Democratic Apartheid

Affirmative Action

Democratic Apartheid

Apartheid is generally defined as a policy or system of segregation or discrimination of a supposedly “minority” or “inferior” group based on race. Apartheid more deeply explored is actually the principles and ideologies architected for exploitation and abuses securing power, control, and narcissistic stature. Still, what are the doctrines of apartheid when the barriers are just as impenetrable as they are sustained by other ideologies camouflaging the intent by the method or justification? The ends often are justification for the means and the elasticity of morality allowing humanitarian abuses.

Although the brutally violent assaults on ethnicity are now usually the last resort, the subtle initiates of its replacements achieve the same results. It is not only a period in African history ending in 1994 but an act throughout American history expressed as an affirmative action of policy, society, and practice reflecting the subjugated delineation of a people to be dominated without violation of the perpetrator’s consciousness, religion, or morality. It requires a declassification of others humanity below the pedestal of a self-aggrandizing self-image of superiority or larceny of opportunity and resources.

This counterfeit social status is a construct of a narrative so propagandized to replicate the delusion as an entitlement associated with a biased concession by oppressive division. It prognosticates the separation of opportunity or rights enjoyed above those rendered. This very act of identity isolation is an allocation of humanity subsidizing the restrictions and tolerance metered out to maintain dominance by exclusion. The racially rationalized advantage of apartheid to the benefactors is now a discrimination against them when it is no longer the modus operandi of societal norms.

So, in essence any measures taken to offset the ill-gotten advantage is unfair to their continued abuses. Consequently, theoretically speaking by this logic any exclusion of a group based on expanded access or a “set aside” for another group is unfair despite the historical context or remedies sought thereof. Therefore, would not military service be such a “set aside” of unfairness to those who did not serve? There are many such “set asides’ such as job seniority, union membership, family legacy, senior citizens, adulthood, and virtually every societal absolution fits the exclusionary definition.

The only difference is not the act of recognition but the criteria of selection based upon a determinate such as the word “race” which makes it unfair. In the context of “race” it is not selective but corrective. If one child eats all the cake from the other child, would it not be fair to the child who has consumed more than their fair share to be curtailed from excluding the other’s consumption as a measure of DEI? The concept of DEI has its faults but not as many as the history or policies it seeks to remedy. Actions to perpetuate  social, economic, and political underclasses appeases a serenity of privilege but agitates the capitulation to injustice.

Injustice by coercion eventually is unsustainable and does not invite tranquility of society but instead sustainable resentment to subjugation. Ethnicity, gender, economics, and opportunity are measures of segregation restricting fairness but in all distorted fairness is promoted as having no disadvantage beyond the advantages not received. There are those hindered by the oppressions which others cavalierly dismiss as non-existent or discontinued. However, the advantage survives the gap created from its presence. The ideological virus of segregationist policies and practices infects the ascension of humanity by stifling contributions as an affirmative action to promoting confirmation of its unfair privilege.

The accusation goes from woke to radical left to Christian conservative values instead of subjective strongarming of ideologies beneficial to a biased agenda. So, affirmative is a conformation. Action is an activity taken. Democratic is a consensus. Apartheid is an abomination of humanity’s sovereignty. Combined they are a confirmation of activities agreed upon to execute an abomination against the sovereignty of a segment of humanity. When the moral check is due from the feast of oppression, the bloated diner cannot skip out on the bill or complain about its payment for a meal they consumed and thoroughly enjoyed.

It is not unreasonable and certainly expected that the provider is entitled to be compensated for the services they provided. There is no dispensation of self-determined nonpayment to avoid settlement or criminal culpability. By the way, it is also customary and expected that a tip accompany the payment. Absent reparations surely affirmative action, DEI, or other corrective measures to discrimination are a smaller domestic cost or social escrow than the billions sent abroad for foreign wars. What about an affirmative action towards funding the domestic war on the historical racial exploitations of America’s democratic apartheid of biblical proportions?


Please follow and like us:

Leave a Reply