Google Has a Diversity Problem, and So Does the United States

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 the 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:

  1. Reflects the diversity of our world (which the organization has succeeded in spite of)
  2. Is good for business (you wouldn’t say it was bad for business)
  3. 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 brahmins managing 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.

Titus Quintus

August 9, 2017


2 thoughts on “Google Has a Diversity Problem, and So Does the United States

  1. “Diversity is just a polite way of saying affirmative action-based ethnic spoils system.”
    Yep, it’s the con man’s soft racist colonialism, where you wheedle your way in with laws and patter because you can’t come in the old-fashioned colonialist way with guns. It’s an artificial excuse to stay close to your victims in order to exploit them, and without that exploitation “anti-racism” would be largely irrelevant. Like guerrilla warfare it’s just a building/holding operation until the day they can dictate that exploitation from the barrel of a gun.
    “One moves swiftly and imperceptibly from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong.” – Christopher Caldwell


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s