Modern DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) is marketed as a moral breakthrough, a humane framework for justice, representation, and social harmony. But strip away the branding, and you find something older, darker, and unmistakably familiar.
DEI is not a new ideology. DEI is the Soviet nationalities policy reborn: Raznoobrazsiya and Korenizatsiia with corporate logos and HR departments.
The West did not invent DEI. It inherited it.
The Soviet Blueprint: Diversity as a Tool of Power
In the 1920s, the Soviet Union pioneered the world’s first DEI programme:
In the 1920s, the Soviet Union pioneered the world’s first DEI programme:
- Raznoobrazsiya — diversity
- Korenizatsiia — indigenisation
- Ravnopraviye — equality (equity in modern terms)
The Soviets discovered that identity could be weaponised:
- to mobilise minorities
- to delegitimise dissent
- to reshape institutions
- to consolidate ideological control
Why DEI Was Adopted in the West: The Vacuum of Meaning
The West entered the 21st century with:
- declining religion
- declining civic unity
- declining shared culture
- declining national identity
- declining trust in institutions
saints (marginalised groups)
- sinners (privileged groups)
- rituals (training, land acknowledgements, pronoun declarations)
- doctrine (equity, decolonisation, systemic bias)
- heresy (wrongthink, dissent, colour‑blindness)
Why DEI Spread: It Is Bureaucratically Perfect
DEI is not persuasive. It is procedural.
It spreads through:
- HR departments
- universities
- government ministries
- NGOs
- media organisations
- corporate compliance systems
- It creates jobs
- It creates mandatory processes
- It creates training requirements
- It creates reporting obligations
- It creates ideological gatekeeping
DEI is not a movement. It is a bureaucratic organism.
Why DEI Dominates: It Is Ideologically Useful
DEI provides political elites with:
- a moral vocabulary
- a justification for institutional expansion
- a mechanism for ideological policing
- a tool for delegitimising opponents
- a framework for demographic engineering
- a shield against criticism (“equity,” “inclusion,” “diversity”)
Just as Raznoobrazsiya was used to reshape the Soviet empire, DEI is used to reshape Western institutions.
The Core Mechanism: Identity as a Political Lever
DEI redefines identity as:
- political loyalty
- ideological alignment
- moral status
- institutional privilege
- Soviet korenizatsiia
- Maoist United Front strategy
- post‑revolution Iran
- ANC ethnic mobilisation
- modern race‑Marxist politics in New Zealand
- mobilisation
- gatekeeping
- punishment
- institutional capture
The DEI Cycle: The Soviet Pattern Reappears
The Soviet DEI cycle was:
- Promise
- Mobilisation
- Capture
- Betrayal
- Promise “We will create fairness, representation, and inclusion.”
- Mobilisation Identity groups are activated as political assets.
- Capture Institutions adopt DEI frameworks, language, and compliance systems.
- Betrayal Once ideological capture is complete, DEI becomes optional — quietly abandoned by corporations, universities, and state agencies.
Why DEI Became a State Ideology: It Solves Elite Problems
DEI solves several problems for Western elites:
1. It provides moral legitimacy without moral effort
No need for religion, philosophy, or civic virtue. Just say “equity.”
2. It provides a mechanism for institutional expansion
Every DEI initiative requires more bureaucracy.
3. It provides a tool for political control
Dissent becomes “harm.” Opposition becomes “bias.” Criticism becomes “racism.”
4. It provides a way to delegitimise opponents
DEI reframes political disagreement as moral failure.
5. It provides a way to reshape society without democratic consent
DEI operates through:
- HR
- academia
- media
- NGOs
- courts
- regulatory bodies
The DEI Cycle — Promise → Mobilisation → Capture → Betrayal
DEI follows the same pattern as its Soviet predecessors: Promise → Mobilisation → Capture → Betrayal. The rhetoric is progressive. The structure is Leninist. The outcome is institutional control.
The Final Stage: DEI as Soft Totalitarianism
DEI is not violent. It is administrative.
It does not purge people physically. It purges them professionally.
It does not deport dissenters. It deplatforms them.
It does not imprison heretics. It unemploys them.
DEI is the first ideology in history that achieves totalitarian outcomes through:
- HR policies
- compliance training
- institutional language rules
- bureaucratic enforcement
- social pressure
- reputational destruction
Conclusion: DEI Is Not Progress — It Is a Rebranded Past
DEI did not emerge from Western moral evolution. It emerged from Soviet political technology.
It is:
- Raznoobrazsiya with rainbow flags
- Korenizatsiia with corporate sponsorship
- Ravnopraviye with HR compliance
- Leninism with PowerPoint slides
- Stalinism with smiling facilitators
- morally flattering
- bureaucratically profitable
- politically useful
- psychologically comforting
- historically familiar
- strategically effective
The Soviet playbook lives on. The names have changed. The machinery has not......The full article is published HERE
Colinxy regularly blogs at No Minister
4 comments:
This article is just a conspiracy theory.
DEI came about due to the exploitation of Enlightenment values by disaffected minority groups. The middle class were too complacent to reject it and Governments playing politics were too timid to stop it.
The broader result is the degeneracy, decline and decease of the West which, it turns out, was only ever an optimistic experiment.
The 1920s policies listed at the top of this article did not survive the Stalinist purges of the 1930s.
DEI would appear to owe more to neo-Marxist doctrine infiltrating academe and governance.
To quote Google AI: "It is not historically realistic to posit that the 1920s Soviet policies of Raznoobrazsiya, Korenizatsiia, and Ravnopraviye are the origins of today’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) frameworks. While there are undeniable structural similarities—leading some historians to famously label the early USSR the 'world's first Affirmative Action Empire'—modern DEI and early Soviet nationality policies emerged from entirely different historical contexts, served vastly different ideological goals, and operated under opposing economic systems."
The point is that correlation is not causation and while there may be similarities between Russia and Western DEI, there is no evidence presented in the article in which Colin shows how x caused y.
Any similarities could be caused by a third factor, such as the spread of more advanced cultures: Colonization in nineteenth century New Zealand seems a bit like korenizatsiia in 1920s USSR; but surely we did not cause it? Or it could be due to shared human proclivities, such as the desire to impress one's will on others.
Over at No Minister, Colinxy says in a Comment that “DEI is neo-Marxist,” as said by Barend Vlaardingerbroek above.
Colin has written a previous article “Korenizatsiia Revisited: How Māori Are Being Played by the Marxist Machine,” 4 November 2025, but is contradicted by Julian Batchelor who says, ‘I would change the headline. “How Maori Are Using Marxism To Play New Zealanders”.’ For both, the specifics need to be spelled out: How specifically is Marxism being used to [whatever] and what is the evidence for that?
Colin says, “Both korenizatsiia and Treaty politics begin with promises of empowerment—but function as tools of ideological consolidation,” but is that the influence of Marxism or is it just Maoris doing what they have always done? Have John Tamihere, Willie Jackson and Rawiri Waititi been reading Marx before fashioning their tactics accordingly? Is that why they are pushing their culture and language?
Or are they mostly exploiting Treaty loopholes to further their own political aspirations, without sufficient regard for the Maori people? That is the simple and obvious conclusion. Some academics may have identified the similarity with Marxism and communicated that to Maori leaders so that they are bolstered by it. But I expect that is the extent of it.
Lenin is not the mastermind behind the wrecking of New Zealand’s constitution and economy. Our Parliament and judiciary are and they need to take ownership of that.
Post a Comment
Thank you for joining the discussion. Breaking Views welcomes respectful contributions that enrich the debate. Please ensure your comments are not defamatory, derogatory or disruptive. We appreciate your cooperation.