It is a bit of old news from 2017 now. Some of you might have missed it and others of you might have seen it, gave a scoff, rolled your eyes, and mumbled “typical” and moved on, but I believe that this particular event in November of 2017 was of extreme importance and one that should be looked at, magnified, and dissected. I am of course talking about the trials, tribulations, and ultimate firing of Apple’s first VP of Diversity and Inclusion, Denise Young Smith, an African American woman to the surprise of no one, for having the audacity to say that white people, specifically straight white men, can be considered diverse in and of themselves.
The reaction by the Left and progressives to Smith’s argument, while predictable and probably no surprise to the readers here, is incredibly revelatory of the intension and true world view of diversity focused leftists and one that, in my opinion, is a kill shot example of why any leftist that argues that white people are included in the diversity tapestry of the present or future is wrong or lying.
You may have ran into Smith’s line of reasoning yourself when talking to a shitlib friend or acquaintance. I know I certainly have. About six months prior to Denise Young Smith’s situation at Apple, I had a conversation with a shitlib acquaintance of mine where she made the exact argument Smith was going to make half a year later. We were on the topic of diversity and I told her that diversity and diversity initiatives are anti-white, specifically anti-straight white male, and that diversity initiatives seek to either leave out room for whites or outright replace them. My shitlib acquaintance is a kind of leftist apologist herself that, while recognizing the double standards and often even outright anti-whiteness of the Left, does not reject leftism but rather tries to rationalize, make excuses for, and generally defend the Left. She responded that I was wrong and that diversity does include white people and that a collection of whites can be diverse in and of themselves. Her exact example was that one could have a collection of thirty or so whites in a room, both men and women, and if that room represented a broad range of socioeconomic backgrounds – say that each person represented one point on a spectrum of $15,000 or less to $250,000 or more annual income – the collection would be considered diverse because it would represent a diverse range of lived experiences. I could only laugh at this. I told her she was totally wrong about that, that while she may be technically correct, that is never the case in practice, and that she was either being naive or lying to me if she thought that other diversity focused leftists like herself would accept her line of reasoning.
Of course, Denise Young Smith went on to essentially make the exact same argument my shitlib acquaintance did and presented it to a much, much wider audience (first everyone at the One Young World Summit in Bogotá, Colombia and then essentially everyone in the country once she was crucified for saying it). The exact line that was the end of Smith’s career at Apple was when she said “there can be 12 white, blue-eyed, blonde men in a room and they’re going to be diverse too because they’re going to bring a different life experience and life perspective to the conversation.” Absent my shitlib acquaintances’ bit about socioeconomic status, their statements are essentially identical. It probably only added insult to injury for Smith when, after being asked if there was a group she was going to focus on in particular in her job at Apple, such as black women, she said she was going to focus on all people and added “I get a little bit frustrated when diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT [exclusively].” This line is important and I will return to it later. In the aftermath of this statement, Denise Young Smith was forced to apologize to Apple employees in an email in which she renounced her argument as not being in any way representative of what she thought about diversity (read: “Have mercy on me for my Thoughtcrime! I’ll never think thoughts like that again! Forgive me!”), was lambasted in the media for her “controversial” opinion that whites can be diverse, and was ultimately let go at Apple and replaced by white woman Christie Smith (so much for Denise Young Smith’s position on the Progressive Stack protecting her).
All in all, I find Smith’s hasty transition from beloved diversity officer and “Silicon Valley’s most powerful black woman” to pariah and Thoughtcrime felon one of the most important events to make cultural commentary on of 2017. The way leftists and diversity focused progressives reacted and what they ultimately did to Smith implicitly (almost on the verge of explicitly) tells us several things.
Firstly, that if white people, but specifically straight white men as per Smith’s own example, cannot be considered diverse in and of themselves, evident by the backlash to her statement and rejection of her in that position at Apple, then the opposite of straight white men has to be the definition of diversity, namely as Smith herself said “people of color… women, [and] the LGBT.”
Secondly, that if the first point is true (it most certainly is in a pretty much explicit way at this point) and white people are not diverse, and if our country has committed itself to diversity and diversity initiatives (pretty much all sectors of society unfortunately have), then whites are by definition not part of the diversity tapestry, are not going to have a seat at the table in the future because diversity is defined to the exclusion of whites and/or white men, and that going forward whites are by definition the roadblock to diversity and what must be edged out, chipped away at, and eventually replaced wholesale.
Thirdly, diversity and diversity initiatives may in fact be a strength but it is only a strength to, as Smith stated, “people of color… women, [and] the LGBT” and can only be not just a weakness, but in fact a very grave threat to straight white men now and especially in the future as America cranks the diversity initiatives to eleven. Related to this point is another incredibly important revelation out of the DNC slightly before Denise Young Smith’s story took off in which the DNC’s Data Service Manager, Madeleine Leader, sent out an internal email about openings in the tech department of the DNC in which she added at the very end of the email “I personally would prefer that you not forward to cisgender straight white males, as they are already in the majority.” One needs no further evidence to know that emails like this and milieus like the one Madeleine Leader represents are rampant in a plethora of American institutions of business, governance, and higher learning as there is ample evidence in the actions of these institutions already to know that emails like the one Leader sent out are far more common than said institutions let on. White men are lead to no other conclusion than that in the game of diversity, a game that unfortunately all of America’s institutions have committed to, they will always draw the short end of the stick, even when they cease to be in the majority, because of the fact that they are the antithesis of what diversity is defined as. The question white men must then ask themselves is if they are okay with that prospect or not. The answer separates the soyboy leftists from the Alt-Right.
Taking all this together, what I want to impart is that this event goes well beyond just one artificially powerful black woman in Silicon Valley getting canned for Thoughtcrime. This was a dialog the Left, progressives, and diversity-focused liberals had amongst themselves that all of America and the Western world got to watch and the conclusion the Left came to was an emphatic: Diversity IS anti-white. Diversity DOES NOT include white men. This conclusion, not one that the Alt-Right came to but the Left and progressives themselves came to, is the kill shot to any future liberal that tries to convince you that diversity works for whites too. That you too, white man, will be part of this future tapestry of diversity. That diversity has everyone’s interests in mind equally.
One final thought I want to depart on is what I believe to be a large part of the reason why the Alt-Right and similar movements are composed overwhelmingly of white men and will continue to be so for decades to come. It is in the line of Smith’s I said I would return to. That, “diversity or the term diversity is tagged to the people of color, or the women, or the LGBT [exclusively].” I believe that the main reason we do not nor will not for some time see white women – average, everyday white women and in large, meaningful numbers – come to the Alt-Right or White Nationalism is because, fundamentally, they benefit from diversity initiatives as much as any other group in the diversity tapestry or Coalition of the Ascendant. To reject it and come to the Alt-Right/White Nationalism would be foolish from their perspective because they would be throwing away something that works perfectly for them and totally in their favor. This is most likely by design. But I do not believe it will remain so forever. There will almost undoubtedly come a day in the coming decades where the diversity narrative will be cranked up to eleven and even white women will find themselves in the same boat white men are in now: with no room left on the diversity tapestry and no different than white men in the need to be edged out and replaced. When that day comes, I believe that average white women will most likely rapidly and naturally come to an Alt-Right/White Nationalist position, positions that will have grown considerably in strength and size by that point. Until then, however, I hold little to no hope for a meaningful red pilling of white women on a mass and meaningful scale.
-By J.W. Greene