Skip to main content

Collectivist Tyranny: The Underbelly of DE&I Initiatives

The Incompatibility of Individualism and DE&I Initiatives

As an ardent advocate for individualism, I find myself increasingly at odds with the mainstream narrative that embraces Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DE&I) initiatives. I am acutely aware of the sentiments that fuel these initiatives; however, I believe they fundamentally clash with the principles of individualism, personal responsibility, and libertarian philosophy.

In the realm of individualism, each person is recognized as unique, with their abilities, qualities, and achievements being the result of their personal endeavors and choices. Individualism sees society as an aggregate of such unique individuals and emphasizes personal freedom, independence, and accountability.

DE&I initiatives, on the other hand, operate on a collectivist framework. They recognize and attempt to rectify systemic disparities between different groups of people, focusing on attributes like race, gender, or socioeconomic status. The collectivist premise groups people based on these shared characteristics and seeks to rectify the imbalance created by historical injustices or systemic discrimination.

However, life's inherent inequalities cannot be wholly rectified, and the attempt to do so often leads to new forms of unfairness. Human beings, by their very nature, are unequal. We are born into varying circumstances, with distinct physical attributes and unique capacities. This variety is a part of our human experience. Attempts to level the playing field by considering only group attributes ignore these individual disparities. They can result in unintended consequences, such as creating new victims in the quest for justice.

Moreover, the collectivist approach runs the risk of perpetuating a form of segregation – not in the traditional sense but in the grouping of people based on shared attributes. This grouping often oversimplifies the rich tapestry of human experience and can lead to its own forms of bias and discrimination.

In reality, individualism and collectivism, in their purest forms, can seem diametrically opposed. Each comes with its own set of strengths and weaknesses, and they often clash in their approaches to fairness, justice, and social responsibility.

As an individualist, I acknowledge the noble intentions of those who champion DE&I initiatives. Still, I steadfastly maintain that these initiatives, rooted in collectivist philosophy, cannot rectify past injustices without trampling on the principles of individual rights and freedoms. It is through honoring individuality, personal responsibility, and the respect of rights for all, irrespective of group affiliation that we can truly aspire to build a just society.



Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Could Today Be the Cheapest Price for Bitcoin Ever Again? Here’s Why

By: Matthew Hayward Current price  Nov 10, 2024 76.72K 80.43K Is Now the Time to Buy Bitcoin? Bitcoin has come a long way since its early days as a niche digital asset. Today, as we enter another phase in its established four-year cycle , Bitcoin may be at a historic high, but it could soon become the new baseline price. This cycle, which has repeatedly shown Bitcoin’s resilience and long-term growth potential, suggests that the current price might be the lowest we’ll see again. While recent political shifts, including Donald Trump’s landslide election victory, have added new momentum and support for Bitcoin, the timing within the cycle itself makes this an ideal moment to consider buying. A Political Shift: From Anti-Crypto to Pro-Crypto For years, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies have faced an uphill battle against a U.S. government determined to restrict and control their growth. This opposition was largely led by Gary Gensler, who waged an outright war against crypto from hi...

The National Guard Was Never Meant to Be a Federal Tool

By Matthew Hayward 7/13/2025 Let me say this clearly: the National Guard was created to defend the states, not to enforce the will of the federal government. It was meant to serve as a local militia—an armed extension of the people under the control of the state. The highest authority a Guard member was ever supposed to answer to is their elected governor, not a bureaucrat in Washington, not a federal agency, and certainly not a sitting president weaponizing military force on domestic soil. Yes, I know the laws have changed. I know the Montgomery Amendment, the National Defense Act, and the Supreme Court's decision in Perpich v. DoD rewrote the rules. But legal doesn’t mean constitutional. Gradualism doesn’t legitimize usurpation. You don’t get to trample foundational principles and call it progress. What’s happening now—federalizing state forces to deploy them in cities without gubernatorial consent—is blasphemous. It's an insult to the very spirit of the Constitution. The ...

When Government Demands Papers We Refuse

 By Matthew Hayward  9/19/2025  The Supreme Court just paused a lower court order that had limited federal immigration stops in Los Angeles. That stay lets federal agents resume roving patrols and interior operations that critics say rely on appearance, language, job, or neighborhood to pick people for questioning.  This matters because it normalizes a posture of suspicion. Checkpoints miles inland and roving patrols turn movement inside the country into a condition to be earned rather than a freedom to be enjoyed. The government already claims expanded authority inside the 100-mile border zone. That claim, plus an open green light for stops based on appearance, is a recipe for arbitrary enforcement.  Philosophy of resistance John Locke told us that the consent of the governed is the foundation of legitimate power. When rulers invade life, liberty, or property, or when they become arbitrary disposers of people’s lives and fortunes, the social compact is dissolve...