Contemporary liberalism is a strange beast. On the one hand, it aims to empower colored people and boost their self-esteem to undeserved levels, and on the other hand, it aims to sensitize those same people to criticism and promote perpetual victimhood.

Thus, liberalism tends to spawn a large number of concepts and narratives that implode over time due to their contradictory, confusing and patronizing natures.

Affirmative action is a good example. Officially implemented to ensure that blacks – who are 100% equal to whites, goy – receive “fair admission practices,” it has nonetheless received growing criticism because it proves that blacks need artificial support to compete with whites.

Similarly self-defeating is the concept of white privilege. Though intended to demonstrate that whites have inherent and “unearned” privileges not afforded to coloreds, people are beginning to realize its inadvertent pro-white implications.

Heck, it’s so obvious that even niglets are realizing it.

Daily Mail:

A North Carolina mother is outraged after her second-grade son was sent home with a pamphlet on white privilege.

Amber Pabon says she found the two-sided piece of paper detailing white privilege in her eight-year-old son’s folder after he came home from Hunter Magnet Elementary in Raleigh last month.

The pamphlet explained how white people were overly represented in the government, military and media – and how that gives white people privileges not afforded to minorities.

The pamphlet mixes white people with (((white people))), but it’s pissing off blacks so I’m not going to complain.

What was most heartbreaking to Pabon was how it affected her son’s identity.

She says that after he came home with the paper, he asked her ‘Mommy, are white people better than me?’

Pabon is outraged about the pamphlet because she thinks her son is too young to learn about systemic racism.

Yes, Quantavious, white people are better than you. The pamphlet didn’t intend to deliver that message, but as I mentioned earlier, you can’t talk about the success and dominance of white people without implicating superiority – particularly when you’re attributing that success to a skin-based caste system inherent in all world cultures.

And no amount of kike doublespeak can change that fact.

On an unrelated note, here’s some advice for the journalists at the Daily Mail:

While Pabon insists that white privilege was discussed in class, a school district spokeswoman says it was not part of the curriculim and that the pamplet was organized by the school’s Parent-Teacher Association.

One of the most difficult things about being a liberal academic is that reality constantly disproves your every assertion.

You might sincerely believe that White privilege is real, that women are as innovative as men or that Blacks are human. But every time you leave the house, every time you view the world through your eyes rather than through a screen, the opposite is shown to be true.

So, what do you do?

You double-down on the delusion, of course, by authoring studies that “prove” your beliefs are correct. And those studies will work in your favor, since you tailored them to show the desired outcome.

But what happens when your studies produce the results that you weren’t expecting?

Breitbart:

An initiative by the leaders of Australian Public Service to promote gender equality through blind recruitment efforts has failed, according to reports.

The trial, which was an effort to push more women in senior position jobs, revealed that removing the gender from a candidate’s application does not help boost gender equality in hiring. The trial also revealed that adding a male name to a candidate’s application made them 3.2 percent less likely to get the job while adding a female name made it 2.9 percent more likely that the candidate would be hired.

…

“We anticipated this would have a positive impact on diversity — making it more likely that female candidates and those from ethnic minorities are selected for the shortlist,” said Professor Michael Hiscox, a Harvard academic. “We found the opposite, that de-identifying candidates reduced the likelihood of women being selected for the shortlist.”

Michael Hiscox.

You almost have to feel sorry for Michael Hiscox.

He really believes that women have equal or greater chances of obtaining high-ranking job positions if the only source of their power in the workplace – affirmative action – is stripped from them.

Instead, his own study proved the opposite: when women are forced to compete with men on equal footing, the muscular arm of reality slaps them, chokes them and tosses them back into the kitchen where they belong.

Did Hiscox learn his lesson? Of course not.

Hiscox warned governments and companies to consider the real possibility that gender-blind hiring processes may actually lessen equality in the workplace. “We should hit pause and be very cautious about introducing this as a way of improving diversity, as it can have the opposite effect,” Professor Hiscox claimed.

So… men are better employees than women, therefore companies should keep affirmative action to ensure that inferior employees retain preferential treatment over superior ones.

Wow.

I know that this mentality has been rife for decades, but this is the first time I’ve heard it being pushed when a related study literally proves that it’s a bad idea.

The simple fact is that women don’t belong in the workplace, period. If you’ve worked in an office filled with them, you will agree. They gossip and bitch about co-workers behind their backs, distract male workers, get pregnant and earn free money (aka “maternity leave”) for it, and generally transform the workplace into high school.

If your new workplace looks like this, quit. You’ll be happier unemployed.

Men evolved to do meaningful work with other men and women evolved to remain home with their children. Only someone as overeducated as Professor Hiscox could find this concept difficult to understand.

Personally, I look forward to the day when a shitlord tech company announces a WHITE MEN ONLY hiring policy. Within a single year, that company – being free from the street-shitters and women that staff its competitors – will rise to the top of its field with meteoric speed.

It will be very, very funny.