Disturbing, but not surprising. A century ago, the Democrats consciously chose to use the slow, Fabian method of changing America into a Marxist nation, the popular experiment at the time. By 1912, Fabian Socialism was a popular idea. Its teaching was that changing to Marxism suddenly (as Russia would do just after The War to end All Wars) was too shocking for free peoples, and the frog would have to be boiled by slowly warming the water to a boil.*

Marxism was the only fair way to run the world, because everyone was to be treated the same and to have all the same stuff. No matter what opportunity you were offered, your outcome would be the same as everyone else’s. That was the promise.

Obama abandoned the slow boiling of the frog, because the water had been heated for a century, and he believed that America was now ready for a sudden change to fairness.** Or what Obama thinks is fair. It looks like Obama was right about the sudden change, not about the fairness.

The speed should not be surprising, as Obama sped up the process, turned up the heat. What is surprising is how much slower it is than Obama thought it would go. Twice, Obama tried to set up Departments Of Rat-Out-Your-Neighbor, and twice he failed. It is taking longer than Obama thought for the water to come to a boil. The Democrats have even tried to set up a Ministry Of Truth (Department of Disinformation, ruling on what cannot be said, because false statements are no longer allowed in nations of free speech). Although this could not be done officially, the FBI and others have done something similar with social media companies and with the Human Resources departments of other companies. This is the brilliance of the Hate Crime and of Hate Speech. They can now be used to help boil the frog.
_____________
* Being cold blooded, frogs have no thermal regulation and do not feel hot overall. They still can feel that an object is hot, because they have the nerves that can determine whether heat is flowing into or out of its skin. Thus, if you put a frog into boiling water, he feels the hot water and knows to escape, but if you slowly, slowly heat the water, he does not feel as though he needs to cool his body, the way we warm blooded creatures do, and he will not know that the water around him is getting too hot.

The Russians were an oppressed people, so they could not see how Marxism could be worse for them than the Czars, especially with the promise that they would be living like the nobility, even living in their houses (which they did, just not living as well as the previous occupants).

** What is fair? Is it fair that one person has more and another person has less? Is it fair that one person works hard for his reward (pay) and another person does not put in as much work, yet receives the same rewards, too?*** Is it fair that one person does all the work and the other sits around and plays X-Box all day, living off his welfare check? Is it fair that both people have X-Boxes, but only one has the time to play his? Is it fair that the hard worker gets frustrated that he works hard yet still is unable to live the life of Riley, like his X-Box-playing, do-nothing neighbor gets to live?

*** This is why Marx thought that the feudal system that he was born into was unfair. People born to nobility, like himself, lived a good life, but people born to serfdom dug ditches for a living. Was that fair? Was it fair that the amount of work and the amount of luxury resulted from the luck of birth and were not related? The person who dug ditches worked hard, but his reward was not a luxurious lifestyle. The nobleman or the business owner**** did not put in physical labor at all, yet they lived the life of Riley. Was it fair that the business owner put in all the risk and did all the work to start and run a company but the guy who dug ditches should get the same reward?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/bSZjYRpaktI (1 minute, Who Should Own the Means of Production?)

The manager can get another ditch digger, but can the ditch digger get another manager? One person has valuable skills that can result in the employment of a whole lot of people, and the other does not.

**** Marx saw business owners running their own companies and confused ownership with management. The owner was the manager. These days, the days of stock markets, owners pool their resources to own companies and hire managers to run them. The owner is not necessarily the manager. Marx’s system of everyone owning everything (thus no one owned anything) fails to make everyone wealthy enough to live the life of Riley. Instead, the managers are still the ones who make the decisions, and they are able to siphon off wealth for their own use. The worker still earns a wage, but he still does not benefit from the profits of the company that he theoretically partly owns. As Orwell pointed out, under Marxism, everyone is equal, but some people are more equal than others.

The free market capitalist system rewards the risk taker, the hard worker, the smart worker, and the inventor. It rewards the people who add value to the economy, the ones who add strength to the community. The worker is even able to buy stock in the company and share in its profits. That is how capitalism works. (I still own a small portion of a company that I used to work for.)

How many of theses racially discriminatory training, development and “talent” programs are in the corporate world. Is Google/Alphabet free of discrimination and favoritism? How about Meta? Walmart?

I sincerely doubt it.
Would be worthwhile for someone to put together a db of all the discriminatory programs in a place that Woke Big Tech can’t shut it down.

Maybe this is a use case for an X(Twitter) shared db…