The DEI Republicans
That's Rep. Patrick McHenry, who is now chief of the House Committee overseeing banks. Now that his side is in power in the House, he apparently sees his role not as fighting wokeness in the industries he helps regulate, but in institutionalizing it. You might be one of those people who wonders, "How come when we vote Republican, things don't seem to change?" I know I am. Here's another one for the files:
Democrats may have lost control of the House of Representatives, but it appears Republicans are embracing their legacy of so-called diversity and inclusion.
Republican congressman Patrick McHenry (N.C.), now the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, announced earlier this month that there would be six subcommittees—and all of them will count advancing "diversity and inclusion" as one of their top priorities, according to the committee's announcement.
The Subcommittee on Capital Markets, led by Republican Ann Wagner of Missouri, for example, will identify "best practices and policies that continue to strengthen diversity and inclusion in the capital markets industry." And the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, led by Republican Bill Huizenga of Michigan, is tasked with making sure there is "agency and programmatic commitment to diversity and inclusion policies." No other specific oversight focuses were listed.
Diversity and inclusion, two members of the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion triumvirate now commonly referred to as DEI, have become an obsession for Democrats and left-wing activists in recent years. Republicans won a narrow majority in the midterm elections at least in part due to promises that they would end the Democrats' DEI craze. It was a common barb from the Republican National Committee, for example, that "Democrats prioritize wokeness over solving real problems."
Subscribe Today
Get daily emails in your inbox
I don't get it. Honestly, I do not. What do Republicans believe? Are they so afraid of being called bigots by the media that they allow programs built on left-wing bigotries -- bigotries that harm those most likely to vote Republican! -- that they won't even defend people who vote for them and principles that they purport to stand for?
Could it be that they will always, always defer to the cultural preoccupations of their class? And could it be that conservatives end up having to vote for these creeps anyway because it will be worse with the Democrats?
You get normie Republican types lamenting the loss of trust in institutions, and not being able to figure out where that comes from. Well, look around! Things like this teach conservative voters that in the end, even the people they vote for will carry out the agenda of Woke Capitalism. I tell you, if Ron DeSantis will demonstrate with deeds that he will stop this crap, and that he won't be intimidated by Big Business or fear of the media, he can ride that all the way to the White House. And if and when he gets there, may he call GOP lawmakers to Camp David one weekend, and insert spines in the blank spaces filled now by grape jelly.
Of course the objection could be made that these fools believe it, DEI, that is. But just look at the idiot pictured. Do you think he believes in anything, besides free health care for life once he was elected?
Do you really think this fool's CONSTITUENTS want this, even though they'll keep pulling the lever? Of course not, but Brian Moynihan (with a J.D. from Notre Dame) does.
https://newsroom.bankofamerica.com/content/newsroom/executive-bios/brian-moynihan.html
"If I were asked who produced or precipitated the Great War (in the instant sense that he prevented it being prevented), I should give an answer that would surprise nearly all sections of opinion, and almost certainly surprise the man himself....I should say that the fire-eater, who precipitated it when others might have prevented it, was some sort of worthy Quaker of the type of old Mr. Cadbury, whom I knew and served in my youth.
"....The fact here was that the foreign policy of Asquith and Grey did not vitally differ from that which would have been pursued by Balfour and Bonar Law. All were patriots upon this point; all were, in my personal opinion, right; but anyhow, all thought that England would have to intervene if Germany threatened France. They all thought so; and if they had all said so, and said so months before, Germany would never have challenged the power of such an alliance. My brother and many millions more would be walking about alive.
"The Liberal leaders could not say so; not for fear of the Liberal Party, let alone the people; but for fear of the particular and powerful forces which supported the Liberal Party; and therefore supported the Party System....Many such party supporters, and certainly Mr. Cadbury, were in complete good faith, especially about supporting Peace. But very many of them were Quakers, simply because the Quakers happened to possess a minority of millionaires, a group much smaller but much richer than the Liberal Party as a whole. And the very constitution of modern party politics is such that a government has to placate such supporters, and profess to represent their ideals or prejudices, or whatever we happen to think them. In short, the whole thing was and is a plutocracy; but it was not specially in this case the fault of this group of plutocrats.
"For no electioneering agent, however active and anxious, would have got into an abnormal panic about the VOTES [italics in original] of the Quakers. He would have given them the normal attention that he would give to the votes of the Plymouth Brethren or the Peculiar People, who would very probably have the habit of voting Liberal. There are not enough individual Quakers to create a landslide of votes at a General Election. By the nature of modern politics, and nobody’s fault in particular, the whole point and pivot of the situation was not the large proportion of men who were Quakers, but the large proportion of Quakers who were millionaires. And since this situation is bad at its best, as with Quakers who were sincere in their Pacifism, we can hardly think too badly of so bad a situation at its worst."
Welcome to the struggle, comrades. These days, sincere actors and analysts of both Left and Right persuasion recognize that the most dangerous tiger we're all riding right now isn't actually Nationalism, the greatest risks don't come from racism, sexism, colonialism, fascism or theocracy, instead, the novus ordo seclorum of modernism has been the installation of International Capital as a constant epoch-defining factor, which only has one true ideology, and it's rather simple: the globalist, imperialist, universalist, materialist, avaricious pursuit of property, in service of which any tool may be employed, and against which only the power of the State can serve as a check. Otherwise, we have to do things the old-fashioned way, grass roots from the ground up, for which there's no better vehicle than the language of values, usually expressed by religion of some sort. However, never forget the role of a strong state, which is supposed to act like a good gardener.
Communism doesn't work, so we can't do without the Capitalists, but they too are complete pagans. They don't believe in Wokism, they're just using it to fuel the Machine. They will use anything. So, they have to be converted like the old Hungarians were: by fire and sword, alongside persuasion and example and witness.
In a dualistic world it's always good to have a two-pronged strategy, and when you meet that fork in the road, take it. It's the American way.
How low can we go? The sky's the limit.