Biden: cuvajte demokreaciju kao zjenicu oka svoga

and his hand je drzala uperen pistolj trudnoj zeni u stomak 

umjesto da slave Sowel-a leftardi od kriminalca prave heroja 
toliko su oni progresivni  
a ovaj im proreko buducnost, iako iskreno receno nije ni tesko predvidit gdje ce lijeve budale zavsit

We’re being lied to, and it’s been costing us a fortune, both economically and socially. For most of the last decade, the industry selling these lies has operated within the ten billion dollars a year range (with a B), selling a product they know doesn’t work, and it’s now growing exponentially. This industry produces no tangible product, makes workplaces less effective and efficient, and reliably leads to toxic and hostile working cultures that can tear companies—and our society—apart, and yet we can’t get enough of it. It’s a particular kind of madness that’s almost impossible to understand, explain, or stop.
What does this industry sell? “Diversity,” “Inclusion,” and “Equity” (DIE) consulting, training, and administration.
These ideas, and the expensive corporate consultancy that will train us in them, are being sold to us with shocking urgency now. This sense of urgency is yet another manipulation of the DIE industry. Again and again, we hear that their work is “essential,” apparently for everything, and essential right now in the wake of a tragic death that is hard to deny was unjust (though it’s surprisingly unclear, given the response, whether race was all that relevant to it). The mood of the era, nonetheless, is that it is essential we take up “Diversity,” “Inclusion,” and “Equity” right now.

Well, we have a right to ask “essential for what purpose?” There must be some purpose these ideas are essential to. What is it? Understanding these terms properly will show us that the answer isn’t what it might seem: overcoming racism and discrimination and making a fairer, more just society. It’s an important question, and as we’ll shortly see, it’s not that hard to answer.
We also have a right to ask “How did this happen?” This is also easy to answer, at least in part. Two aspects of how this industry is so successful are immediately comprehensible. First, it sounds good and so plays on our best instincts, which is genuinely an evil thing to do to people. Advancing oneself and one’s interests through distortion and emotional manipulation is always bad, but there’s something genuinely evil about defrauding people by means of the best parts of their natures: the parts that care, that want to do better, and that are horrified to have possibly hurt someone.

Second, and more to an actionable point, the Theory from which DIE originates manipulates the language we use so that we sign up for what it’s selling while we think we’re buying something else. This is how it achieves most of what it achieves, and it’s so central to how the DIE industry operates that it’s something of a marvel that we haven’t figured out the con well enough yet to apply consumer protection laws against it, just like we did a century ago in countless other damaging and fraudulent industries

Discourse Manipulation

The list of terms that the DIE industry has manipulated into a specialist meaning that is quite different than the meanings it knows people will assume of them is now quite substantial and familiar: “racism” means “systemic racism,” which doesn’t even require a single racist person or intention, “anti-racism” is some kind of cultish commitment to a lifelong process of activism outlined by these very consultants, “hate speech” is that which disagrees with the consultants’ views of how to “help” people it has defined into perpetual “marginalization” and “oppression,” and “privilege” is whatever quasi-spiritual force that makes a white homeless drug addict whose mental illness is driving him to the brink of suicide richer than Oprah Winfrey, Michael Jordan, and Barack Obama all put together. And even here, in the specialist jargon, is a kind of cruel and abusive manipulation: What are you, stupid? Don’t you even know the definition of “racism”?!

Among these manipulations at the very core of these consultancy projects are three seemingly anodyne and now sacrosanct words: “Diversity,” “Inclusion,” and “Equity.” These are what they’re selling to us to a tune of untold billions of dollars a year in return for a society that gets increasingly dysfunctional as a result, and we have a right to know why. We have a right to see how we’re being lied to and manipulated by these three words. We actually do have to understand the terms “Diversity,” “Inclusion,” and “Equity” in their proper “Critical” meanings—because that’s what they’re really selling—to understand what’s going on. All of these represent political agendas, not something helpful, useful, moral, or anything remotely close to what people should think is warm, fuzzy, and worth getting behind. Speaking corporately, it would be better to set our money on fire than to spend it on these programs because they don’t just waste money but will cause increased costs more or less perpetually afterward.

That political agenda comes from a long-standing line of radical thought called “Critical Theory,” though it has been supercharged into something new in the last decade or so. That new way of doing Critical Theory is called “Critical Social Justice,” or sometimes “Wokeness” in slang, and it represents the maturation of what the Critical Theorists have called “the long march through the institutions,” following the communist philosopher Antonio Gramsci in the 1920s.

  Installing DIE in your workplace is facilitating the late—and, if they are successful, final—stage of the “long march,” essentially creating a new form of fascism out of a nominally anti-fascist project spanning much of the last century.


That’s a bit heavy, but we have to know. To understand it, we need to turn to these terms: “Diversity,” “Inclusion,” and “Equity” and the dangerous lie they’re selling to us.

“Diversity”

Because Critical Theories of identity view the person and their (identity) politics as intrinsically intertwined, “Diversity” doesn’t mean what anyone thinks it means. It means “Diversity” as the Critical approaches to “identity studies” in Critical Social Justice (like Critical Race Theory) understand it. It has a very specific meaning in Critical Theory. It means only having more diverse representation of different “lived experiences of oppression.” That is, it means having people with different ethnic backgrounds and the same grievance-oriented approach to thinking about those backgrounds and aggressive and highly sensitive identity-politicking style regarding them. That’s what you’re bringing in when you go for “Diversity”: Identity-driven Critical Theorists, i.e., work-avoidant complainers, troublemakers, and busybodies who will problematize every aspect of your organization until it is compliant with their impossible and often-nonsensical political demands.

We think “diversity” means people with diverse backgrounds, but the Critical Theory twists this definition into a very specific interpretation. Specifically, in Critical Social Justice, “Diversity” means something like “people with ‘diverse’ ethnic origins who all have the same Woke political understanding of the ‘social positions‘ they inhabit and the world in which those have context.” The programs for “Diversity” insist those people, not merely people from different backgrounds, have to be hired to achieve “Diversity.” The Critical system of thought maintains that everyone else lacks the “authentic” (i.e., Critical) view and thus fails to support the right kind of “Diversity.”

How can this be? These Identity Theories operate on the premise that different identity groups have a different essential experience of “systemic power” dynamics and thus different “knowledges” and “lived realities.” When the relevant identity is racial, each race is said to possess certain “racial knowledges” that can only be obtained in one way: by the “lived experience” of oppressed for being that race and learning to interpret those experiences through Critical Race Theory. Only someone who represents those experiences faithfully, meaning as the relevant Identity Theory says they must be, has an “authentic” voice that speaks from that social position. Thus, in the Theory underlying DIE training, only Critical Theorists of multiple “oppressed” identities can possibly count as satisfying “Diversity” because that’s what “Diversity” really refers to.

Now we can answer our question about what this DIE work is “essential” to achieving, then. Taking on DIE is “essential” for fomenting and effecting your organization’s part in the Critical revolution. This will be achieved by finalizing Gramsci’s long march through the institutions and forcing the Critical narrative on everyone so as to establish and perpetuate its nascent hegemony.


 That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts.




 That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts.



 


That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts.





 
That is, DIE is essential to a sociopolitical takeover of liberal society by radical neo-Marxist activsts. 

“Inclusion”

prckov wrote:“Inclusion”

“Inclusion,” when understood Critically, is easily the most sinister of these three ideas

(“Equity” is just kind of stupid and communistic and “Diversity” just has a tricky definition). “Inclusion” is genuinely insidious and twisted because inclusion means “welcoming,” but in DIE even being welcoming gets interpreted through the increasingly familiar Critical lenses of power dynamics and protected classes.

In the DIE program, an “Inclusive” environment is one that cannot create feelings of “exclusion” or “marginalization” for any protected classes or their “authentic” (that is, Theoretically consistent) voices. That is, “Inclusion” means limiting speech to agree with Theory up to and including physically excluding dissenters, disagreement, and even anyone who represents “dominant” identity groups, even by “adjacency” or “complicity.”

Truth needn’t even be relevant for these complaints. For example, the new bid by some realty companies not to refer to the largest bedroom and bathrooms as “master” bedrooms and bathrooms is a kind of “Inclusive” thinking. Even though the term originated in 1926 in a Sears catalog, and thus has nothing to do with slavery, the very idea that some people might associate the term “master” with slavery means the term has to be stricken from real estate. We see this with makeup companies removing “whitening” and “lightening” lines. We see this with college students and even workers demanding black-only spaces or asking for a minimum of white people being around lest the presence of dominant group members make them feel uncomfortable. We see it, at least perhaps, with the now-famous anti-racist scholar Ibram X. Kendi deciding changing his name from Ibram Henry Rogers to Ibram Xolani Kendi.

prckov wrote:

dijagram wrote:

prckov wrote:

Šandor Winnetou wrote:

prckov wrote:

dijagram wrote:Tako kaze na forumu.
U stvari tesko je odluciti cije su biljeznice urednije, njegove, epijeve ili moje uciteljice:)
Sve u bojama, uciteljica crven bijeli plavi, epi zelena, aben dugine boje.
Samo da je napredno i woke.

znaci aben je najnapredniji a nista ne prica, skroman

takvi su najgori, pije svoje vino i zavidi epikuru jer se bolje snašao u državnim službama!! 

pije svoje vino, drugima prodaje razmuceno a zavidi epiju  na vodi 

Oni su jos ok, od dolje je najgori brand,...nema ga pa mogu napisati da ne vidi:)

vjerujem da jest
sigurno kupuje ono jeftino makedonsko vino i ramuti ga sa vodom pa prodaje pod domace

i on zavidi epikuru jer ima neograničen pristup vodi dok to brend plaća i ne može biti konkurentan snalažljivom epiju!!