Fighting Fire with Fire - Using DEI against DEI

[Jhonny Jhon]

I saw this Xitter thread from an account named DEI 4 White Guys. Been thinking about it for a while now. He gives a step-by-step guide on how to destroy/permanently change your DEI department.

1. Search your company’s name and the word “diversity.”
2. Scroll through their DEI page and find their employee network groups. They’ll likely have one for Black, Asian, Latino, Indigenous, LGBT, Disabled, Women, Seniors, and Veterans.
3. Find out who your company’s chief diversity or people officer is, and get their email. You can find it in your company’s directory or LinkedIn.
4. Using their own DEI language, email your chief diversity officer from your company email and ask if there is an approved process, standard, or procedure to create an employee network group, and that you’d like to create one for people of European descent or who identify as White.

Spoiler: Example Email

Here’s an example to Derek Bottoms, Home Depot’s Chief Diversity Officer:

Mr. Bottoms,

I recently learned that Home Depot has Associate Resource Groups (ARGs) which promote our culture of inclusion, support diversity, and help drive employee engagement through fostering professional development, raising cultural awareness, celebrating diversity, and offering community outreach opportunities.

As far as heritage ARGs are concerned, I saw that we have an ARG for African American, Hispanic, Native American, and Asian American associates.

I would like to contribute and help increase the diversity of the ARG program, and promote Home Depot’s culture of inclusion by creating an ARG that includes, represents, celebrates, fosters professional development, raises cultural awareness, and offers community outreach opportunities for my heritage: Americans of European descent and/or who identify as White.

Is there an approved process, standard, or procedure for creating a new ARG?

Thank you for your time.

The idea here is that either the company will be forced onto one of three paths.
1. Accept the proposal, start giving more powers and privileges to Whites.
2. Refuse the proposal and risk being sued for discrimination.
3. Do away with DEI in its entirety, to not risk being called racist for giving Whites the same privileges other races have.

So, do you think this could work? Or am I just being retarded/naive? Because it looks like a good strategy to me. If my company had a DEI department, I would try it.

 

[Faceless Whore]

DEI is supposed to combat oppression of the oppressed, and whites are never considered oppressed in the DEI ideology, so it would be dismissed on those grounds.

Logically white people can of course be oppressed, but DEI is not about logic it's about retaliation. Oppressing whitey is the entire point.

 

[ENDTOPII]

There is no point of using your enemies "logic" on them. They know what they are doing. At this point, they take pride in hypocrisy. "DEI = anti-European" and they know this!

Be very careful of using the language of your enemies too, it's designed to make yourself not being able to express your own thoughts.

Leftwing words​	The original hijacked words and the "common sense" definition​	The point of changing or using the leftwing word​
Progressive​	Improvement​	Any idea can be pushed, even if it's a completely destructive idea that will harm someone/something. It makes you accept new ideas with no second thoughts.​
Racism​	Pattern recognition on phenotypes​	Blind acceptance, to shame you into accepting foreign "people" not related to you to live amongst you and you to share resources with them (with nothing in return). Used when pushing multiculturalism (a.k.a pushing niggers and arabs into Europe). It's a word to shame your intelligence when doing a correct statistical decision for yourself.​
Independent​	Self-reliance --> Isolated​	A word used to make you avoid people around you for advice/help/assistance so you are forced to rely on the government or corporate services. Very common word used on women.​
Tolerance​	Bullshit/pain threshold​	Tolerance is a word often used in context of "pain threshold", they use this word since they know that their ideology brings pain and they try to make it a virtue to accept this pain (being a "tolerant person"). It pretty much mean: How much bad of a condition do you accept in your environment to be in?​
Educated​	Knowledgeable / enlightened​	Saying that you got "brainwashed" doesn't sound good, so they hijacked educational sectors/institutions to make the public think that their delusions sound like "facts" and not just "opinions". So now they can always say that anyone who doesn't agree with them are "just uneducated" and that they are "intellectuals" (for some social status bonus points as well).​
Open minded​	Easy to learn and adopt new ways of working​	It pretty much means "easy to convince". That you should ignore your past experience and intuitions just so you can accept their politics.​
Inclusive / inclusiveness​	-​	Accepting strangers with less or no consideration to merits and ignoring the social tension they bring with them. Often resulting in sacrificing optimization and quality in order to get people with an angenda into position of power. Their goal is to get "their own kind" into a position of power of said project/institution so you can't bargaining with it as leverage when they start injecting their ideology everywhere else.​
Birth control / contraceptives​	Pseudo infertility pills / temporary castration utility​	Castration/infertility is a medical disability, using the word "control" makes people think that you, the individual using these things is giving you a "power". (notice how they also use the word "empower" in the context of "feminism")​
Childfree​	Childless​	"-less" is a word to make it sound like it was not your choice, "-free" make it sound like it something you want. Notice how substitute words pop up related to articles writen about being "Childfree". "Puppy" --> "Fur baby", trying to make it sound like a dog (or other animals) are a replacement for a human baby in your life.​
Significant other / partner​	Boyfriend/girlfriend or husband/wife​	Removing information about peoples relationship, it was an early step when making faggot acceptance a thing. Not so used anymore since they destroyed what "marriage" means, so now there can be two husbands etc. ​
Gender​	Sex​	There is a whole rabbit hole you can go down with this word, but the short story is this: Some of the "core words" that pops up when making a language is "yes/no", "mom/dad" and "hungry/thirsty" etc. These words were created across all languages independently from one another, yet they have the exact same meaning due to their meaning being so universal. If you remove "man/woman" from a language, a thing that we can all clearly observe with looks and smell very distinctly, you can make people believe in anything if you know that they can't tell the difference between a man and a woman. Once you start doing mental gymnastics about simple observations in nature, you are as brainwashed as you can get. It's the ultimate litmus test for a leftist.​
[insert word]-phobia​	Rational fear & disgust​	By definition it means “irrational fear”. The word association here to make you ignore your own instincts and to abandon your own values so they can push what ever they want without you fighting back. They try to make you think that the reasonble part in your head is "actually irrational", that you can't trust your own gut and you should accept their existence (and then down the line their ideology and beliefs as well). The most commonly used words are homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and islamophobia, which in all these cases have some really good reasons for you to avoid these groups.​

There are some other minor small language changes, such as "mom/dad" is now only writen as "parents" ("brother/sister" is now "sibling" everywhere) on documents and how they use the word "biggot" to name people who don't conform to this language etc.

Languages should be logically based, built on nature and on universally observable phenomena so it’s as little room as possible for misinterpretation and errors in the communication. As you can see, the leftist language is clearly designed to be more meaningless, vague and avoiding nature at all cost. I know it's a cliché and a meme to say this, but it's the real version of newspeak that George Orwell wrote about in his book "1984".

 

[Dagoth AMOGUS]

Two things, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

The letter of the law, I am paraphrasing, is to reduce discrimination and give advantages to supposedly disadvantaged groups. If you can make the case, then yes you could slice up some legal phony bologna to give yourself the same advantages as everyone else.

The spirit of the law is a lot more different. It’s intended telos is ‘fuck yt’.

One of these supersedes the other. Take a guess.

 

[Dutch Courage]

Your approach is logical, which is why it will fail on the intended target.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The idea here is that either the company will be forced onto one of three paths.
1. Accept the proposal, start giving more powers and privileges to Whites.
2. Refuse the proposal and risk being sued for discrimination.
3. Do away with DEI in its entirety, to not risk being called racist for giving Whites the same privileges other races have.

4. Ignore the email and pretend it doesn't exist.

 

[Squishie PP]

Not going to work. If you want a "fight fire with fire" approach that has proven to be successful, look here: https://cultstate.com/2017/10/13/The-Butterfly-War/

TL;DR: By disguising yourself as somebody from a protected class, you can persuade legitimate members of the protected group you are adopting the identity of to act on your behalf in order to drive internal conflict. The approach is based on Mullerian Mimicry, an evolutionary adaptation where species evolve to imitate the appearance of dangerous organisms in order to deter predators.

 

[Grog]

They would simply refuse the proposal and not get sued by anyone because discriminating against white men is legal in all western countries.

 

[KittyGremlin]

I mean in practice they'll weasel their way out somehow, but it's easy enough to try just to see what happens.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

Oh no, you have completely and utterly owned them with facts and logic, whatever will they do now

 

[Safir]

There is no point of using your enemies "logic" on them.

Not quite. You won't win a culture war (see: "neo-leninists are the real transphobes"), but you can win a personal battle, and it's often enough.

It's nice to be theoretically principled, "the master's tools will never bring down the master's house" and all that, but your first loyalty should be to your family and children. You owe them a better world, but you also owe them a better start in life, and there's no absolutely correct choice.

Suppose you had a choice between openly challenging DEI gibs or getting free houses for each of your children by exploiting a DEI scheme. Or let's say you got divorced and your ex-wife decided to steal and troon out your children -- do you say "psychology is a jewish pedophile racket" (which is true) and fight the muhmentalhealth cult for decades while your children suck RuPaul's bubonic dick, or do you hire a better (griftier, bigger nose) psychologist to claim parental alienation and bankrupt her hard enough for her to go legit insane and lose parental rights?

So, do you think this could work? Or am I just being retarded/naive? Because it looks like a good strategy to me. If my company had a DEI department, I would try it.

It's not. They'll say you committed a microaggression, call a disciplinary hearing, and fire you. Or whatever HR do. A slightly better bet is to smuggle whiteness as a European ethnicity: identify as Hungarians or whatever, have a white social club, enjoy the perks. But if you want to fight DEI head-on, you're going to lose. They can just stack diversity against you up to infinity: equal amounts of whites, blacks, browns, pajeets, sandniggers, chinks, faggots, cripples, crazies, ....

 

[ENDTOPII]

Not quite. You won't win a culture war (see: "neo-leninists are the real transphobes"), but you can win a personal battle, and it's often enough.

It's nice to be theoretically principled, "the master's tools will never bring down the master's house" and all that, but your first loyalty should be to your family and children. You owe them a better world, but you also owe them a better start in life, and there's no absolutely correct choice.

Suppose you had a choice between openly challenging DEI gibs or getting free houses for each of your children by exploiting a DEI scheme. Or let's say you got divorced and your ex-wife decided to steal and troon out your children -- do you say "psychology is a jewish pedophile racket" (which is true) and fight the muhmentalhealth cult for decades while your children suck RuPaul's bubonic dick, or do you hire a better (griftier, bigger nose) psychologist to claim parental alienation and bankrupt her hard enough for her to go legit insane and lose parental rights?

Your perspective is only correct if you decide to keep "playing the frame game", which is something people only do if they still got shit to lose in said system. Make no mistake, you will still lose it all if you keep playing their game.

My perspective is from when you reach a certain point, when you are not playing this game anymore.

 

[Unarmed Gunman]

DEI is supposed to combat oppression of the oppressed, and whites are never considered oppressed in the DEI ideology, so it would be dismissed on those grounds.

Logically white people can of course be oppressed, but DEI is not about logic it's about retaliation. Oppressing whitey is the entire point.

So then take a play from the playbook of the Schrödinger's Whites, and ask for a Jewish group to be formed. And since Jewish is a religion as well as an ethnicity, who can deny your Jewishness? Are they going to ask you to prove your Jewishness and make you wear a little gold star around the office?

Or just don't work for these huge companies since they'll fuck you over somehow no matter what. If your employer has more than 50 people you're probably getting close to the mandatory sensitivity training cutoff.

 

[Otterly]

Or just don't work for these huge companies since they'll fuck you over somehow no matter what.

My workplace would refuse and then you’d be managed out somehow. It’s a large one, and the ERG rot has been set in for a while. The only bearable ERG is the veterans one, which ironically has plenty of diversity, just of sane people. They seem to just go out and do stuff, they’re always having BBQs, fun weekends away, charity drives for others, and raising money for various decent causes, they seem really positive. They also don’t lecture the rest of us. All the identity based ones do is put out passive aggressive emails and tell people off.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

Two things, the letter of the law and the spirit of the law.

The letter of the law, I am paraphrasing, is to reduce discrimination and give advantages to supposedly disadvantaged groups. If you can make the case, then yes you could slice up some legal phony bologna to give yourself the same advantages as everyone else.

The spirit of the law is a lot more different. It’s intended telos is ‘fuck yt’.

One of these supersedes the other. Take a guess.

The letter of the law, because the spirit would first require a known familiarity with the intentions of the legislators who wrote it, which essentially means you have to just imagine how they intended it, which means you're just guessing. The only time this sort of guessing is acceptable is when it's an activist judge making an "interpretation." A real judge will adhere to the language of the text. It boils down to the luck of the draw at this point, when it really shouldn't.

They would simply refuse the proposal and not get sued by anyone because discriminating against white men is legal in all western countries.

No it's not, do you not know what the Civil Rights act is? Where the fuck did you get your law degree, a Cracker Jack box?

It's not. They'll say you committed a microaggression, call a disciplinary hearing, and fire you.

Pointing out discriminatory behavior in the workplace and being fired for it is an implicit confession that's what they do, if anything it would make your case stronger if you did sue them because it would be wrongful termination in furtherance of discriminatory practices. Getting fired for reporting a Civil Rights act violation is a slam dunk case.

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

No it's not, do you not know what the Civil Rights act is? Where the fuck did you get your law degree, a Cracker Jack box?

The law is just words on a piece of paper.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

The law is just words on a piece of paper.

Tell that to a judge.

 

[Jhonny Jhon]

4. Ignore the email and pretend it doesn't exist.

I thought the same.

But what if I keep sending them, and when they don't respond, escalate the situation? Try to schedule meetings about it or something. Personally, I would try to act oblivious, like a kind man who doesn't understand why he can't just create more of these wonderful DEI initiatives for more people. They would have to directly state their refusal to do anything for Whites.

That would make it much easier to sue the shit out of them.

Furthermore, I'm pretty that if they just ignore it and I kept trying to contact them, I could sue them for violating Civil Rights. Try to spin it as them maliciously ignoring my attempts due to their racial hatred. It would probably be a much harder case to win, but it's still possible. Depends on the judge, really.

 

[MarvinTheParanoidAndroid]

I thought the same.

But what if I keep sending them, and when they don't respond, escalate the situation? Try to schedule meetings about it or something. Personally, I would try to act oblivious, like a kind man who doesn't understand why he can't just create more of these wonderful DEI initiatives for more people. They would have to directly state their refusal to do anything for Whites.

That would make it much easier to sue the shit out of them.

Furthermore, I'm pretty that if they just ignore it and I kept trying to contact them, I could sue them for violating Civil Rights. Try to spin it as them maliciously ignoring my attempts due to their racial hatred. It would probably be a much harder case to win, but it's still possible. Depends on the judge, really.

DEI is an illegal practice anyway so if you can prove that they're showing preferential treatment on the basis of race then you are a shoe-in for a lawsuit.

 

[MavisBeaconTeachesSnipin]

carpet bombing corporate america with lawsuits sounds hilarious but if I was gonna do it I wouldn't trust these twitter strangers too much with the specifics. they will start glowing sooner or later.