It is one of the strangest spectacles of living under political correctness to observe relentless propaganda and pandering favour of designated 'deserving groups' of which the PC leaders are not themselves members.
This raises the obvious question of why - for example - every white, heterosexual, native-born and descended ultra-PC male leader does not promote the cause of political correctness by simply resigning in favour of someone who he (supposedly) regards as more deserving by virtue of them not being a WHet-NB&D male.
Or, beyond this, every devout and ultra-PC leader should perhaps resign in favour of anyone who was more deserving - so that a female non-heterosexual should resign in favour of a female non-heterosexual who was also an immigrant.
And so on.
Yet, despite being an obvious implication of genuinely PC belief, this never seems to happen.
Indeed, nobody ever seems to consider this very obvious possibility.
Of course much of this apparently inconsistent behaviour is due to dishonest, careerist hypocrisy, but it is not purely careerist dishonest hypocrisy.
If it were only due to bad reasons then the more-devoutly-PC would continually and forcefully be denouncing the hypocritically-PC for their backsliding.
I infer that there must be reasons which persuade the most devoutly PC that it is OK to leave un-mentioned the apparently inconsistent behaviour of the predominantly WHet-NB&D male leadership.
I think there are at least two ways of conceptualizing the behaviour of why a sincere and devoutly PC WHet-NB&D male leader might not relinquish their power and positions.
The first reason is that WHet-NB&D male PC leaders genuinely want to relinquish their power but simply cannot make themselves do it, due to their own sinfulness, which they fully understand and wish to overcome but cannot.
The WHet-NB&D male leadership are 'addicted' to power and cannot make themselves relinquish it , like another person might be addicted to cigarettes but cannot make themselves give up.
In private, they will confess their sin, and as repentant sinners they atone for their sin - in this case by creating abstract systems of allocations such that people such as themselves will in future be prevented from taking power.
So that the sincerely PC foes of the WHet-NB&D male leadership refrain from denouncing them, refrain from pointing out their obvious inconsistency, on the grounds that the WHet-NB&D male leaders are actively atoning for their sin of holding power by making sure that never again will WHet-NB&D males be allowed or able to get into similar positions of power and leadership.
So, hypocrisy goes un-denounced by the devout, so long as the leadership confess, repent and atone for their sins by serving the cause of 'virtue'.
But in addition to this is the system orientation and indifference to individual behavior among the leadership which was characteristic of the communists, and presumably has been inherited from them.
From this perspective, acts of individual sinfulness and virtue from the leadership is irrelevant to the cause - which is a matter of objective policy.
From this perspective, an individual resigning power to another individual is irrelevant, since this would not change the system.
It is better for leaders do whatever changes the system in the desired direction, rather than indulging in personal acts of virtue which leave the system intact.
So communists always hated the 'philanthropy' of individual charity - partly because it might delay the revolution by ameliorating the condition of the proletariat, and partly because it depended on the 'whim' of individuals which ought not be depended-on.
Likewise, the politically correct heirs of communism would rather use the drive and skill of WHet-NB&D males to implement a system which will - in future - be such that its leaders will be anything-but WHet-NB&D males.