A lieutenant colonel who served in the Third Cavalry Battalion of the Georgia State Guard for the Confederate Army, John S. Pemberton, invented Coca-Cola. The biochemist and Civil War veteran concocted the beverage officially around 1886 by mixing cocaine extracted from the coca leaf (it was legal then), and caffeine with carbonated water and a sugary-based syrup.
While the cocaine was removed years later by its new owners, one would judge the current executives are privately consuming a vintage version of the original 19th century recipe. This could help explain the company’s radical “diversity training.” The only other rationale that could best explain their politicized policies is that it has openly embraced cultural Marxism.
The world-wide recognized, Atlanta-based beverage company has been aggressively pushing corporate directives that are patterned upon the acceptance and adaptation of Critical Race Theory (CRT), a branch of Neo-Marxism’s Critical Theory dogma. Consequential with CRT, these policy positions are boldly racist in nature. Its discriminatory patterns suggest an open espousal for black supremacist remedies to alleviate perceived racial grievances.
One example is an emittance last January of a corporate decision, delineating a policy which requires that any law firm that does business with Coca-Cola must “commit that at least 30% of each of billed associate and partner time will be from diverse attorneys, and of such amounts at least half will be from Black attorneys.”
One would think that Bradley M. Gayton, Coca-Cola’s Senior VP and Global General Counsel, might be concerned with the policy directive that bears his signature and its possible violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically its Title VII which establishes criminal guidelines for employment discrimination based on race.
Coca-Cola is potentially violating the Civil Rights Act because it is implicitly discriminating against whites, Native Americans, and Asians.
Its ironic that the precise law designed to combat racial discrimination, is possibly being trampled upon in the name of “racial justice”, yet promoting an unequal, capricious selection of society with ideological underpinnings.
Black Americans, according to the Census Bureau, make up about 13 % of the population in the United States in 2020. Coca-Cola’s conditioning that at least 30 % of associate and/or partnered lawyers from a firm be black is exponentially discriminatory and exercises flagrantly unequal and disproportionate favoritism towards a particular racial group of Americans.
When one adds the fact that, as per the American Bar Association, only 5% of the nation’s lawyers are black, the position championed by Gayton, himself a black American attorney, becomes even more whimsical. A closer examination of Coca-Cola’s understanding of racial differences and its notion of “social justice”, renders the requiring of law firms to select from such a minute pool of legal candidates, clearer to discern.
Thanks to an internal company whistleblower, Coca-Cola decreed a “be less white” compulsory employee dubbed “diversity” training scheme. Leaked screenshots from the employee and made available to psychologist Karlyn Borysenko show an abominable manifestation of Marxism’s warped CRT indoctrination narrative. Among the suggestions the propaganda manual cites to “be less white” are to “be less oppressive, be less arrogant, be less certain, be less defensive, be less ignorant, be more humble, listen, believe, break with apathy,” and “break with white solidarity.” This is shamefully scandalous!
When Coca-Cola tells its targeted white employees to “be less oppressive”, it is touting the communist Frankfurt School’s line consistent with all Critical Theory doctrine that the victimized group is systemically “oppressed”. This totally contradicts the civil rights movement, gradual approach which Martin Luther King (MLK) championed in his fight for racial equality.
Gayton appears to reject MLK’s reform-focused evolutionary principle and, in fact, explicitly concurs with the CRT radical oppressor/oppressed Marxist anecdote calling for “systemic change”. In the company’s mentioned law firm policy statement, Coca-Cola’s VP and GC said: “The time has come for us to stop championing good intentions and motivations, and instead, reward action and results (…) “My hope is that our law firm partners view this as an opportunity to effect real systemic change (…)”.
Harmeet Dhillon, a nationally recognized lawyer and founder of the Center for American Liberty, a free speech and civil rights advocacy organization, emphatically called the beverage giant’s employee training program in a February tweet as an example of “blatant racial discrimination”. When the Neo-Marxist CRT element is factored in, Coca-Cola acquires characteristics of being a political non-governmental organization more that one of America’s iconic commercial brands.
Cola-Coca’s political activism is ideologically tilted to the left. This same company that speaks of “social justice”, does not extend that same victimology consciousness to non-blacks. Nor does it offer an oppressor categorization or, much less, call for “systemic change” where Marxist-Leninist dictatorships rule. Coca-Cola has been at the forefront of weakening the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act, a bill which seeks to ban imports from a region where the Chinese communist maintains a well-structured network of concentration camps where a host of gross human rights violations that qualify as crimes against humanity are routinely carried out against the Uyghur Muslim minority.
The Cuba libre (“Free Cuba”) is an emblematic Cuban drink consisting of rum, cola, and lime juice. The rum is typically, the iconic Bacardi rum and the cola, Coca-Cola. Since freedom and communism do not mix, the cola part should now be substituted for another generic brand. Coca-Cola’s blending with Marxist propositions and racism has no place in a Cuban drink that speaks of liberty.