Dear Friends,
It seems to me, when the progressives use the term “sustainability,” they mean it the same way the Mayans did. That they must sacrifice people and throw the carcass into their water supply. Sustainability, to progressives, means the promotion of a political ideology. That is where the confusion comes in. Most of the rest of us think sustainability means, the ability to sustain across time… decades and even centuries. An archaic definition to be sure. Today that word, along with much of the lexicon, has been evolved to mean the opposite of what we assume it means. Making our manipulation much easier. A sustainable corporation today is one that is “impactful” of the social situation. Which means they use investor funds to fight white supremacy, hate and the capitalist system itself.
If your driveway needs a new layer of road base, it may be cheaper to smash the foundation of your home to get it, the carbon footprint is much lower, not having to blast it, grind it and haul it. So it’s ESG score would be very good. Moreover, such action could be very impactful of the social situation if workers of the right color are hired. Just smash up the concrete and use wheel barrows to haul it to the drive. Spread it out with a rake and voila. A newly graveled driveway, ESG compliant and socially impactful. There is the worry that the house may collapse on the workers. That issue is readily solved, by claiming the problem is evil white people and their laws of physics, and so the rulers need more power to overturn those deadly racist laws.
A corporation that adopts post modernist ideology, like ESG and trying to be impactful, will also adopt the mindset as well. That is, merit is the acme of white supremacy, so it is to be eschewed at all costs. The able are offensive to the inept. That offense cannot go unaddressed. So, to have the most social impact possible, the hierarchy of a corporation must reflect the diversity found in the society as a whole. If societal diversity is not diverse enough, then the society itself must be changed, demographically, to reflect the diversity the ESG advocates want to see reflected in the boardrooms. The janitorial staff, on the other hand, need not reflect any diversity. It is best filled out by those who lost their jobs to diversity hires. Managers under such a system would naturally be impactful.
Using corporations to do what government is barred from doing does not make it right. The reason government is barred (under the enlightenment paradigm of constitutional limits) from censoring, forcing thought and systematically identifying groups of people to abuse… is not because government doing it is bad, but because doing those things themselves, are bad. You have no right to censor me, demand I think the way you want or being a demagogue… and I have no right to do those things to you. That is the basic social contract that is being rewritten by ESG and impact. It is the Golden Rule in operation. ESG and judging the social impact of an investment violates the Golden Rule, so is doing an evil. Doing evil is evil, no matter who or what does it, or whatever reason it is done for.
The fact is, we should be seeking sustainability, the sustainability of our investments to pay dividends, grow and provide something of value to the customers, so the profit can continue. By this measure, any rent seeking activity, while impactful and ESG compliant, is off limits, since it cannot be sustained over the decades and centuries. Grinding a foundation for road base is not a sustainable activity because eventually the edifice will collapse on the workers. Elevating inept people because of their social correctness is not sustainable either. No matter how much one might want to be a tyrant, tyrannizing people, by whatever means, is immoral. Even if those oppressions promote ESG and are socially impactful. You see, we define sustainable differently than the post modernist globalists.
Sincerely,
John Pepin
