The Donald's Queens' DEI Strategy: Blitzkrieg Bop

Trump is overwhelming DEI.

After years of being called a Nazi while putting forward one modest incremental reform at a time, only to be stalled in the press and the courts, Trump’s strategy this time around is to blitzkrieg the opposition into a rout the way the Wehrmacht psychologically broke the mighty French army, which had stood like a lion on the Western Front during the Great War, in a few days in May 1940. As a native of Queens …

Being a Nazi, a main battleground Trump has chosen to fight on of course is upholding the “equal protection of the laws” for all races.

From the Washington Post news section:

In first days, Trump deals ‘death blow’ to DEI and affirmative action

The president moved to end diversity, equity and inclusion programs throughout the federal government with a flurry of executive orders, upending decades of policy.

January 23, 2025 at 12:50 p.m. EST

By Julian Mark, Taylor Telford and Susan Svrluga

In the first 48 hours of his second term, President Donald Trump moved to eviscerate the surviving remnants of affirmative action, swiftly upending decades of policy — actions observers say are sure to touch every aspect of American life.

It’s kind of funny how rarely the mainstream media mentions that affirmative action touches every aspect of American life. During the 50+ years that I’ve been following the news, that fact only comes up in the press about once a decade when there is a Supreme Court case about college admissions quotas. The rest of the time, it’s kept awfully quiet.

The newly signed executive orders to end “illegal discrimination” and restore “merit to government service” were so sweeping and aggressive that even conservative activists — ones who had been waging a multipronged attack to end diversity initiatives in the private and public sectors — were shocked by their scope and intensity.

For the last 55 years, the Establishment had more or less tacitly agreed that the 14th Amendment’s most famous mandate would be quietly suspended for the duration.

The duration of what, however, was never quite specified.

Two generations into the affirmative action emergency, the public seems ready for a change.

The breaking point of popular patience arrived during the Racial Reckoning of this decade as people had their faces rubbed in the openly racist hatred espoused by DEI apparatchiks.

In the past, proponents of modern racial discrimination (the good kind against whites, you understand, not the old bad kind for whites) had (largely) prudently restricted themselves to a policy of obfuscation: e.g., they weren’t against whites, they were just for more equal opportunity for nonwhites, which would be good for everybody because diversity is our strength. And who could object to that?

But during the Great Awokening, they dropped the mask and allowed themselves countless expressions of open virulent anti-white racist animus, as I may have mentioned once or twice over the last dozen years.

Here’s my paywall:

“I can’t believe he’s going this far,” said Dan Lennington, deputy counsel at the Wisconsin Institute for Law & Liberty, which for years has led a relentless legal campaign to invalidate diversity programs. “It still is sinking in, because I’m thinking of all the ways in which this affects the average American.”

The flurry of executive orders was meant to put a hard stop on diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs throughout the federal government. The administration ordered U.S.-run diversity offices to close and scores of their workers to be put on administrative leave by Wednesday. It also suspended dozens of contracting programs aimed at minorities and women, some of which have been operating for decades.

But the orders go far beyond the federal government. Trump also directed agencies to draw up lists of public companies to investigate over their DEI policies — a move that legal experts said could send chills through the private sector.

The Justice and Education departments also were required to issue guidance to educational agencies and universities on ways to comply with the Supreme Court’s landmark decision banning race-conscious admissions.

And in a move that scholars underscored as a historic turning point, Trump revoked an executive order signed by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965 directing federal contractors to take “affirmative action” to end discrimination at their firms, a landmark policy viewed as a major step in the federal government’s effort to foster racial equality.

LBJ’s 1965 use of the term “affirmative action” did not mean at the time that employers should hire less qualified applicants because of their race, but that they should take positive steps to recruit more black applicants, a reasonable thing to do 60 years ago. It was the Nixon administration in 1969 that began the current era of affirmative action as part of a prototypically Nixonian complex plan to stick it to Democratic Party-affiliated crafts unions like the Philadelphia electricians.

The justification for repealing the 1965 executive order is that a vast superstructure of racial preferences have since been built atop it.

In 1985, the Reagan administration tried to replace the order, but backed off after widespread backlash from business leaders and members of Congress.

1985 was 40 years ago.

“The equal employment principles embodied in EO 11246 have stood the test of time and remained in place through both Democratic and Republican administrations,” the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s three Democratic members wrote in a joint statement.

It’s funny how the Progressives have become the Chesterton’s Fence Party, defenders of the old ways of doing things. The concept that times change and we need new regulations for new eras is unthinkable to them when it comes to race.

Now, it could be that racial differences are permanent and that the only way to, say, have a sizable black middle class is therefore to have racial preferences. But nobody is allowed to say that, so the only allowable explanation has been white evilness. People are tired of this now, especially after October 7 when Jews mostly finally figured out that they are, officially and unofficially, white.

… Now, the Trump administration is building on the Supreme Court’s decision and, in some ways, attempting to take it further, according to legal experts.

“The Trump administration is trying to give the death blow to diversity in legal and in political cultural terms,” said Noah Feldman, a constitutional law professor at Harvard Law School.

The order issued Tuesday evening, which directs the attorney general and heads of federal agencies to identify places to end DEI, is testing the boundaries of the high court’s affirmative action ruling by applying its logic to private employers, Feldman said. If the Justice Department follows through, it “would be a new development, and would be significant in how corporate America would have to respond to the evolution of the constitutional and the statutory doctrine.”

Feldman cautioned, however, that government actions take time to trickle through culture and society — and the belief in diversity as a fundamental good won’t go away overnight.

“Lots of people still take the idea of diversity super seriously and deeply,” Feldman said. “But the writing is on the wall for the use of the justification of diversity in a range of spaces.”

By Wednesday afternoon, Trump’s actions were already being felt across the federal workforce. A memo from Secretary of State Marco Rubio warned State Department officials that they will face “adverse consequences” if they fail to report on colleagues who have concealed or obscured existing DEI programs at the department.

“The Administration is aware of efforts by some in government to disguise these programs,” the memo says. “There will be no adverse consequences for timely reporting this information. However, failure to report this information within 10 days may result in adverse consequences.”

Employees were asked to send any information regarding such efforts to an email address containing the term “DEIA Truth.” (The “A” stands for “accessibility.”)

It’s almost as if bureaucrats tend to oppose the will of democracy unless their pensions are put at risk.

… But Interior Department employees were told Wednesday that some civil rights programs are still required regardless of the executive orders, according to emails reviewed by The Post. These programs “should not be categorized as DEIA as they predated the executive orders in question and are mandated by law,” wrote Jennifer Koduru, the agency’s principal diversity officer and director of the Office of Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights. …

The difference between the hated DEI and the tolerated AA may become relevant.

The executive orders stand to reach deep into the private and government-contracting sectors, said Jason Schwartz, a partner at Gibson Dunn and co-chair of the law firm’s labor and employment group. … Schwartz described the order as “go find nine big whales and make examples of them.”

This should be fun.

“They are handing out sheriff’s badges to private citizens to sue about government contractor DEI programs,” Schwartz said.

Indeed.

Legal experts said parts of the executive order are sure to be challenged in court.

“It’s going to be a really crazy ride,” said Susan D. Carle, a law professor at American University, who predicted there would be “a lot of litigation.” …

The American Civil Liberties Union, which has previously pledged to challenge Trump administration policies aimed at dismantling DEI, said it was weighing its options. …

Perhaps the ACLU would be less toothless in 2025 if they hadn’t gone so DEI in previous years?

The flurry of orders marks a sharp turnaround from the summer of 2020, when the murder of George Floyd ushered in widespread calls for racial equity and prompted corporate America to double down on policies meant to increase opportunity for historically marginalized groups.

Indeed.

It almost seems at present as if The Establishment going insane at the end of May 2020 was the cause of their downfall four and a half years later.

DEI encompasses a wide range of practices designed to diversify companies, schools and organizations, including recruiting and mentorship programs, as well as anti-bias training and employee resource groups.

But mostly DEI represents anti-straight white male hate.

But critics contend that such policies come at the expense of nonminorities, and that the real goal should be race neutrality.

One striking aspect of Trump’s actions against DEI and affirmative action, Moore noted, is the argument that laws and programs implemented to eliminate historical barriers to opportunity for underrepresented groups are being accused of advancing discrimination themselves.

“The efforts to recast those with a broad brush as discriminatory is really galling,” Moore said. “It flies in the face of history and the laws themselves.”

We’re the Good Guys, no matter how badly we act, not the Bad Guys!

Why can’t you grasp that simple fact of Who vs. Whom? We are the triumphant Whos and you are pathetic loser Whoms who deserve your fate!

But Lennington, the legal activist, said he believes that the executive orders will be effective. “There is no hiding from this,” he said. “You can roll the dice and think that maybe a court someday is going to hold that this is unconstitutional or illegal — but that is a hell of a business decision.” …

Christopher Rufo, an anti-DEI activist who participated in the campaign to oust Harvard President Claudine Gay in January 2024, marveled at the force of the order.

“This is a sea change and my sources in Silicon Valley, Wall Street, and the Ivy League are confirming that the institutions are adapting to the new reality,” he said in an email to The Post. “We won. The next four years are going to be about making these changes permanent.”

John Hudson, Carol D. Leonnig and Maxine Joselow contributed to this report.

While the diversicrats are shocked and awed at the moment, the institutional resources of affirmative action to clog change remains immense.

And it’s not clear how much the public really wants “equal protection of the laws” rather than just a return to the pre-Great Awokening norms against open displays of hatred of straight white men. How much do they oppose quiet racial preferences versus how much do they merely loathe the open racist hostility of recent DEI indoctrination sessions?

And is anybody really ready for just how far blacks will fall on a level playing field?