitably operational, and that promoting Diversity is just a way of finding that absolutely minimal level of functionality while appeasing certain political sensibilities? I believe that may be giving the priests of Diversity too much agency. They are not thinking that far ahead. They are just pursuing tribal interests against an organization dominated by people who have something they want and feel emboldened to take: high-status, high-salary job opportunities.
For Diversity ideologues, much like their (materialist) marxist forebears, a business enterprise or an industrial organization is somewhere elite or powerful people get the money they use to oppress other classes. Saint-President Barack Obama once said, “You didn’t build that,” to business owners regarding their businesses. This view is much like a cargo cult; it doesn’t actually understand how or why things work the way they do, only that the end product is a reward for the people involved. And so the solution is to get involved, to try to funnel women and non-Europeans into these institutions so they too can be part of the ritual that confers money and status. That these institutions have that money and status to dole out is just treated as a law of nature, not something created by specific conditions (such as quality of personnel, levels of competence, and unity of purpose) but innate.
When not demanding Diversity jobs be created for the purpose of creating more Diversity inside companies, proponents of the Diversity ideology sometimes like to wax lyrical and share their boilerplate insights about how important it is to have fewer white males without saying so. That is to say, diversity makes us better as an organization because it:
- Reflects the diversity of our world (which the organization has succeeded in spite of)
- Is good for business (you wouldn’t say it was bad for business)
- Promotes social justice (as opposed to what, social persecution?)
Diversity is good because it is. But what is it?
What is popularly touted as “multiculturalism” or Diversity by the liberal brahminsmanaging the West and sabotaging its businesses amounts to little more than a cheap, colorful, and purportedly ethical veneer for their politics. Their tautological line of thinking is maddening for anyone with an IQ above room temperature and nothing to gain from the new spoils system. Diversity is best achieved by dissolving the nation-state and replacing it with a perfectly fractured, kaleidoscopic “people” who represent all the world packed into a single house. In the private sector, this is achieved through breaking apart white-majority or male-majority organizations and businesses to make them more culturally sensitive, because it’s the right thing to do. It is “a good thing” when communities have no boundaries just as it is “a good thing” when markets have none either, or when a workforce is made up of multiple ethnic blocs. (If there has ever been a more stark example of an employer sowing class divisions than bringing H1B1 workers and diversity hires to break up a white workforce, I would like to see it).
But there is a tension here. The managerials couldn’t possibly want a society of squabbling identity groups and loyalties. That would merely be a microcosmic re-creation of the world-level society of squabbling nationalities. Having multiple cultures and tribal affiliations actually produces more barriers, especially if there are linguistic and religious differences. Just because they exist, it does not follow that they should be brought into political union with one another or be multiplied into ever more groups. Yet the Diversity ideology purports to sell this as the shattering of barriers and as a source of profit.
In the best-case scenario (from the perspective of its architects), Diversity destroys one sort of homogeneity for another. It does not genuinely create a society of multiple cultures but a semi-flexible monoculture practiced by people of different ancestries with only superficial differences. This is the imperial melting-pot, which supplants the dominant ethnos over time to create a civic, catholic identity into which outgroups can be naturalized. In the business world, it’s the “corporate culture” of “our values,” which include things like “integrity,” “excellence,” and of course, “Diversity. The entire line of argumentation is dishonest, because the end result is a new orthodoxy, e.g. Google’s current 1984-style management.
In the worst-case scenario, Diversity destroys a cohesive monoculture (usually one with an ethnic, linguistic, or religious reference) and replaces it with cultures which are antagonistic towards both the initial culture and their fellow competing successors. This is balkanization, which tears at whatever bonds held diversity in place inside one system. In a sense, these could be taken as the range of expressing multiculturalism as an Aristotelian virtue. Think La Raza Cosmica versus Bosnia, with mocha-colored monoglots being the virtuous outcome and sectarianism the vice. In the business world, this amounts to women and minorities competing for the most sinecures at the trough of HR job openings, which they will then use to hire more women and minorities, leading to either an exodus or revolt of the legacy workforce.
What is presented as multiculturalism in Western countries amounts to a bazaar of colorful crap and outfits, music, and of course, the sacrosanct phenomenon of ethnic food. These are easy to process and even easier to consume, merely serving as symbols of the presence of multiple cultures, not their integration or the authentic practice of them. Buying and selling the trinkets of the world which are being hawked by those analogous to gypsies from each country is not actually a source of moral supremacy. Or rather, it is only a source of moral supremacy for someone whose virtues are conspicuous consumption and appearing cosmopolitan. So from the perspective of the cultural marxist left, this is a wonderful success at implementing Diversity, as it brings all the tribes together at the bazaar. They need only become domesticated to the particular needs of the system and not defy its terms of service.
This domestication of Diversity is extremely true in the business space, where there is a vaguely defined but telegraphed well-enough code of conduct demanding that everyone agree with the political agenda of the company or be fired. Actual diversity of opinions and behaviors is intolerable, because Diversity is just a polite way of saying affirmative action-based ethnic spoils system. Our dissident software engineer only had to be silent to keep his job at Google. Google required he agree with the prevailing status quo on affirmative action and “gender equality,” something very easy to do given the disincentives to do otherwise.
This Potemkin village of Diversity propped up by educational institutions, media, and corporations is ultimately a farce. Restaurants, pop music, and fashion are not the essence of an ethnos, nor are they something all or even most of its people are engaged in. Western societies, however, are willing to cede swathes of land and untold square footage of housing stock to foreigners so that they can access the World’s Fair every day. They write off the negative externalities as “part of life.” They accept being shuttered out of employment opportunities in the name of Diversity because to take one’s own side as a European or Eurocolonial is something only un-persons do.
The moral high achieved by liberal cosmopolitans from expanding the marketplace or diversifying the board of directors is passed off as racial integration and social justice. In actuality, this process just solidifies a system they claim to oppose by strengthening the leveling and homogenizing force of the market-above-mankind, not of people-over-profits. Female and non-European HR and Diversity VPs are a stress-release valve.
As its subject, the Fifth Political Theory (5PT) believes in the necessity of a genuine tribe for the Western diaspora in order to pursue its interests globally and locally. Forms of marxism have been wielded against us for the last hundred years, and today’s Diversity ideology is no different. Had we a robust tribal praxis of our own capable of defending Europeans and Eurocolonials economically, morally, and culturally, we would not have to worry about violating the codes of conduct of multinational corporations which engage in anti-white office politics and hiring decisions. Who will build our white zaibatsu? How will we provide a future for ourselves? That is the real challenge of the 21st century.
The State of the Nation for White Advocates
The Roald Dahl Controversy
A Fake & Ghey Murder
Counter-Currents Radio Podcast No. 522 Current Things Ask Me Anything with Greg Johnson, Gaddius Maximus, & Pox Populi
Silicon Valley’s Anti-White Racial Dysgenics Program
The Populist Moment, Chapter 11, Part 4: “Multitudes” Against the People
Universities & the Smell of Dead Fish
Dave Chappelle: Non-White Ally of the Year
What we’ve learned about Google (and society at large) from the entire miserable episode reflects the quintessence of half-baked Left-wing* silliness. The Goodwhites who jumped on the pile-up think that they’ll be immune to replacement, but when the Coalition of the Colored has amassed sufficient strength, it won’t be searching for White females, homosexuals, wimpy males, etc. upon whom to bequeath equal opportunity and consideration. White females are next on the chopping block.
The question one might ask is: which is more odious? The unpardonable ignorance of said Goodwhites as to what the future holds in store, or the carefree way in which they expect their or their race’s progeny to suffer because… well, this is the New White Man’s Burden?
*When I write “Left-wing”, I refer to the White Left. Non-Whites don’t (generally) operate in the same Right/Left paradigm, as they’re more driven by self-serving tribal pursuits.
Attack the contradictions:
Google claims to be about “diversity?” Fine, then it ought to welcome a diversity of opinion when it comes to inherent differences among the races and between the sexes.
Google claims to be about “inclusiveness?” Then it should include all points of view, not just the party line. (Just as every university which has a black studies program ought to, in the interests of inclusiveness, a White studies program.)
Google claims to be about “multiculturalism?” Then it should have no problem welcoming partisans of Confederate culture. If it can’t have Confederates because of slavery, then it shouldn’t have Muslims, Indians, Africans, Brazilians, marxists, and etc., because they all practices slavery (or in the 20th century, the gulag).
This gets back to the need for an apparatus. Nationalists need a legal defense organization to sue companies like Google for wrongful termination. How about organizing a union of IT workers to stand up for the rights of fellows like this?
There is a civil rights issue, since Google is discriminating on the basis of race and sex. I see the Trump administration is going to be launching a campaign against AA; Google can be the first company to be targeted.
Might also be time to mobilize an Internet troll army to swarm attack Google in support of fellows like this. Some things which could be done:
* Boycott Google
* Create counter-memes to the anti-White Google squiggles
* Set up websites which show the evidence for race realist and gender realist positions
* The “I am Spartacus” tactic…have thousands of Google employees send memos challenging the commissars. They can’t fire everyone.
Long run…nationalists are going to have to set up their own Internet companies. Let Google and its comrades wallow in a sea of incompetent diversity hires.
Implied in the article is that these weaponized entities use the largest market capitalizations in history to shield themselves from the market – the impact of their policies is negligible given their scale. This same scale is used to drive out mom-and-pop types – the legacy enforcer of social norms, along with the church. (These are arguments that can be used to sway business-minded right-types.)
A different article could look at American business enterprise as a whole, and it’s role in “our” problems. (It’s not just diversity departments – 70,000 US production facilities have been shuttered since Clinton. “Powerful enemies must be out-fought and out-produced,” as FDR rightly noted, and the production capacity of “right” America has been decimated purposefully.)
The continuation of western civilization demands a meritocratic aristocracy that can fund space colonization by and for the talented ten percent. This is how civilization evolved in Europe and it’s colonies. But this time it will be impossible for low IQ hordes to migrate off planet and enrich us with diversity. What does this have to do with Google and our diversity problem? (((Google))) is willing to sacrifice itself to promote the horde because it has faith in the tribes ability to coopt the next empire. They play the long term game. We don’t. Perhaps the exigencies of solar system(s) colonization over the next few thousand years will buy us enough time to prosper eugenically and solve both the IQ and JQ problems.
(Titus) thank you for this work, however, I think it omits a paradoxical element.
One may have the impression from this work that Diversity is all Ideology; including & by extension, at least: (1) the product of majority white guilt from (relatively contemporary) infantile reactions & coming to terms with evolution & its discriminations; as manifested most efficiently, or popularly and “horrifically” in the 30s/40s’ Western Europe. (…And yet, when evolution becomes immoral, what is left in its place?) (2) The aggressive, and very evolutionary, counter-struggles of non-European (“subaltern”) minorities living within white majorities, yet who are not them/us, and neither group necessarily choosing to become the other (in the immediate); in part to preserve their own uniqueness (true diversity), and in part as a product of evolution itself (the creation of “supremacies”/ visual sensory-white supremacy / or performance-IQ supremacy, etc.), and thus creating a context for group conflict & ultimately the conflict of collective self-interests.
Yet, the roots of contemporary multiculturalism & Diversity are not merely Leftist Ideology and minorities’ self-serving interests vis-a-vis their host/majority.
Rather, like the potential dichotomy between human empathy (which can be race-neutral & even species-neutral), and race (esp. biology/time), the desire for uniformity and variety, are two sides of the same (homo sapiens) coin.
I think it is not inaccurate to generalize that humans, broadly, desire both uniformity and variety; (although mediated in degree by prevailing culture & forces).
The problem, thus, is at least a tension between scales: uniformity necessitating population-level & long-term consideration, variety deriving within individuals’ particular, embodied self-desires, preferences, passions, & interests. It is likely even a problem with being intelligent animals. “Diversity is INTERESTING”, homogeneity is “Boring” (!) ; is not an infrequent argument heard by proponents of Diversity, …and even of self-reflective critics within wholly & actually homogeneous societies, as well.
Thus, I think it is defensible to state that humans, broadly, derive pleasure (utility) from variety despite Ideology; (of course).
This is so blasé in the business world that “differentiation” need not be repeated within this narrow frame. However, variety goes beyond product-choice.
As mentioned, for those who have experiences in truly ethno-racially homogeneous countries/(military-backed, defined racial-spaces), homogeneity is defining; “there is really only one way to live here”.
The point is this, even if one were to snap their fingers, turn America (& the Occident) back into homogeneous spaces, like most of the less developed world (e.g.), the desire for difference would still be there; in Us-All, it is innate.
The question, I think, thus becomes, how are paradoxes best managed?… In the realm/beliefs of representative democracies, the prevailing assumption may likely be that humans are such an enigma, that only universal suffrage can best maximize societal wellbeing and desires. And, thus, we live through great volatility to arrive at an average, that might be achievable more directly under a more intelligent social organization…
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.