Indians dominate IT via lower costs and ethnic favoritism

Indians dominate IT via lower costs and ethnic favoritism. By Megan Barth at California Globe.

Two-thirds of Silicon Valley’s nearly 400,000 tech jobs are held by foreign-born workers. India-born employees account for 23 percent and China-born for 18 percent–together outnumbering U.S.-born workers at just 34 percent, according to a 2025 Joint Venture Silicon Valley report.

This transformation extends to the C-suites. Major companies are now led by foreign-born executives: Microsoft’s Satya Nadella, Alphabet’s Sundar Pichai, Adobe’s Shantanu Narayen, IBM’s Arvind Krishna, Intel’s Lip-Bu Tan (Malaysian-born), YouTube’s Neal Mohan, and T-Mobile US’s Srinivas Gopalan — many from India.

 

Satya Nadella at Microsoft,  and Sundar Pichai at Alphabet (Google)

 

Silicon Valley, pioneered in American garages by Jobs, Hewlett, Packard, Noyce, and Moore, has gone global at the expense of domestic workers. …

Competition on price:

Foreign software developers … earn roughly 30 percent less than Americans.

This “redistributes wealth from those who compete with immigrants to those who use immigrants,” … fueling Big Tech profits and stock surges while sidelining mid-career American professionals.

Veteran Silicon Valley marketer “Mary” had the experience, the resume, and the skills, with stints at Google and Cisco. Yet after two years of relentless job hunting, she remains unemployed. Her story is emblematic of a broken system: she was ordered by her Indian-born CEO to train her lower-paid foreign replacement before being laid off.

“I had experience. I should have walked right into these corporate jobs, but I didn’t,” Mary told RealClearInvestigations. “Why? Because Silicon Valley is flooded with people who work for two-thirds of the price, or even half price.”

Ethnic tribalism:

Hiring has grown “tribal,” according to Kevin Lynn of the Institute for Sound Public Policy:

“Professionalism doesn’t exist in these IT departments anymore… when you look at the hiring, it becomes very tribal — India versus the rest of the world.”

Engineer Stephen Vivien described Indian H-1B workers at Google sharing interview questions to help each other. A New Jersey jury recently awarded $8.4 million against Cognizant Technology Solutions in a discrimination case involving bias against non-Indian workers. …

Losers:

The human cost is profound. Displaced Americans like Mary face not just unemployment but the erosion of the California dream they helped build.

Mid-career engineers, marketers, and developers, often with families, mortgages, and roots in the state, find themselves uncompetitive against a system that rewards lower wages and networked hiring over experience and loyalty. …

Winners — by Professor Richard Werner and Wall Street Apes:

It’s not that only Indians are IT geniuses. This has been explained here on X: The hiring Indian gets a %age of the salary of the new hired Indian. An Amway-style commission pyramid.

As this is routine in India everyone sticks to Indians: they know it, play ball & keep it secret.

New data shows once an Indian CEO gets hired at a major company, what follows is Americans getting pushed out of their jobs and replaced by Indians

Major Companies with an Indian CEO:

– Google – Sundar Pichai – Indian
– Microsoft – Satya Nadella – Indian
– YouTube – Neal Mohan – Indian
– Adobe – Shantanu Narayen – Indian
– IBM – Arvind Krishna – Indian
– Infosys – Salil Parekh Indian
– NetApp – George Kurian – Indian
– Arista Networks – Jayshree Ullal – Indian
– Novartis – Vasant Narasimhan – Indian
– Micron – Sanjay Mehrotra – Indian
– Honeywell – Vimal Kapur – Indian
– Flex – Revathi Advaithi – Indian
– Niyafair (Wayfair) – Niraj Shah – Indian
– Chanel – Leena Nair – Indian
– Shantanu Narayen (Adobe) – Indian
– Cognizant – Ravi Kumar S. – Indian
– Cognizant (variant/duplicate) – Indian
– Vertex – Reshma Kewalramani – Indian
– Escaler Indian
– Zscaler – Jay Chaudhry – Indian
– Microsoft Gaming – Indian
– FedEx – Indian

“There’s an observable correlation between the rise of Indian-born CEOs taking the helms at major U.S. companies and increased offshoring and outsourcing activity to India”

There is also a massive correlation to once an India CEO gets hired, H-1B visa applications skyrocket.

Ricardo Duchesne:

Indian migrants are particularly attractive because they are more compliant and geographically mobile than native Whites with comparable education. Lacking deep community roots or established family ties in the West, they accept irregular and intense schedules more readily. There are no entrenched mortgages, local schools, or unions associated with the importation of fresh Indian migrants. This entails less political or social pushback when companies adjust to new market signals or replace workers with AI.

The cost savings are substantial: firms can hire a senior Indian developer in the US or Canada on work visas for $30,000–$50,000 per year, in contrast to $150,000–$200,000 for a similarly qualified American worker.

Their narrow education, total focus on STEM degrees, compliance, and one-dimensional desire for money have made Indians quite useful as employees in limbic capitalist sectors such as social media, e-commerce, gaming, streaming, and AI-driven engagement. …

In the United States, according to data collected by the Pew Research Center (published 2025), the median income of Indian-headed households is about $145,000 – $156,000, which is significantly higher than the U.S. national median of $75,000–$83,000. The median income of Taiwanese Americans is $133,000 – $145,000, while that of Chinese Americans is $98,400 – $108,60. Chinese and Indian immigrants also show higher STEM educational attainment.

This should not surprise us: Indian and Chinese immigrants to the U.S. are heavily filtered through H-1B visas, leading to employment. They don’t “waste their time” with Liberal Arts, but focus on high-paying fields like computer science, medicine, engineering, and finance. In Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, second-generation Chinese and South Asians similarly demonstrate higher household median incomes and stronger representation in high-tech occupations.

 

 

Commenters:

Indians are NOT remotely IT geniuses. I have worked with 1000s of them and maybe 5 of those were above average. …

Actually very few of them are. While at Intel in the early 90’s I saw first hand the results of a team when there was an Indian made manager. The team grew to include only Indians. One of them worked closely with me and later confided they had to pay 10% of his pay to the manager for 1 year. That was back then. It is much higher now. After 35 years I’m out.

The flood of Indians was insane and the skill sets almost none existent by the time I left. Coincidentally, I was assigned to establish the Indian development and support center in India for my company. I spent years on this. They are just as non-qualified there as they are here.

The entire narrative surrounding the “skill” and “talent” of an Indian engineer was 100% bullshit. …

It’s the same process everywhere. Particularly in the English speaking world. I work in banking and we went from a few Indians 20 years ago, to them being everywhere now. The management hierarchy is dominated by Indians, teams are mostly Indian, and we are still offshoring.

hat-tip Peter S

How much mass immigration is too much?

How much mass immigration is too much? By Matt Forney. Highly unfair to many fine individuals, but it’s a funny take on the usual “First they come for” story.

First they came for the Indian doctors, and I did not speak out because now my girlfriend can visit the hospital without worrying about getting raped.

Then they came for the Indian engineers, and I did not speak out because every website, app, and OS mysteriously started working again.

Then they came for the Indian leaders, and I did not speak out because I no longer had to worry about my banking information being stolen by scammers.

Then they came for the Indian businesses, and I did not speak out because I could buy gas without getting my credit card skimmed.

Then they came for me…JUST KIDDING! I lived happily ever after.

Hollywood Actress Blows Whistle On Systemic Anti-White Discrimination In Casting

Hollywood Actress Blows Whistle On Systemic Anti-White Discrimination In Casting. By Steve Watson at modernity.

Actress Samaire Armstrong, known for her role in the hit series The O.C., stepped forward with a raw account of Hollywood’s entrenched discrimination. For years, she stayed silent as casting directors repeatedly rejected her for one reason: her race. …

Armstrong explained, “Over the last 6 years, I’ve heard nonstop, ‘They’re not looking for white.’ — ‘They liked you, but you’re white.’ …

“You gotta wonder, what’s the point of acting school and putting this time into developing the craft if that doesn’t matter anymore?” Armstrong urged. …

This isn’t one isolated voice. Armstrong’s experience reflects a broader industry shift where skin color determines opportunity more than skill, training, or audience appeal. In a country still majority white, the creative heart of American entertainment has turned against its foundational talent pool.

The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences formalized this bias with its “Representation and Inclusion Standards” for Best Picture eligibility. Starting with the 96th Oscars in 2024, films must meet at least two of four detailed standards … These rules prioritize “underrepresented” groups — defined to include women, racial or ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and the disabled or deaf — across every level of production. …

Iconic films from Hollywood’s golden eras would fail these tests. Casablanca, The Godfather, Saving Private Ryan, No Country for Old Men, or even Titanic in its original form wouldn’t check enough boxes. The rules don’t just encourage diversity — they penalize storytelling rooted in European-American cultural traditions or historical accuracy. …

Organic tales of human struggle, ambition, love, and loss vanished under layers of ideological checklists.

This hits aspiring actors hard. Acting demands years of classes, auditions, rejections, and honing emotional range. When race becomes the deciding factor, that investment must feel pointless. …

Audiences don’t reject diversity when it feels authentic; they reject pandering that prioritizes messaging over entertainment. …

When every ensemble requires a precise racial mix, every leadership team checks ethnicity boxes, storytelling suffers. Characters become mouthpieces. Plots twist to accommodate themes rather than emerging from genuine conflict.

The decline isn’t imaginary. Recent years delivered a string of high-budget disappointments: franchise entries laden with awkward diversity lectures, remakes that rewrite history for contemporary politics, and originals that feel like committee products rather than visionary works.

Studios chase Oscar validation and corporate ESG scores. Meeting Academy standards boosts awards chances and shields against activist boycotts. But it alienates core domestic audiences who simply want compelling stories. …

Compare this to earlier eras. Classic Hollywood produced universal stories — tales of redemption, heroism, romance, and tragedy — that transcended demographics. Directors cast the best actors for roles, not the best demographic fit. Writers explored human nature without mandatory identity arcs. The result was timeless cinema that still draws viewers decades later.

 

America is a nations of settlers, not a nation of immigrants or based on ideas

America is a nations of settlers, not a nation of immigrants or based on ideas. By John Daniel Davidson in The Federalist.

Of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, only eight were not born in the American colonies — they were born in England, Ireland, Scotland and Wales. All of them were subjects of the British crown, and each of them came to the colonies as colonists and settlers, not immigrants. They traveled from one part of the British Empire to another. …

The “nation of immigrants” line is not just ahistorical, though. It’s an insidious attempt to redefine American identity away from the shared bonds of culture and history that have always defined a nation, and assert instead that America is “an idea” or a “creedal nation,” as Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch recently said.

What terms like this really mean, what they are meant to convey, is that instead of being a distinct people descended from common ancestors, America is something far more plastic and ephemeral: a set of Enlightenment propositions about human nature and natural law that anyone can adopt. All you have to do to become an American, according to this view, is assent to those propositions and sign some documents. A recent arrival from Somalia, so long as he has all his paperwork in order and has gone through the proper bureaucratic process, is just as American as someone whose family has been here since the seventeenth century.

Every knows that is absurd position, but often people are afraid to say so for fear of being called a racist or an ethno-nationalist. That’s because the “creedal nation” argument is often framed as a binary: America is unique among the nations of the world because we have a “civic nationalism,” not “blood-and-soil nationalism.” Or, our American identity is based on the founding creed, not on ethnicity — as if ethnicity is the only alternative to creedalism. The implication is that anyone who rejects the creedal nation idea is an ethno-nationalist/racist who thinks only white people can be real Americans.

But of course one need not be an ethno-nationalist to reject the creedalists’ claims about American identity. …

It is a people who came from a particular culture and religion, British and Christian. Its creed is universal in the same way the Christian creed is universal: it is open to everyone willing to convert, change their life, and be transformed. That’s what assimilation really means.

The immigrant must leave behind the cultural practices of his homeland and adopt American culture and habits as his own — above all, he must adopt the Christian idea that all men are created equal, with all the implications that flow from that. That is harder to do than it seems, and it doesn’t happen at all under conditions of mass immigration.

And that’s what all this really comes down to. Not everyone who emigrates here will become an American. Ilhan Omar, for example, will probably never become an American, no matter how long she lives here. That’s because being an American doesn’t mean just being physically present in the United States, with all your documents in order, in hopes of making a lot of money or amassing a lot of power. It means joining, and being adopted into, an existing people — a people with a shared past and a common future and a distinct heritage and cultural patrimony.

Most foreigners, if they fully understood what it meant, would not even want to assimilate. People after all tend to love their own cultures and ancestral homelands, and they generally do not want to leave them behind for another. That’s why so many immigrants today fail to assimilate, or don’t even try. That’s also why, in 2026, it’s worth asking whether we should keep allowing them to hold high federal office.

What has been lost? Here’s a Coca-Cola commercial from 1976 in the US:

 

 

Ditto Australia, obviously. Australia was only started up by the British after they lost their colony in America in 1776, and they needed somewhere new to put prisoners and settlers.

They want the land

They want the land. By Elizabeth Nickson at Absurdistan.

Our land is being stolen by bankers and oligarchs. Every acre, every hectare they take, means our regression to modern serfs. We are being driven into the cities where we can be tracked and traded like widgets.

This has not been addressed by Trump. His team have pruned regulations and are breaking the meat packing cartel, but land taking continues, hand over fist. It is wrong. It is complex.

The Iron Triangle of bureaucrat, activist and legislator works silently to take our land. Buy a farm, a forest, a beachfront, and immediately people set themselves to tie it in regulation, and drive you off. Tens of millions have been driven into the cities, and many of them, shorn of family and meaning, end up on the streets.

As we have learned just this year, almost all activists are paid and directed by oligarchs. In the environmental business, behind the hysteria, the supposed ‘grass roots’, lie the financeers, who are the richest people on earth, and who ruthlessly, through dozens of cut-outs, use activists, bureaucrats and legislators to get what they want: the land.

Some sort of new feudalism seems to be gradually replacing our short-lived democracies. Control of assets via manipulating the money system is the key tool, by which the bulk of the population gradually return to living from paycheck to paycheck, their lives controlled by an untouchable elite who import a new population of serfs to compete with the trouble-makers.

Normies strike back

Normies strike back. Cory Bernardi’s maiden speech in the South Australian Parliament with comments by George Christensen.

Well said.

More:

Calling for accountability on covid:

“They locked us down, they silenced dissent, they imprisoned citizens, and they forced people to take dangerous and experimental injections. … The slogans were pure political propaganda, and our political class trampled on our freedoms and ruined our economy because of the flu. It was all BS.” …

Naming the “midwit managerial class”:

“The midwit, of course, is the most dangerous person to be in charge of anything… the midwit is of average intelligence, but believes themselves to be a genius and exceptionally insightful.”

The bureaucrats. The policy consultants. The government-funded experts. The professional class that never misses a paycheck while lecturing everyone else about sacrifice.

Bernardi’s critique wasn’t simply about intelligence. It was about arrogance detached from consequences.

The modern obsession with race, sexuality and grievance:

I make no apology… for being tall, straight, white, and a traditional man. …

“Most people don’t care about what colour your skin is until you start blaming those with different skin for your own problems. …

“Tolerance of that celebrated difference became exploited for political gain.”

The political class insists people are endlessly divided by race, sex and identity. Ordinary Australians mostly just want competent government and affordable electricity.

Gender ideology:

“Men can never be women, or vice versa. …

“The media are silent while the government allows doctors to mutilate children in the name of gender affirming care.”

Bernardi is willing to say in parliament what many politicians are too frightened to say publicly. And that matters politically because the public mood is shifting.

Conclusion:

His broader argument was unmistakable:

  • Government has grown too large.
  • Bureaucracy too powerful.
  • Citizens too controlled.
  • Truth too policed.

And he believes Australians are reaching breaking point.

Albanese has a solution for people whose speech he doesn’t like

Albanese has a solution for people whose speech he doesn’t like. Listen to this Australian’s story:

 

Will One Nation be next? The laws are so ill-defined that the Minister can ban any political party for “hate”.

Didn’t Anthony Albanese used to define himself as hating Tories? Yes he did: “I like fighting Tories. That’s what I do.”

Walking boosts creativity, but sit down to nut out a problem

Walking boosts creativity, but sit down to nut out a problem. By Ihtesham Ali.

Stanford psychologist [Marily Oppezzo] spent 4 years proving that the simple act of walking generates 60% more creative ideas than sitting. …

Emphatic result:

She ran 4 experiments on 176 people. Same person tested twice. Once sitting, once walking. The creativity tasks were the standard ones psychologists have used for decades to measure how good a brain is at generating novel useful ideas. …

81% of participants in the first experiment produced more creative ideas while walking than while sitting. In the second experiment, 88%. In the third, 100%. Every single person walked into a more creative version of themselves.

On average, people generated 60% more novel useful ideas the moment their legs started moving.

It’s the walking, not some other factor:

The skeptical question is the obvious one. Maybe it was the fresh air. Maybe it was the scenery passing by. Maybe it was the change of environment doing the work, not the walking itself.

Oppezzo killed every one of those explanations with one experimental decision.

She put people on a treadmill facing a blank wall. No scenery. No fresh air. No environmental change. Just legs moving in place while staring at white drywall. The 60% boost held.

Stanford courtyard

Then she ran the experiment that closed the case completely. She took participants outside in two conditions. Half of them walked through a Stanford courtyard. The other half were pushed through the exact same courtyard in a wheelchair. Same outdoor stimulation. Same scenery passing at the same speed. The only difference was whether the legs were moving.

The walkers produced dramatically more novel high-quality ideas than the wheelchair group. The outdoors did almost nothing on its own. The walking did everything.

Walking not as good for convergent thinking:

She also tested the opposite kind of thinking. Convergent thinking. The kind where there is one right answer and you have to narrow down to it.

Word puzzles where 3 words share a hidden fourth word that connects them. The seated participants did slightly better on these. Walkers got slightly worse.

When to walk and when to sit:

Walking is not a general intelligence enhancer. It does one specific thing. It opens up the divergent search inside your brain. The part that generates options. The part that produces unexpected connections. The part that takes a problem and finds five ways into it instead of one.

When you need to converge on the single right answer, sit down. When you need to find the answer in the first place, get up.

The mechanism is now well understood. Walking selectively activates what neuroscientists call the default mode network, the system inside your brain that runs when you are not consciously focused on anything. The DMN is where mind-wandering happens. Where memories cross-reference each other. Where ideas that have been sitting in separate folders inside your head finally bump into each other.

When you sit at a desk and force yourself to concentrate, you suppress the DMN. When you walk at a natural pace, the executive part of your brain gets just busy enough handling the walking that the DMN comes online and starts doing the work that focus was blocking. …

Wait, there’s more!

The boost did not turn off the moment people stopped walking. Participants who walked first and then sat back down stayed elevated. Their next round of seated creativity work was still significantly better than people who had been sitting the whole time. The [creativity boost] lingered for at least several minutes after the legs stopped moving.

You do not need to do creative work while walking. You need to walk before the creative work. The brain holds the state. …

Examples:

Charles Darwin built a gravel loop behind his house in Kent called the Sandwalk and walked it three times a day for the rest of his life. The theory of evolution was developed one lap at a time on that path.

Nietzsche walked up to 10 hours a day during the years he wrote his most important books and openly said the work was conceived on his feet.

Beethoven composed for the morning and walked for 5 hours every afternoon with a pencil in his pocket for when something landed.

Kahneman said the best thinking of his Nobel Prize-winning career happened on leisurely walks with Amos Tversky.

Steve Jobs refused to take important conversations sitting down. He held them on foot.

What not to do:

Every meeting you have ever attended sitting around a table was a meeting held at a fraction of the brain power that was actually available to the people in the room. Every brainstorm that got stuck inside a conference room. Every problem you tried to solve at a desk and gave up on. Every idea you could not quite get to.

A View of Australian Politics from the US

A View of Australian Politics from the US. By Daniel Greenfield at Front Page.

In March, Australia’s ruling Labor regime censured Senator Pauline Hanson for opposing bringing ISIS members to Australia. According to the senate censure resolution, Hanson’s “inflammatory and divisive comments seeking to vilify Muslim Australians, which do not reflect the opinions of the Australian Senate or the Australian people” who are supposed to love ISIS.

The censure bid had been a desperate effort by the left-wing regime to slow down the rise of Hanson, who started out as a barmaid and working in a fish and chip shop, and her patriotic One Nation party which had been polling higher and higher as the public becomes disgusted with PM Anthony Albanese’s corrupt failed government, its lies and its surrender to Islam.

 

 

After the latest round of condemnations, Hanson said that she’s sorry if she “offended anyone out there that doesn’t believe in sharia law, or multiple marriages, or wants to bring ISIS brides in, or people from Gaza that believe in a caliphate… but that is what they want — a world caliphate. And I am not going to apologise … I will have my say now before it’s too late.”

Despite, or perhaps because of, the censure resolution, One Nation scored the second highest number of votes in an election in South Australia, giving it a number of candidates. In May, One Nation won its first lower-house seat and polls now speculate that it might be able to form a minority government. Some are describing the populist rise of One Nation as marking the end of Australia’s two-party system.

Thirty years after the more conservative Liberal Party had disavowed Hanson over her opposition to affirmative action for supposed ‘aboriginals’ (quite often white people falsely claiming aboriginal ancestry, much like Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the United States, leading to the bizarre preponderance of ‘fair-skinned white aboriginals’ in academia) and mass migration from Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indonesia and other neighboring parts of the Islamic world, Liberal voters are choosing One Nation much the way that UK conservatives are looking for options.

Islam good, Christianity wrong:

Penny Wong, the Malaysian gay immigrant serving as Anthony Albanese’s Minister for Foreign Affairs (representing a joke that no one is allowed to make) had championed Hanson’s censure, contending that she was “sending a message to the people of faith in this country” that “condemning an entire religion is not acceptable.” Unless of course it’s Christianity.

Wong had previously ranted about Christian ‘religious fundamentalists’, complaining about “the application of religious belief to the framing of law in a secular society” and accusing Christians of “deploying the power of the state to enforce one set of religious beliefs”. …

Sen. Mehreen Faruqi, a Pakistani Muslim migrant, had mocked the mourning for Queen Elizabeth II, sneering “I cannot mourn the leader of a racist empire built on stolen lives, land and wealth of colonised peoples”.

Faruqi had also responded to the expressions of sympathy after the brutal Islamic massacres of Jews on Oct 7 by hatefully tweeting, “One colonial government supporting another. What a disgrace.”

Despite that, Faruqi wasn’t censured for siding with Islamic terrorists, but Hanson was taken to court and accused of ‘Islamophobia’, censored and fined for responding with “piss off back to Pakistan”. Then Penny Wong backed Faruqi’s censure of Hanson while whining, “it’s triggering each time you hear it. I’m the Senate leader, I still get triggered.”

“How long do you have to be here and how much do you have to love this country before you’re accepted? How long?” Wong demanded, while speaking in support of the hatred of a Pakistani Muslim who had denounced England and Australia as the products of an evil “racist empire”.

Wong had also backed Islamic terrorists over Israel just as she did in Australia. Hanson, by contrast, had worn an Israeli flag and sided with the non-Muslim victims of Islamic terrorism. …

Waking up:

The polls show that the public increasingly is with Hanson and One Nation, not Wong, Faruqi, Albanese and the rest of the foreign lobby selling out Australia and killing its future.

And much like President Trump, Hanson has been effective at bypassing a corrupt incestuous media operation to get her message directly out to the public. Last year, she wore a burka to campaign for a ban on burkas. The media hate her, but can’t stop quoting her.

As housing prices soar and Muslim migrants get everything while natives get nothing, the winds of political change are blowing towards Australia. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, like his carbon copies in the UK and Canada, Keir Starmer and Mark Carney, appears ready to fall.

London’s Major Visits Mecca — on Pilgrimage

London’s Major Visits Mecca — on Pilgrimage. By Gabriella Swerling in The Telegraph.

Sadiq Khan has travelled to Mecca to perform the annual Islamic pilgrimage of Hajj.

The Mayor of London, who is the first Muslim to hold the position, shared pictures of himself at the Kaaba in the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia. …

In a statement published on social media, Mr Khan who has served as the Labour Mayor since 2016, said the pilgrimage was “profoundly life-changing”. …

 

Caliphate HQ

 

The 55-year-old who was born in London to Pakistani parents, last went to Mecca in 2022 to perform the Umrah, which is a pilgrimage that can be performed at any time of the year, unlike the Hajj which takes place during the 12th month of the Islamic calendar.

The DEI Business Case Is Falling Apart

The DEI Business Case Is Falling Apart: diversity quotas weaken performance, lower morale, and cause operational decline. By Lipton Matthews at The American Spectator.

The supposed advantage of DEI was all non-replicable ideological BS:

The studies that are most frequently cited to support the business case for diversity provide little meaningful support for it, while rigorous academic research points toward unintended and often damaging consequences.

Replication finds no advantage:

Much of the modern enthusiasm for diversity as a performance enhancer traces back to a series of influential reports published by McKinsey. These reports claim that companies with more racially and ethnically diverse executive teams earn higher returns. Their charts, rankings, and headlines have been repeated in boardrooms around the world. But when researchers attempted to reproduce the findings using transparent data from the S&P 500, the alleged advantage of diverse executive teams largely disappeared.

The replication study found no meaningful difference in profitability between firms with highly diverse executive teams and those with little diversity. … The researchers also showed that McKinsey’s study design pointed in the wrong direction: the data could just as easily suggest that more successful firms hire more diverse executives later on, not that diversity drives financial success. …

In the boardroom:

One major study of almost 2,000 American firms finds that when boards increase gender diversity, they impose noticeably stronger monitoring of executives. While oversight is necessary, too much of it slows decision-making, restricts managerial autonomy, and makes firms less responsive to changing conditions. The study concludes that the average effect of gender diversity on firm performance is negative and can reduce value in well-managed firms because heightened monitoring becomes a burden rather than a benefit. …

Research shows that markets responded by marking down the value of companies forced to replace experienced board members with individuals selected primarily to satisfy demographic quotas. These findings suggest that rapid, mandatory diversification weakens board quality by reducing the emphasis on experience and expertise. …

In the workforce:

Emre Kuvvet’s 2025 study offers one of the most detailed examinations of how diversity initiatives influence workplace safety, consumer satisfaction, and employee morale.  …

  • Companies with higher Diversity Scores experience dramatically more workplace accidents. Moving from the 25th to the 75th percentile in diversity commitment corresponds to a 52.9 percent increase in total reported workplace accidents.
  • These firms also show substantial increases in lost workdays …
  • This decline in safety is matched by a deterioration in customer experience. Firms with stronger DEI commitments face more consumer complaints, more controversies relating to customer health and safety, and lower overall customer satisfaction.
  • Product recalls, quality controversies, and delays are also more common in these firms.
  • Such problems point to a drop in average employee competence and operational discipline. …

 

Meritocracy suffers, obviously:

When organizations feel pressure to meet diversity targets, they often expand their selection criteria in ways that shift the balance away from strictly merit-based hiring. … As demographic goals take precedence, the average skill level can decline. In settings where even small lapses can lead to injury or customer harm, the consequences of lowered hiring standards are amplified

DEI policies also reshape the internal culture of organizations. The same study finds that companies with high Diversity Scores suffer from lower employee satisfaction and higher management turnover. Employees increasingly believe that hiring and promotion are not based on competence or effort but on demographic traits. When workers feel that merit no longer governs advancement, trust in leadership erodes. The loss of morale and cohesion contributes to weaker performance across the organization and accelerates the departure of experienced managers.

Follow the money — to people who didn’t earn it on merit.

Stefan Molyneux:

Meh “diversity” just means hatred of Whites.

Nothing more, nothing less.

White males vs DEI

White males vs DEI.

White Males, By Kyle Becker.

Western Civilization didn’t flourish because “white males” stopped other groups from succeeding.

The West thrived because of rational thought, individual rights, and free enterprise.

“White males” that invented the steam engine, electric generation, the combustion engine, flight, and space exploration did not do so because they “stole” the ideas of minorities.

These inventions helped lift mankind out of ignorance and hardship, improving the quality of life for all of humanity.

“White males” didn’t oppress the entire world, they helped make it a better place.

“White males” didn’t oppress everyone’s rights, they invented the idea of rights and paid in blood to liberate tens of millions of people.

“White males” didn’t invent slavery, they ended it.

“White males” didn’t invent tyranny, they devised a form of government to end it.

Destroying Western Civilization isn’t about empowering groups that were “oppressed.” It is about tearing down civilization itself so that globalist parasites can rule over all of us.

DEI, by Robert Sepehr.

DEI is not about representation. DEI is about appropriating and rewriting history for purposes of social engineering and implementing a woke Marxist political ideology. It is not about inclusion, it’s about dismantling traditional power structures, conquest and anti-White racism.

 

 

Nancy C:

Why isn’t dismantling white male focused societal conventions not a good deal? Why isn’t giving groups, such as women and no -whites more opportunities to maximize their potential. Why is aiming for diversity in groups making decisions bad, as they clearly come up with better

Robert Sepehr:

Because civilization itself was established and diffused by White men. Instead of suggesting the replacement or eradication of White men, why can’t other demographics create a viable civilization on their own. Why can’t 600 million in Africa create running water and electricity?

The Sunset of the Uniparty

The Sunset of the Uniparty. By Tony Abbott in Quadrant.

As the smoke from budget week clears, one thing is obvious: the era of the uniparty is over. And not before time, as it’s been the Liberal Party’s political timidity that’s driven the rise of One Nation, with conservative voters despairing of ever again having a champion to vote for.

Until now. Because by committing a future Coalition government to ending bracket creep — taxation by stealth — Taylor has made the next election wealth creation versus wealth redistribution, thereby pitching the Liberals as the party of aspiration rather than the party of resentment.

I doubt Anthony Albanese and Jim Chalmers have quite grasped the scale of their blunder, especially after stressing how much this budget is a reflection of “Labor values”. Higher taxes on property and heavier taxes on wealth creation are not just broken promises with no redeeming policy feature (and no exculpatory circumstances beyond their control). They’re an assault on the Australian dream that people who strive to get ahead should not be punished for their efforts and that people who “have a go” should get a “fair go” from government.

After pretending in 2022 to be “safe change” and in 2025 to be protection against cost of living increases, Albanese Labor has revealed its class war instincts as the party of ever bigger government set on redistributing wealth from owners to workers — as if workers have no aspiration to become owners too. …

Finally both parties are showing their real colours after a decade when they mostly tried to be a slightly more attractive version of the other side, with the Coalition just a little less enthusiastic than Labor for big government, climate action, and mass migration.

Unsurprisingly, it was the Coalition’s inability to decide whether it was for or against the politics of climate and identity; being against, then for, and then against Net Zero; and being concerned, then indifferent, before being concerned again, about record migration, that’s fueled the rise of political alternatives.

Especially after the Bondi massacre confirmed to many Australians that the country we thought we knew was quickly slipping away; and which seems to have triggered the sudden surge in poll support for One Nation from single digits to roughly that of both major parties. …

Taylor has declared no more “Labor lite” Liberals…. His pledge to cut all of Labor’s Net Zero spending and his willingness to restrict welfare payments to Australian citizens shows a seriousness about spending discipline, plus the fighting spirit the Liberals have largely lacked since the Turnbull coup in 2015.

But on immigration Tony, will the Liberal Party finally do what Australian voters want, after so many squandered opportunities?

And what about all those uniparty people in the Liberal Party machine? Where are they going to go?

Is Taylor really going to staunch the wealth loss and corruption that goes on under the fantasy of net zero?

The diploma divide is replacing wealth and income as the primary division in western politics

The diploma divide is replacing wealth and income as the primary division in western politics. By Samuel Thawley in The Spectator.

Many Western democracies are going through the same political realignment. The diploma divide – the sorting of electorates by education, specialisation, and institutional disposition – is replacing wealth and income as the primary cleavage. Australia arrived later. However, it will resolve faster – with preferential voting as the accelerant rather than stabiliser. The structural earthquake here will be shorter, sharper, and – if the data hold – largely complete in the span of the next two to three elections. …

Trump saved the Republican Party:

The standard narrative across the Western commentariat — left and right — is that Donald Trump degraded the Republican Party. He trashed its norms, alienated its professionals, and turned it into a personality cult. This is the story told over glasses of wine in Toorak and over flat whites in Balmain.

The structural story is the opposite.

Almost every centre-right party in the Western world today is facing the same centrifugal force: the diploma divide is tearing its coalition apart. The professional wing — the university-educated, socially progressive, economically liberal urban voter –is departing in one direction. The non-graduate wing — culturally conservative, economically interventionist, institutionally hostile — is leaving in the other. The leaders have failed to hold both simultaneously because the interests have now become too disparate. …

The Coalition in Australia is losing voters simultaneously to teal independents on its left and One Nation on its right.

The only traditional, majority right party to survive has been the Republicans in the US. The reason is obvious: Trump’s arrival. His structural function was not to ‘ruin’ the Republican Party but to resolve the tension destroying every comparable party elsewhere. He captured the party machinery via the presidential primary system, fused the populist insurgency into the major party, and expelled the professional wing rather than allow the non-graduate wing to split itself off. …

He didn’t persuade the Republican machine – he bypassed it, going directly to voters in a system which permitted exactly that. Westminster systems do not have open primaries. The preselection process is the institutional gate.

Trump’s Republicans are unique. Everywhere else in the West, the main right wing party is dying as it splits:

The leader who best understands the emerging electorate is precisely the person the machine cannot tolerate, because the qualities making him or her effective outside the party — directness, conviction, disruptive energy — are the qualities threatening the machine’s internal equilibrium. …

Almost no party instance across the Anglosphere since the start of politics has succeeded long-term by expelling the rebel or coopting the outlier. … The institution almost always fights back and the propagation ultimately fails. …

Trump is the sole possible counterfactual. He succeeded in capturing the party because the primary system exists — and this has given him a particular strength that earlier hopefuls have not enjoyed. However, the question remains for 2026 and 2028 — and for the long-term: will the Republican party and its leadership continue his legacy, or will Trumpism join the Thatcher-Abbott class, and Trump see all his work undone? …

One Nation may become the main conservative party in Australia:

The addressable market is defined not by self-identity, not by geography, but by status or social position. It is the non-graduate, the tradesman, the self-employed contractor, the outer-urban family priced out of the inner ring, the regional voter who has watched institutional trust drain out of every authority that used to speak for him or her. The constituency is not a niche – it is now the largest single voting bloc in Australia that no establishment party currently treats as its primary constituency.

One Nation’s ceiling is status-bounded and diffuse. … So is Reform UK’s in Britain. These are once-fringe parties whose potential constituency is larger than the party they are seeking to displace because the group they represent is now bigger than the established electorate that the incumbent, devotedly centrist, party, has decided to prioritise. …

What’s in a name?

The National Party, as one of the longest-serving political organisations in the country, has the benefit of incumbency. It also has the benefit of a name that most precisely fits the emerging voter demographic.

The Liberal Party has a complicated name, reflecting an ideology that no longer aligns well with the electorate it needs to win.

Meanwhile, One Nation — whose name enjoys a solid historical pedigree — sounds more like a multicultural welcome and, ironically, a certain openness to immigration.

The Nationals have the potential:

Moreover, the National Party is already well-positioned to leverage distinctive elements of the Australian electorate that mix hints of the MAGA movement in America and the Reform movement in Britain. …

The only realistic opponent One Nation faces is the National Party, but — as the defections of Barnaby Joyce in one direction and Jacinta Price in the other both hint — the party has decided not to fight. …

The likely future of the Australian Liberal Party:

Under Australian preferential voting, the Liberal Party’s realistic forward path might be more like Germany’s SPD under repeated grand coalitions: declining by five to nine primary-vote points in each grand-coalition cycle, never quite collapsing, never quite recovering, becoming a party whose continued existence is structurally necessary to the system but whose paradigm-carrying role has ended.

The Teals have removed the professional-class left flank. One Nation is removing the non-graduate right flank — something that the Nationals could do as well if they wanted. What remains is a rump constituency: economically liberal, socially centrist, institutionally attached, declining as a share of the population in every election cycle.