As we find ourselves peering over the edge of the racial chasm of our nation, many are wondering if we are on the precipice of something grand, or something grave.
By Andrew West | The Constitution
Out on the horizon, we once believed that we could see the faint flicker of racial harmony. It shone in the night as though it were mere miles away and, as we cautiously approached the aura, we discovered that it was only beautiful, but ever so demanding of our utmost respect and reverence.
The power of racial harmony is unimaginable, and unwieldy as such. The idea that we could simply harness that was a bit absurd, perhaps, and certainly lofty – but isn’t that what Americans do best? Beat the odds. Prove them wrong. Show them all.
As we approached the fearsome, flickering face of unity, it’s intense gravity was too much for some to handle. The weak-willed on the left side of American politics wanted so badly to wield power that they usurped this harmonious frequency from the rest of us, turning this great and beautiful light into a roaring, leaping, licking fire. The progressives simply could not allow the world to stand together with this powerful new access to culture, and set out to wholly destroy their enemies by shaming them to death, now that they and they alone understood the beauty of diversity.
What came next was an unforgivable sin of the leftist movement.
We began to hear more and more from the hate mongers of the democratic party. They no longer believed that “all men are created equal”. Instead, they chose a paraphrased sentiment: “All men can be made equal, but only through the work of our political kin”. Opportunities were not to be found, wild on the frontier. Rather, they would be gathered up by leftist politicians and handed out to their constituents one-by-one, evenly divvied up between the hard workers and the homebodies, creating a sense of oppressive sameness in culture, livelihood, and expectation.
The left then began to embrace the H word, blaming “hate” for every single act committed against one another in this nation. No longer was the character of a man’s soul on trial, but, rather, the color of his skin or his ancestors’. By declaring that everyone was capable of hate, the left created a world filled to the brim with that very hate they believed they were eliminating.
Dividing Americans up into the roles of “oppressor” and “oppressed” in a constant and consistent manner certainly does nothing for the American dream that these dunces of the democratic party are purporting to protect.
Of course, the Supreme Court of the United States did, at one point, take a stand against this sort of “reverse racism”, in their decision on the case of UC Davis and their “racial quotas” for admission.
After Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Bakke in 1978, the medical school at the University of California at Davis was no longer allowed to employ a numbered quota system for admitting minority applicants for the program. The school was allowed to continue other practices that were determined to be in accordance with the ideals of affirmative action – something that has remained controversial to this day.
In this new age of politically-charged guilt, the democrats are seemingly pushing for a system in which we are all racist until somehow proven otherwise, and they themselves are installing guidelines and best practices in society that would eliminate the possibility of themselves being accused.
Take Google, for example, who has come under fire several times in recent months over their hiring practices and their insistence on forced diversity in the face of biological reality.
James Damore, a former Google employee, was terminated from the enormous web company after disseminating a memo outlining all that was wrong with Google’s reverse discrimination in hiring. His lambasting of the company was severe, to say the least, and Damore has found himself in a number of highly charged political discussions around the nation after his firing. Becoming somewhat of a hero in his career niche, for standing up to the “authoritarian” system at Google, Damore has become somewhat of an inspiration for those who wish to speak on their own experiences within forced diversity environments.
One of those people looking to make a difference is another former Google employee who says that he was fired for not rejecting enough white candidates while working as a recruiter for the company.
“Recruitment specialist Arne Wilberg, an employee at Google and its YouTube unit for nine years as a contractor and employee, filed a lawsuit in California, according to Bloomberg. The suit reportedly claims that his employment was terminated after he complained to human resources that Google discriminated against white and Asian men in favor of applicants who were Hispanic, African American or female. It’s also alleged that management deleted emails and other records about diversity requirements late last year.
“’We will vigorously defend this lawsuit. We have a clear policy to hire candidates based on their merit, not their identity,’ a Google spokesperson told RT.com, adding that the company is unapologetic about hiring a wide group of qualified candidates as it helps the tech giant ‘build better products.’
“The lawsuit follows a similar action by James Damore, a former Google engineer who rose to prominence after sending an internal memo criticizing Google’s diversity practices and defending the gender gap. Damore was subsequently fired by Google. In a class action lawsuit filed against the tech giant, Damore said he was ‘ostracized, belittled and punished’ for expressing conservative opinions while he was employed by the internet giant.”
Of course, this is likely nothing more than lip service from the internet giant, who is facing a massive backlash online due to the company’s other exclusionary tactics.
Google is well known to be a liberally-biased organization who have used their immense power in the past to stymy American conservatives and to push a false narrative on the left’s implied superiority.
This became all too apparent during the U.S. presidential election of 2016 when Google was found to be censoring autocomplete search results regarding democratic candidate Hillary Clinton’s failing health. It was quite obvious that Clinton was terribly ill, having to be assisted with every set of stairs she encountered, passing out in the middle of an autumn day in New York City, and her incredibly persistent cough.
That cough became the stuff of legend, thanks to the intrepid YouTuber who commemorated the frequent phlegm-y fits with this masterpiece:
Yet, even in the midst of this ridiculously obvious problem, Google was turning a blind eye to the trending of the “Hillary health” searches.
Google’s alleged reverse racism would make for a fine feather in their cap when courting millennials, who increasingly identify as “social justice warriors”, “liberals”, and “trans-something”. By speaking the language of these post-modern twits, the company is setting itself up nicely for a prolonged relevancy in America.
This, of course, as with all things Google, comes down to making money. By including strict diversity formulas in their hiring process, the company has insulated itself from costly lawsuits and expensive settlements, at least for the time being.
The interesting piece of the puzzle will be the reverse racism piece, or, how Google will fare against allegations that their over-the-top inclusivity is itself a subtly disguised form of exclusivity. For every Utopia, remember, there is an equal but opposite amount of dystopia. No one can get “ahead” if no one falls “behind”.