"Equal Pay Day", Marxist Equity, and Imposters Avoiding the "Syndrome"
Of the Managerial State and the ESG/DIE Marxists
September 18th is "Equal Pay Day", which is a fake holiday created in the '70s by the "National Committee on Pay Equity" (NCPE), a Marxist organization that has remained mostly irrelevant but whose groundwork has been used by the Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance / Diversity, Inclusion, and Equity (ESG/DIE) World Economic Forum (WEF) totalitarians.
Many people (e.g., Jordan Peterson in a 2018 interview on Channel 4 News), particularly on the “right”, have seen through the lies of the supposed "pay gap", recognizing that it is a myth or an irrelevant fringe-case that discriminatory practices result in different pay for different people within the same job. In reality, pay differences are most often a mere matter of job performance and, at best, a case of people being too timid to ask for recognition and raises, with the "pay gap" existing because of the differing performance proclivities of different people. In other words, for various reasons, some people do not work as hard and thus do not get paid as much.
But, where the right often misses the mark is in not seeing the next chapter of this issue. That is, the pay gap is indeed a poor metric that has been discarded by simple meritocratic principles, but why, then, does it remain a major talking point on the Marxist left?
Because they are acting on it.
It remains because the "pay gap" is yet another part of the Marxist infiltration of corporate governance. These Marxists want equal pay, and they oppose meritocracy since it is a barrier to that sheer senseless want.
Naturally, wanting an end goal without wanting to earn that goal through merits means that these are people more likely to manipulate the system asymmetrically in their favor. This is a common theme in Marxism: awarding capital to people of slave morality where their character failings would otherwise deny them. The ineffective worker is still human, after all, desiring comforts and wealth independently of having a mind to achieve those things.
And what is their strategy?
I have discussed this in particular detail previously, but, a short version is that "pay gap" advocates cannot quite rig the system such that under-performing people within a particular pay scale are paid more than their high-performing coworkers.
E.g.,
• If a pay scale is $1 (minimum performance) to $5 (maximum performance),
• If a DIE applicant rates a $1 performance, and
• If a non-DIE applicant rates a $5 performance,
..then the "pay gap" will persist. The non-DIE applicant is working harder and thus earning more money.
However, ESG/DIE corporations bypass this structure by having requirements for DIE applicants on their boards and in managerial roles. So,
E.g.,
• If a pay scale is $1 – $5, and
• If a non-DIE applicant rates a $5 performance,
..then the DIE applicant will be promoted to a pay scale that rates $5 to $10.
In this way, the DIE applicant bypasses the competency requirements but rates a pay which balances the "pay gap". This is Marxist equity as it exists in ESG's Corporate Governance. If readers doubt this, I suggest looking at nearly any ESG report published by its respective ESG-compliant company, and readers will see these businesses talking about this strategy for their "pay gap". These ESG businesses admit that they cannot increase a person's position in the pay scale (that has hard metrics attached to it, such as production numbers or profit), but they can artificially promote these people to fill DIE quotas. Nearly every ESG/DIE business has 2030 goals of having equal pay between DIE/non-DIE workers and a majority of DIE applicants on its board of directors.
What is the social cost of this?
Imposters, for one.
For those unfamiliar, imposter syndrome occurs when people in high-performance jobs feel as though they do not deserve their positions. On the one hand, this can happen to nearly any newly promoted person as that person accepts the new burdens of expanded authority. Additionally, it is considered a "syndrome" when people are wrong — when they can rise to the position with confidence and personal application.
In the case of ESG/DIE applicants, they are not wrong. They are indeed imposters.
The ESG/DIE imposter is unable to rise to the occasion. Many in the equity movement, believing as they do in the titles provided by the managerial state, believe that the position itself is the authority, having misunderstood or resented (resented as "impenetrable"—to them, anyways) the formation of peer respect and natural advancement that comes from hard demonstrations of competence and authority.
But, while they are imposters, they have been trained not to feel the syndrome. The "Mary Sue" of popular culture has guided them with characters such as Rey Palpatine, Captain Marvel, She-Hulk, and the "Rings of Powers" Galadriel to be over-confident and entitled to peer-praise despite themselves and their Marxism-induced character flaws.
Their very status as promoted DIE applicants is a substitute for their lack of virtue — or a crutch preventing them from attaining virtue. Thus, if people recognize their flaws, those people are simply not being good Marxists; they are wrong for questioning a DIE imposter. Unsurprisingly, the result of this reality-denial is that others must over-support the DIE imposter from above and below, supplementing the job requirements of the DIE leader to prevent system failure, since they too depend on the organization for their survival.
To the Marxist, this is an acceptable outcome. This is the workers uniting: hiding incompetent figures for the good of collective goals. This is everyone drinking the Flavor Aid together to ensure that their "revolutionary suicide" saves them from the "fascists" and "capitalists".
Unfortunately, this collectivism has massive system flaws. A good metaphor is seen in the Chernobyl mini-series, where the middle management decisions of character "Anatoly Dyatlov" (Paul Ritter) combined with compartmentalized managerial knowledge caused the issuance and obedience of incompetent orders.
When a thinking worker is able to defy orders in secret — accomplishing tasks correctly rather than as ordered by an incompetent Marxist — then the system functions. But, if the DIE imposter assumes the managerial role and issues flawed orders, having not increased requisite competencies, then there may not be opportunities for subordinates to exercise intelligent disobedience. Worse, still, is that managerial incompetence can result in malicious compliance, where the orders are followed to the letter despite the worker knowing that this will cascade system failure. And perhaps worst of all is that total system ownership by Marxists may result in no remaining intelligence for such disobedience to occur. The cascade failure will be initiated by an imposter, and no competent person will be present to stop the reaction — or will be denied a voice due to the managerial state not designating that person as an authority. Collectivism most often does not permit such course corrections.
System flaws such as this may show that a managerial state with Marxist infiltration is in fact designed for system failure. Managerial roles often include special manager-training events, but again, in an infiltrated system, the trainers themselves lack the skills and experience to impart wisdom — they merely read from an ESG/DIE-approved script like a Lumon Industries employee quoting Kier Eagan control-memes.
Thus, the DIE Marxist as a "hero" archetype (again, the "hero" of DIE productions by, for example, Disney and Marvel) is self taught.
However, this self-instruction is not the "Renaissance Man" autodidact, since Marxism rejects these Enlightenment polymaths. The useful idiot of the Marxist collective receives instruction not from immense study of classical text but from hyper-immediate Faith in Party. This "hero" is merely sensitive and conscientious of a hyper-present need to submit to ESG/DIE Marxism's changing imperatives. Any failure is acceptable if initiated by a Marxist, as, indeed, the failure will merely be revised as a necessary slow down in production.
It is at this point that the failures of the Marxist-infiltrated managerial state of the West merges with the overt strategy of the ESG/DIE totalitarians.
The Environmental, Social, and Corporate Governance (ESG) dictates of the West's rising World Economic Forum (WEF)-endorsed totalitarians is built on the overt strategy of drawing down the world's economies for Marxist/Marcusean "sustainability". Businesses that are productive generate more carbon than unproductive businesses, hence, unproductive businesses with these "sustainable" practices are ideal beneficiaries of the Marxist ESG/DIE state.
Closing the "pay gap" and causing an intentional collapse of the managerial state's competence is merely an extension of this Marxist imperative. This relates to...
• regulatory capture by the pharmaceutical industry — its installing incompetent bureaucrats in government who shorten the time from patent to market, now but not previously under the guise of emergency powers.
• the intentional selection of Marxist economists to direct economic policy — policies designed to fail.
• the intentional promotion of Marxist climate activists who have overt Malthusian agendas.
• the selection of incompetent figures for the Politburo.
• the promotion of ESG/DIE content in social media algorithms as a means to sell the public on climate policies which are designed to end the public's own lives.
And all of this is on the background of an ESG/DIE West that implodes itself while the BRICS Group rejects these suicidal policies. This paints a picture of an externally provoked collapse championed by the West's useful idiots and its ideologically captured Vanguard — all on the behalf of a gleeful Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) Group which merely has to wait for the West to weaken enough that it cannot overcome its new masters.
But, to end on an optimistic note (and I realize that there are yet more cynical barriers to this), the grand fallacy of authority that has for decades been awarded to the managerial state (i.e., the managerial state convincing the public that only designated "experts" can possibly come to the "truth", where that "truth" is merely the captured state's permissible groupthink) rhymes far too much with the age of the printing press and the rise of literacy.
The Marxist left has attempted to dismiss any arguments which they intuitively recognize as not coming from the Marxist Inner Party, but this is akin to acolytes of the pre-literate medieval Church rejecting any readings of the Bible which are not read and interpreted by the Church's anointed ones. While this transition from mediated readings of sacred text by the anointed to the common person reading the primary text was by no means a perfect process (see, for example, the many Christianity-based splinter religions that had strong variations in their interpretations of the Bible and were drawn into conflict along these lines), this transition broke the Church's monopoly on education. So too can the Marxist monopoly of the Western university be broken.
The managerial state will likely not recover its credibility following this totalitarian infiltration, but the libraries of this state still contain the works which, when read by the newly "literate", may stir another Renaissance.