asabjorn

I've observed orgs go from diverse to turn largely Indian or Chinese based upon who does the hiring, the only group that doesn't seem to do this is Americans of all ethnicities (Chinese american, indian american, white american etc). White americans seem like the ones having the least legal recourse. When these leaders move they pull these buddies into their new companies, and they often form cliques that operate using their groups culture and protect each other over company interests.

If you are high skill enough to do a PhD in anything meaningful, why enter into an open-ended low-paid work contract with a professor with no definite end-date on when the PhD is granted? An american has even less incentive, as the reward of a work permit is not on the other side.

Only reason should be that you want to be a professor, research can be done in private companies without this license. 95% of a PhD is worth as much as 0%.

There are two key aspects here: the nature of work and a critique of woke narratives, which some argue deny recent developments by framing them as a simple desire for acceptance. Specifically, transgender individuals are seen as being elevated through diversity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, with accusations that these efforts sometimes prioritize activism over qualifications and invade female only spaces that are there for a reason.

While I understand the personal challenges you’re navigating regarding identity and humanity, it’s important to maintain boundaries between personal matters and professional life. In Silicon Valley, the focus is on achieving ambitious goals that deliver exceptional results, similar to the performance expected in professional sports. Success depends on everyone concentrating on their work, regardless of personal beliefs or identities. Therefore, keeping personal issues like sexuality and the woke religion separate from the workplace ensures a productive and diverse viewpoint inclusive environment where all qualified individuals can contribute effectively and help companies thrive against odds.

Are you saying that the ones holding up the ESG cartel that incentivize businesses to do communist climate justice are all morons that just happen to have incredibly competent execution? It’s the UN, EU, BlackRock, vanguard, the state department, all the WEF oligarchs etc

ESG which is used to enforce climate justice is a a cartel environment that creates a total top-down, public-private sector controlled by a Stakeholder Soviet that determines the parameters of doing business.

This model was pioneered in China under Deng Xiaoping. The ultimate vision here is that the West, after "Degrowth" (Communism), and the East/South, after the full implementation of PRC/CCP hegemony and the Belt and Road Initiative, will dialectically synthesize into a single global system. Both the CCP and UN think they'll control it.

So both China and western oligarchs behind this are interested in western degrowth through energy & food & job poverty as a tool to destroy individual liberty that holds capitalism up and introduce communist religious rule.

They are also forbidding fossil fuel derived fertilizers and heavy machinery used to produce cheap food.

BRICS is allowed to build coal plants to replace the industry that dies in the west. This Marxist climate justice is like how DEI achieve equity, redistribution of outcomes, to favored activist groups or in this case the communist CCPs rule.

For communists like the greens it’s about destroying the west to put their oligarchic tyranny in place by destroying middle class economic independence, the issue never happened the revolution did.

Let’a assume the hypothesis that they believe that to be true. Why would anyone that believe that shut off nuclear plants that emit zero CO2 in Germany and burn wood as well as gas instead?

You are trying to dismiss my claim by making a moral claim about your opponents instead of formulating an argument for why my claim is wrong or an inquiry.

To your claim there is no evidence. Here are some videos of top executives saying DEI enforce hiring & performance outcomes using Marxist oppressor/oppressed hierarchies:

—- CEO of IBM @ArvindKrishna admits to using coercion to fire people and take away their bonuses unless they discriminate in the hiring process.

“You got to move both forward by a percentage that leads to a plus on your bonus," Krishna said about hiring Hispanics, "and by the way if you lose, you lose part of your bonus.” https://x.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1734374423124176944?s=46

—- Carole Huntsman, Former Senior VP at Sanofi Pharma: “One in five hires NEEDS to be a black employee for us to meet our goals” … “One in ten HAS to be a Latinx employee.” https://x.com/jamesokeefeiii/status/1737986459007590636?s=46

I understand you are trying to use the woke activist tactic of insinuating that it’s racist to oppose woke communist redistribution and indoctrination schemes.

That’s not an argument and not an inquiry. Eg what you could ask is

“What makes you confident DEI is Marxist?”

It institutes DEI commissars (in Russian: a soviet) in every company like Stalin did to redistribute outcomes through equity from Marxist oppressor categories to oppressed categories while aggressively destroying dissent.

Then the right response is, e.g.

“Do you have any evidence that the CHIPS act require DEI?”

Yes, see the relevant sections here: https://x.com/bonchieredstate/status/1766467529151557788?s=4...

“Do you have any evidence that DEI distributes outcomes to favored activist identities?”

A summary: https://youtu.be/n0fpeiFNWMY?si=eiCnRL0LX8RhOlxI

Happy to provide evidence from woke literature if you are interested in evidence of any aspect of how it works. They are pretty straightforward about it, but incredibly wordy.

The Twitter files did not expose child porn acccounts that should have been banned, at least as far as I am aware, it’s the ease with which Elon has banned child porn accounts afterwards that showed how easy this was to do.

Twitter former head of Trust and Safety seems like a queer theorist. Queer theory, in direct opposition to the gay civil rights movement, from the first 1984 essay “Thinking Sex” by Gayle Rubin argued for normalizing “man boy love” as in pedophilia [1].

How queer activism build upon queer theory intersect with antifa activism may be why so much of Twitter antifa was involved in child porn and was banned for it.

[1] https://sites.middlebury.edu/sexandsociety/files/2015/01/Rub...

Those buerocrats weren’t able to construct either on their own, and already ran one space program into the ground. Why do you think they will do better this this time?

Also, what makes you think the buerocrats making up the buericracies are any less emotional when given vast resources? Government is known for wasteful and irrational spending on things such as roads to nowhere

The former Twitter head of trust and safety Elon called pedo in his PhD thesis argued grindr should accommodate underage queer youth on their platform.

Arguably, that’s creepy. Also, he did not act upon child porn on Twitter while as the Twitter files show he was perfectly capable of acting upon legal speech.

> I would even be ok with 50%-100% tax rate above 100 million dollars net worth.

What is the rationale behind you think the bureaucrats with no skin-in-the-game would apply the money better than an entrepreneur and with more balance for society?

> What exactly does posting race and gender data accomplish exactly, specifically?

It enables third parties to calculate ESG scores more easily using data that would otherwise have to be voluntarily relinquished. The S in ESG stands for compliance with the woke social justice agenda. ESG essentially means compliance with the agenda of the powers creating the score, so coal and weapons manufactorers have a high score.

The companies can be financially pressured by pension and index funds that illegally use cartel behavior to push the incredibly unpopular ESG. Expect those pension funds assets to trend towards negative real returns as companies start prioritizing politics over sensible business decisions. E.g. blackrock, vanguard, most state and federal pension funds.

How do you think about DEI and affirmative action systematically discriminating against poor people from poor families with unfavored identities?

The problem is that although there is for instance merit to helping the poor, that is in direct conflict with DIE that will choose Colin Powell’s son over a multi-generation poor white son of a black father any day.

Likewise, affirmative action will choose to give Hillary Clinton’s daughter research funding over an Asian male from a poor railroad worker family.

If one really cared about class or generational injustice, then the poor white male and Asian male in the examples above would have not been systematically discriminated against using DIE&affirmative action

Absolutely. Marxism is an odd cult that slipped past a lot of protections that should have applied to it.

Persons from any faith that worships the state becoming a manifestation of its perfect idol and does the work (praxis) to make it so, should not be allowed any role in it as they would not adhere to the separation of church&state.

It's the ESG framework that force companies to adopt DIE, kill it and you kill DIE. The marxists are using the large pension funds they manage (blackrock, vanguard, state and federal pension funds etc) to force companies to either seek a high ESG score or see these funds money used as leverage to tank their stock. This is actually illegal, as it's both racketeering and corporations&funds are required to seek profit.

Every wondered how oil, coal and weapons companies could have a high ESG score? It's because it's a scam to benefit the cartels controlling the scores.

In practice ESG stands for sustainability of the political regime (Environmental), compliance with marxist values and social justice programs (Social) and compliance with the desired principles of the ruling government (Government). DIE is part of the S and G.

Good points. Also, constitutional constraints apply to public schools and universities so they are not supposed to push a state religion such as marxist theology. It is also illegal to fire someone or discriminate against them for not adopting a faith.

Right now the job is to make more aware that marxism and by proxy wokism doesn't just look like a religion, it is a religion and has a clear theology, so constitutional protections against state religions apply and this should stop the woke abuse of political power for religious aims.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqj-MKG9SnU&t=1s

Likewise constitutional protections apply against enforcement of the marxist faith using DIE.

> You can't just point at "the government is funding this therefore this is the government". The actual influence the government exerts on an entity compared to all the other influences on that entity is a huge factor here.

Public universities and K-12 are actually owned by state governments, and they are subject to FOIA and constitutional constraints like all government institutions. For instance, they are not supposed to push a state religion.

> The influence has to be "large", for some sensible definition of large. That definition should probably compare the influence with other sources of influence somehow.

So are you arguing that meritocratic considerations should be secondary to other considerations decided with political power?

I think I am a bit confused then. We were discussing meritocracy. Are you claiming affirmative action or DEI has no effect on meritocracy? Or that meritocracy in your opinion shouldn't be a consideration?

> That would make for a better argument with some examples, instead of pointing to universities and private institutions etc.

Why do you think public universities and schools are not government? They are under political founding, oversight, funding, and control so that doesn't make sense to me.

>No. But "influence > 0" is not the correct criterion.

What is the correct criterion in your opinion?

DIE is also implemented all over the government, and public schools and universities also apply it. Are you saying you are concerned about this affecting meritocracy, but not in private schools and companies?

Your definition of meritocracy to be related only to those that have political power is not a universal definition. Merriam Webster defines it as "a system, organization, or society in which people are chosen and moved into positions of success, power, and influence on the basis of their demonstrated".

But let's go with just political power. Are you saying that getting a high-status private education, eg. harvard or yale, or a high power private company role has no influence on you wielding political power?

Marxism actually is a theology and by proxy wokeness as well, so it is not surprising you get religious zealots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqj-MKG9SnU&t=1s

Do you think this remains true with DIE and affirmative action being implemented in all major employers, universities and institutions? It is not fashionable to point to the unmeritocratic treatment of Asians and white males, so I guess I will point out the emperors nakedness.

Hiring people of all backgrounds that agree with a forced marxist outcome (diversity), firing people dissenting to Marxist forced outcome or shutting them up (inclusion), and a forced marxist outcome (equity) never lead to meritocracy in other places. Why would it here?

Likewise, affirmative action in hiring and research grants favor a less productive woman or a less competent person with the right identity category. Affirmative action categories are from the 60s when the US had a very different demographic, and whom held high status office jobs looked very different.

> 2. Amongst other measures taken, fertiliser and pesticide imports were reduced. Because of financial necessity, not as some "degrowth is good" initiative.

In your reuters link seem to contradict your claim: "The dramatic fall in yields follows a decision last April by President Gotabaya Rajapaksa to ban all chemical fertilisers in Sri Lanka". It was officially rolled back after protests, but "only a trickle of chemical fertilisers made it to farms" so it sounds like supply lines acted as if they were still in place.

> 1. Government which supported fertilizer imports through direct government spending and via reserve foreign currency holdings was unable to support either end of this policy: it had no capacity for funding imports and had rapidly diminishing foreign currency reserves.

That doesn't seem like a great excuse for banning fertilizer, or an explanation for why after rollback of ban only a "only a trickle" of fertilizer was available. The claims in my source and reuters seems to be that the supply was not there, not that fertilizer prices were high. Do you have any source saying fertilizer was available at much higher cost?

> https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2022/7/15/23218969/sri-la...

Regardless of competency in Sri Lankas governments execution they have been working with WEF on their sustainable farming goals for a while. This agenda seek to ban fertilizer, make us all eat bugs instead of meat and move to organic farming.

Getting a high ESG score due to meeting sustainability goals grants benefits when getting loans, Sri Lankas is 98, so I share your intuition that a huge contributing factor is that they really need those loans due to long term mismanagement.

As I've pointed out elsewhere other WEF sustainable farming aligned governments such as the Dutch have implemented very similar policies and as abruptly, triggering the same kind of large scale protests and dire outcomes: https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/07/ministry-figures-sugge...

I am at this point taking WEF seriously, as real-world negative outcomes does not seem to stop implementation of their catastrophic tyrannical policies.

Do you have any sources supporting your claims?

Let me look for a good source for the inflation reduction bill.

In the meantime here you can see the catastrophic effect of Sri Lankan style ESG policies in the Netherlands, as projected by their finance ministry. Netherlands is the 5th largest food exporter in the world.

https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2022/07/ministry-figures-sugge...

There are data points in reality supporting the outcome of ESG policies such as 1) 1/3 of Sri Lankan farmland lay dormant after fertilizer ban & forced organic farming 2) 85% of farmers have crop issues 3) yield issues causing food shortages.

Since he describes a catastrophic reality caused directly by very real government policies, this can't just be discounted as a fabricated narrative.

De-growth people will cause mass worldwide starvation in the next 6 months, and the policies are implemented in tyrannical ways so these are tyrants and will soon be murderous tyrants.

You’ve already lived through artificial gas shortages since February 2021 after fracking and gas pipelines were shut down, so that’s demonstrably incorrect. Less easy to spot you’ve seen policy of not building new refineries and oil fields.

Likewise you can see degrowth in food supply pushed by governments in Sri Lanka, Netherlands, Belgium and Germany etc. in the US the “inflation reduction bill” spends 20 billion to put farmland out of use and put regulation in place to make the remainder farmers farming harder like in Sri Lanka.

I agree that there are other issues such as huge loans from China ( belt&road is a economic catastrophe where deployed), tourism drop due to covid and a 2019 bombing etc

That said the ESG actions is clearly correlated in the data with 1/3 of farmland laying dormant in 2021, crop losses and yield issues. Many of us won’t forget Sri Lanka was touted by WEF as a ESG poster child before it went south.

This article links to supporting data

https://michaelshellenberger.substack.com/p/green-dogma-behi...