People often regard affirmative action (group preferences, engineered 'diversity') as irrational and/or inefficient; but more accurately this is evil - actively destructive of The Good, both in itself and as tending to lead to further evil.
Most organisations naturally tend to do two things:
1. pursue intrinsic goals - the proper function of the organisation - what they are supposed to do: 'what it says on the tin' - schools educate, hospitals care for the sick, builders build etc.
2. reduce the efficiency with which these intrinsic goals and proper functions are pursued by self-interested corruption. This is essentially a dilution of the intrinsic goal.
Affirmative action is, however, something new and of a different kind than either of these.
Group preferences were pioneered under the mid twentieth century Communist dictatorships. For example, Lysenko was put in charge of Soviet Biology essentially because he was of proletarian origin and top jobs were barred to those of bourgeois origin.
Or, a friend of mine who lived in a Communist dictatorship was blocked from attending medical school because his parents were doctors (hence bourgeois). This was the way the selection system worked.
Group preferences operate against the intrinsic aims of the institution, they are a form of mandatory corruption yet they are not self-interested corruption: they are corruption on behalf of others.
This is something new under the sun: altruistic corruption!
And this is the secret to the success of AA group preferences in bureaucracies - they are primarily an advertisement of the altruism of the administration, and secondarily open-up discretionary space for graft - they are an expedient mode of corruption by which the administration can pursue their own selfish goals.
This is exactly what was seen in the Communist bureaucracies, and is now seen in the modern Western bureaucracies - complex and explicit regulations justified by their pursuit of objective fairness, and continually increasing self-interested corruption among vast numbers of officials who administer the system.
Affirmative action is thus a stalking horse for self-interested corruption - a potent combination, especially when imposed by central government under quasi-moral grounds.
Thus, group preferences sabotage (to the extent that they are effective) the intrinsic aims and functionality of institutions, in the immediate effect of selecting and employing and promoting and retaining sub-optimal people; and in the long term and permanently by preventing the organisation from pursuing its intrinsic aims with clarity and purpose.
Affirmative action can only become established and sustained when it is regarded as having ultimate priority - above all other objectives including the functional effectiveness of the organisation; otherwise the pursuit of functional effectiveness will tend to eliminate AA.
So diversity is driven by ideology, and nurtured by self-interest.
So a school, college or university must be more concerned about AA than about the supposedly intrinsic educational objectives; a medical school or hospital must be more concerned about AA than about helping patients, the legal profession must become more concerned about AA than about the law... and so on.
And so we get (we already have got) a society in which organisations have abandoned their primary goals of functional effectiveness, and deliberately subordinated them to the primacy of group preferences.
In this situation, nobody is aiming to do the best job they can - at most they are aiming to do the best job it can within the constraints of group preferences.
And if people are not even trying to be functionally effective, they they won't be.
So far, so uncontroversial.
But what happens next?
Let us assume that which - after half a century of expanding AA seems like a reasonable inference - that these destructive consequences to group preferences - declining functionality and expanding corruption - are not accidental.
Let us assume that since affirmative action intrinsically leads to inefficiency and dishonesty - that this is exactly what affirmative action is intended to do.
That when institutions come to resemble a lying shell of public relations around a rotting mass of manipulated procedures, that this was exactly what was meant to happen to institutions.
And that at some point a society comprised of institutions which have abandoned their intrinsic functional purposes will collapse or be taken over.
Very obviously so. This isn't rocket science.
The fact is that inefficiency and dishonesty - and societal collapse - are regarded by the advocates of group preferences as part of the specification.
And from their own selfish and short termist perspective, that is precisely correct; and from the perspective of what motivates them, this is precisely correct.
This is why group preferences are insatiable.
Existing diversity is never enough; always more diverity is needed - hence less effectiveness, more corruption.
This is why nothing whatsoever is done to tackle the problems caused by group preferences, instead the consequences are concealed, denied and overlaid by propaganda.
The pressure is now always for ever-more AA, for 'diversity' to be pursued full-on with no regard for consequences, and a complete denial of responsibility for any adverse consequences - indeed, adverse consequences are always blamed on the opponents of AA.
Group preferences/affirmative action and diversity have been made 'good' by-definition; which is as much to say that they are in reality mandatory evil: imposed on and by organisations without limit and with the covert but deliberate purpose of subverting and destroying all institutions, hence all of society.
But why would people do such a crazy thing?
Because they are crazy.
Crazy and evil.
But surely the people are not themselves crazy and evil? Perhaps not - but insofar as they are rational and well-motivated, they are using these attributes to implement a crazy and evil ideology: an ideology whose irrationality and destructiveness is so obvious that most of the ruling elite now spend most of their time and energy in concealing the irrationality and destructiveness of their ideology.
The facts are there: organisations and institutions that go to great lengths to advertise their functionality in terms of group preferences or diversity.
The fact is that AA is destructive of Good, hence evil.
The more this is explained and clarified - and the more obvious the link between AA and destruction (there are now decades worth of evidence) - the more avidly our rulers implement AA.
The vast and pervasive harms of affirmative action, group preferences, and the pursuit of 'diversity' are no accident.
Destruction is wanted, for the ruling elites ineffectiveness and corruption are design features to be implemented, not bugs to be eliminated.