Quote Of The Day

From the Z-man:

“[E]galitarianism inevitably flips the natural order on its head, elevating the bottom over all else.  The ideological enforcers in the human resource department are no different from the ideological enforcers in communism.  These people are not selected for their skill, but their stupidity.  They are too stupid to contemplate what they are doing.  Instead, they puff out their chests and stiffen their backs for having memorized the latest party fads.”

Next time you have any  dealings with some self-important H.R. flunky, feel free to use the parts of the above which are appropriate, because it’s absolutely true.  Totalitarianism doesn’t run on evil, but on the stupidity of its apparatchiks.


  1. Many years ago my wife worked in HR, at a time when HR performed a useful function for the employees (she was liaison between the employees and the benefits providers).

    Now, not so much. Nowadays it’s all about diversity, racism/sexism and privilege. As a straight, white, Christian man I’m not to take part in the “discussions”, I’m to sit there and be lectured at by people who make no actual income for the company we work for while I self-flagellate.

    Yes, I woke up grouchy this morning, why do you ask?

  2. Not only are the apparatchiks stupid, they know the only reason they have their position is their commitment to the party line. Even if they smarten up enough to realize the latest message is destructive to everyone involved they will keep trying to cram it down the throats of the people they are supposed to represent. They will trample underfoot anyone or anything to maintain a position they never could have attained by skill or merit alone.

  3. Most of the protected class types who couldn’t cut it in manufacturing and technology at my company ended up in sinecures in HR with inflated titles to fill out company quotas for “management positions” to appease the affirmative action gods of the Feral Gummint.
    As a result, we were annually (anally?) subjected to multiple diversity fairs and sensitivity classes, staffed by more Can’t Cunts culled from manufacturing and technology.
    My engineering group had mostly white men, but also blacks, women, a couple gays, and Venezuela, Russia, Turkey, East Germany, Poland, Vietnam, China and Switzerland were represented in it. We had been together 5-15 years when we were subjected to our first “Sensitivity” session. The “facilitator”*spit* kept challenging our supposed viewpoints and feelings, yet could not get a divisive opinion or even a rise out of our group, and after a couple of hours of this tripe, a woman in our group finally challenged the frizzy-haired witch “We’ve worked together for years, and we’re like a family. We work together, support each other, share joys and sorrows, and socialize together. Why are you trying to divide us?” Big round of applause from the group. After a few defensive phumphers and justifications from the witch about our “need” for more sensitivity, the session ended. Thereafter, I tried to arrange to be out of town for these time wasting esteem whippings.

  4. We recently had to do an online “Diversity” training that was all about making sure low-melanin people respected high-melanin people. Fine. Then I asked the HR director if we were going to have anything that talked about other types of diversity, say for example: political or religious?
    No plans for that, apparently.

    1. Just know that your question was put into your personnel file, and flagged as “potential wrongthinker and troublemaker”.

  5. Exactly! Have had some friends who tilted against the system and were quietly edged out after many years.

    In short, he is fooked.

  6. Stupid apparatchiks are one thing; totalitarianism also advances as the ambitious advance. Israeli archivist and historian Yaakov Lozowick writes:

    “To understand Eichmann, you have to see how innovative and utterly committed he was as a bureaucrat.

    “Eichmann was a common type in the Germany of Arendt’s generation: a low-level Beamter who was a tenured official. This type was not stupid, but not particularly well educated or imaginative, either. This type of person grounded his identity in his place in the system, and drew his pride from his participation in its operations. Eichmann does not stand in for all of us, in a “man’s inhumanity to man” sort of way, but rather, for a particular kind of early-20th-century German-speaking bureaucrat that is also familiar from the fiction of Franz Kafka.

    “Arendt had surely met many such men (they were almost all men) in the Germany of her youth, and had probably disdained them as intellectual inferiors (as they probably were). She did not approve of the way that Eichmann and his ilk used the revolutionary context of Nazism to climb far higher into the heights of society than they could ever have expected, or indeed should have achieved. As she saw it, this unexpected path to professional advancement and higher social standing was the very advantage that inured such men to the muted voice of their conscience.”


    Where Lozowick goes wrong is by limiting his insight to “a particular kind of early-20th-century German-speaking bureaucrat.” There is an early-21st-century English-speaking version as well.

    They’re not all male these days, either. Isn’t it wonderful how career paths like this are now open to women, too?

Comments are closed.