The DEI Lie

and notes on related topics...

Last night I was watching SNL on TV with my girlfriend, who likes to watch it. We were on NBC Channel 3 from Sacramento. As usual, the show was interrupted many times with ads for - among other things - prescription drugs.

For the first time I realized that the mainstream media - though saying that it supports DEI - was not really practicing it. While the ads featured people of various races and cultures, they were ALL ADS FOR DRUGS. There are many other healing modalities out there, and NONE were being advertised on TV. Only the huge drug companies are rich enough to buy TV ads for their products. All other healing ideas are ignored on the mainstream media.

DEI: Diversity, Equity, Inclusion

There are lots of good points about DEI, while some parts of the vision are not so realistic. DEI is a worldwide, or global, concept. It applies most strikingly on a global scale. But the United States has been a very diverse country for a long time, and many other countries are also, or are becoming more diverse. So the U.S. seems like a perfect place to practice DEI.

It is my understanding that DEI is an offshoot of Critical Theory, which is a Neo-Marxist psycho-political theory of human life. It has been taught in universities for many years. DEI did not appear as a public expression until 2015. The Wikipedia article about it begins its history in the 1800s or earlier. But it was not called that then.

Critical Theory teaches that a “system” exists that practices exclusion that is perpetuated by subconscious attitudes of the ruling elites and their followers. As far as I know, this mechanism of perpetuation has not prticularly been demonstrated. But as laws exist prohibiting these practices, evidence of their continuation is taken as evidence of this perpetuation mechanism.

The upshot of this theory is that these patterns can only be broken by what amounts to violent rebellion. While this sounds kind of stupid and irresponsible to a lot of people, a lot of people support these basic ideas at least to some extent. Not everyone wants violent revolution, yet many wonder how else it could be done.

These ideas were being supported by the corporate world, but perhaps for craven reasons. And they are supported by other groups who may not really be that sincere in their support. This certainly shows up starkly in manistream TV.

Broadcast television has been a blatantly capitalistic enterprise from its beginnings in the 1930s. And yet it came to “support” the DEI messages of neo-Marxist groups like Blcak Lives Matter and the Progressive Left. These groups are fiercely anti-capitalist in their rhetoric - though not necessarily in the personal lives of their leaders.

Diversity

It can be generally agreed that cultural diversity in our institutions makes sense in a culturally diverse world. This makes life more fun and interesting, if nothing else. There can be language problems, but I enjoy “World Music” even when I don’t understand the lyrics.

But we DO NOT find this level of diversity on TV. The ads are full of old Western rock songs. A few other sounds appear, but are rare. The same is true of most popular TV shows.

As mentioned, we see this starkly in the realm of healing. Drugs are offered as the only “workable” healing modality in the world. This is blatantly false. We see some deference to meditation and “midfullness” in some popular shows. But that’s about as far as it goes. There are so many other choices that would exist on TV in a truly diverse world.

Equity

This is generally interpreted today to mean “equal outcomes,” NOT “equal treatment.” These are both difficult concepts, with equal outcomes being the more problematic. Critical Theory insists that the “system” and those who control it ensures that this will never happen. And we can see that this is true to some extent, regardless of the laws against it.

But there is something to be said for unequal outcomes. It is a way to award - encourage - valuable production. Not the only way, but in this material world, not a bad way.

What I can say about Equal Outcomes is that it would simplify the work of a central bureaucracy. DEI presupposes that some sort of bureaucracy will exist to enforce it. Thus, DEI is criticized by opponents of big government and supporters of basic human freedoms in the context of a “free market” system. I have noticed that supporters of Marxist ideas tend to ignore the importance of human freedoms in favor of “efficiency.” Those who value their freedoms are more willing to live in a less efficient world.

Inclusion

The concept of “inclusion” (in politics basically, but also in business and social environments) has evolved considerably over the years. Every advance in inclusion has been opposed, but the reductio ad absurdum of inclusion is to free all the criminals and include them in all our social instutions along with everyone else. This is the Achilles Heal of Marxism and Neo-Marxism.

The earliest barriers to inclusion involved class and literacy levels. These barriers were overcome by compulsory education systems. Next there was race. The biggest problem in the West was the inclusion of people who look like native Africans. This is a deep cultural bias in the white world. There has been a similar problem involving caste in India. This racism is a manufactured problem with very deep origins. It will be difficult to totally erase.

The next barrier was sex. This fell in the U.S. with a long and difficult fight. It still exists in some cultures. Then there were the various sexual minorities, the physically disabled, and the mentally “disabled.” These have been more recent battles. SOme of these issues seem to be pushed by interest groups that would benefit from increased support for the “excluded” class. This has been particularly evident in the issue of sex change therapies.

In the end, should mentally “disabled” people be allowed to vote? Illiterate people? Criminals? Ex-convicts? These are onging debates.

Inclusion / exclusion is a basic social function. It will be difficult to fully overcome, and may not be worth overcoming. Groups want to retain the power to control who is “in” and who is “out.” That’s part of being a group. And I don’t see a way around that. But even I benefit from all the curb cuts made to accomodate wheelchairs. I think that was a good idea.

Inclusion could be used as an argument for illegal immigration. It could be used as an argment for including criminal personalities in our social institutions. And I can’t agree with those arguments. Those above all others make me distrust Marxism and Neo-Marxism.

What We Really Need

I think what we really need is more truth. The reason things are the way they are on Earth is a bit convoluted and very secret. These secrets need to be revealed. Keeping secrets reduces communication and understanding among people. We must have fewer secrets to have better social and political outcomes. It is really very important. Honesty is the basis of responsibility which is key to a good and prosperous life.