By M. Farrell
Since the 1960s, America has spent more than $2.5 trillion in an effort to upgrade African-Americans
–the late William Buckley’s syndicated column, Jan. 5. 1993
Throughout the past several decades, discrimination against White people has progressed to unprecedented lengths. When a few White citizens initially began voicing their concerns over some of the controversial legislation that the government was implementing, most people just laughed it off. At the time, it was naught more than a joke; the majority of the people thought that it would all quickly end or that the people who told them about the new laws were merely exaggerating the facts. Eventually, however, they learned that the people who mentioned these unfair hiring and promoting practices were telling the truth. The gears were in motion.
Quickly, new laws were enacted, covering every city in every state. The same people, who were laughing before, were now trying to compete, with the unfair hiring practices hanging over their heads; they were not laughing any more. Quotas developed. Tests for jobs became obsolete; or, in some cases where testing was still used, the tests actually gave “bonus points,” called banding (another type of quota), for being a member of a race that was a minority in America’s racial constituency. Other hiring methods were implemented with two lists: a list of the minorities who scored highest, compared to other racial minorities; and a list of Whites, compared to other members of their racial majority. The people at the top of the minority list were, oftentimes, given preference over some of the people at the top of the majority list; that was done despite the fact that many of the people near the bottom of the majority’s list would out-score the people at the top of the minority’s list. Other ideas were instituted to keep the numbers of minorities at a company statistically equivalent to their number of people in the community, even if grossly under-qualified, lest a lawsuit develop.
The politicians did not care. They knew that their White constituents would vote for them, regardless of how they acted. Both political parties decided to prey on the minorities’ desires, hoping to curry their favor and, therefore, their vote. (Granted, there were–and still are–some politicians who are against the favoritism given, but not very many of them.) It soon became politically correct to justify legislation that would discriminate against Whites, especially White males.
The Whites who were poor detested the new laws which adversely effected them, feeling that the laws were an outrage; their richer counterparts did not care, for the quota laws had little effect, if any, on them. The wealthy Whites still had their bank accounts. They could still send their children to the better schools–far away from the integration that they seemingly supported. The Anti-White Discrimination (AWD, pronounced “odd”) laws had virtually no effect on richer Whites, yet they were the very same ones who felt it best to discriminate against their unfortunate, White counterparts.
Vouchsafed, not all of the richer Whites felt that way; but the ones who did not were probably too fearful of being branded with a derogatory sobriquet–perhaps, “racist,” “bigot,” “sexist,” “elitist,” “redneck,” “white supremacist,” or the multitude of other words and phrases that became an insult, designed to stifle the debate and quickly put the person in his place–to openly discuss their concerns.1 Middle class Whites could move to the suburbs–something that occurred so often that it even developed its own name: “White flight.” However, the move to the suburbs did little good for many Whites. To the tune of buses and other programs, ideas to integrate non-Whites to the suburbs (at a great expense to the White taxpayers) were quickly developed.2
Laws that allowed minorities to sue Whites for not allowing minorities to rent an apartment were made, which created problems. One problem was that if two Whites–who smelled bad, were unkempt, on drugs, and wore dirty clothes–attempted to rent an apartment and the landlord refused, there was no problem for the landlord to refuse them; the Whites had to look elsewhere. However, if there were two Blacks who had the same undesirable attributes as the Whites and attempted to rent the same apartment, the Blacks could sue and often won thousands of dollars if a White landlord refused to rent. (Black landlords did not encounter that problem, of course.) Eventually, the government was allowed to dictate to whom a landlord will rent an apartment.
Like most of the other solutions given by the government, the government’s solution (which abrogated the rights of its White constituents) for White landlords was flawed. If the landlord is a racist, he will certainly lose money from not renting to Blacks and will, in the long run, suffer financially from that. But, it is the landlord’s property to do with what he wants, not the government’s. Further, what Black in his right mind would want to rent an apartment from a racist, knowing that the racist would financially benefit from the ordeal? The only reason, it seems, for these laws was so that some shysters could make a lot of gold coins at the expense of everyone else.
Today, although the problems have grown increasingly worse, many Whites still seem to be afraid to voice their opinion against the onslaught of AWD laws. They still fear that if they do, they will be labeled with some type of name that is considered to be derogatory in today’s politically correct world. The few Whites who do voice their opinion–even though their opinion may reflect that of the majority of Whites–are hopelessly outnumbered in the ensuing debate because of the fear that prevents many other Whites from joining in the debate and speaking against the laws that discriminate against them. Further, in today’s racially divided politics, very few politicians are afraid to speak against the politics of preferential treatment because of their fear of losing non-White votes.
Frederick Lynch, a sociologist and senior research associate at the Salvatori Center, wrote a book about the problems encountered by Whites when they have to compete in jobs against minorities who receive an unfair hiring advantage. Lynch’s book, called Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, deals extensively with anti-White discrimination. In his book, he says there is a fear that prevents many Whites from speaking against the outrage of so-called “affirmative action.” He called this fear, which prevents Whites from speaking against the discrimination that they face, the “New McCarthyism.” The reason he calls it such is because of the “taboos” that are associated with it: If a White person does not accept and wholeheartedly approve of the anti-White discrimination laws, the person is, says Lynch, “threatened with being labeled a `racist.’”3 As a result of being labeled a racist, notes Lynch, the person could face possible repercussions, such as losing a job.
Cities across the U.S. began to pass all types of AWD laws–oftentimes under a euphemism to hide the true intent of the laws being enacted. “Civil rights” is one of the more common euphemisms used, implying that there are inherent rights for all civilians; yet these same “rights,” supposedly created for all to use, seemed only available to minorities. For example, the “right” to receive bonus points on tests is not available to Whites. Another euphemism to disguise the AWD law was “affirmative action”–a contradiction in terms if there ever was one–which is often used to make is sound like candy. Affirmative action is an oxymoron because the “action” taken, where Whites are routinely discriminated against for the minorities’ benefit, is definitely not an “affirmative” social policy. “Reverse discrimination” is also an incorrect term, although many people use it, because it implies that the converse usually occurs, which is far from the case when you consider the millions of Whites who have been discriminated against when they applied for government jobs. Many other names have been created to hide the true nature of the AWD laws: social justice, fair share, banding, quotas, equal opportunity, et cetera, ad nauseam.
White people–except those from wealthy families (e.g., the Kennedys)–tend not to accept the infringement of their rights.
Understandably, the AWD laws, compounded with other things in America, have led to bitter feelings among Whites. The tension among Whites is getting to the breaking point. One White man, describing his feelings about the problems in America, said he was thinking about buying a gun. “But one of my ambitions, honest to God, is to get through life without killing anybody.”4
Unfortunately, there have been a few White men who were not able to tolerate the anti-White laws any more, and did end up shooting people. Ben Smith grew tired of the anti-White laws and shot several people in an unprovoked shooting spree. He did this because Matt Hale was denied his law license because of his racist views, though his views should be protected by both Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. Hale had passed college and the Bar, but was not given his law license because the powers-that-be said you can’t be a racist and have a license. It didn’t matter that this nation’s past leaders–Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, et cetera, ad nauseam–were racist. It didn’t matter that Supreme Court Justices Bushrod Washington and John Marshall would be considered “racist” in today’s society. It didn’t matter that Justice Hugo Black was a former member of the KKK when F.D.R. appointed him. It didn’t matter that Clarence Thomas, a Black Supreme Court Justice, didn’t have any problem getting his law license and getting accepted to the Supreme Court although he was not as qualified as other candidates and was once a Black Panther who expressed a fondness of both Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan’s Nation of Islam.
A White firefighter in Miami stated that he is fed up with the AWD laws. He suggested that Whites are being pushed in a corner with nowhere to go but straight ahead. The firefighter was just another byproduct of AWD. He described his feelings and the AWD that he endured, which made his hard work and test scores useless:
“[Non-Whites] stole my pay; they stole my promotion. . . . If you’re black and belong to a black group, you’re an activist. If you’re white and you belong to a white group, you’re an asshole. Nobody supports the KKK-I don’t. But there’s nothing for a white guy to join. A few years ago, I was a walking keg of dynamite. . . .”5
Some tests for job candidates have become purposeless. In order to make applicants score the same in New York City, the test for the Sanitation Department became extremely easy. It was made so easy, in fact, that 23,078 job candidates out of 24,000 did real good on their tests; in other words, 96 percent of all applicants scored perfectly.6 By making the test that simple, the city could then justify hiring all the minorities it wanted, whether qualified or not. By having the test that simple, however, the city could not tell which of the minorities hired were more qualified than the other minorities. Some bright Blacks, who would have even scored above some Whites if the test accurately measured their skills, may have been overlooked since they scored the same as other Blacks, who on a normal test would have scored poorly. Obviously, the best person for the job was not applicable in this case.
If Blacks cannot meet qualifications at a company, the company may take it upon itself to ensure that Blacks can. It does not matter that the company could just hire the more qualified Whites who can meet the qualifications. For instance, Prudential Insurance had job candidates take a test that required the candidates to have a minimal standard in math and reading. 8,000 Blacks who applied for the jobs were not accepted because they could not meet the minimal standards. Although most of the Black applicants had graduated from high school, their average score was a 3 on a scale that went to 9, with 9 being the best. In order to remedy this, Prudential paid approximately $3 million to educate the Blacks who were rejected with 260 hours of classroom time. Upon completion of the course, 600 Blacks were offered full-time jobs.7
New York City wanted a test that was “culturally unbiased” because minorities were not scoring as well as Whites on tests for city jobs. To ensure that the test would be “culturally unbiased,” the city spent about $100,000 for one to be developed. However, the test turned out to be just as “biased” as its predecessor. Or, perhaps, it was not biased, and the majority of Blacks who took that particular test could simply not perform as well as Whites. Whatever the reasoning, the city decided to abandon that and turn to “banding.”8 Banding is simply another form of quotas-no matter how you look at it. It gives minorities a significant amount of “bonus points” on tests for simply being minorities.
In Cincinnati, Ohio, there was a controversial case between White and Black applicants applying for jobs at the fire department. Gerald Newfarmer, who was Cincinnati’s city manager, suggested that the fire department should enact a “banding method” for the tests that were given to job-seekers.9 (When Cincinnati City Council got rid of Newfarmer, White people were not complaining.) The controversial banding method stated that Blacks who scored a 93 (out of a possible 100) would be treated “statistically equivalent” with Whites who scored a 100.10 In other words, Blacks were given 7 bonus points for being Black. (By giving Blacks these bonus points because of their race, it is suggestive that all Blacks are mentally handicapped and cannot compete against Whites on an equal basis.) That was suggested because, although Blacks comprised about 35 percent of the 2,700 people who took the test, only a little over 6 percent of the top 521 scores-or 33 people-were Black.11
A disgruntled White male, angered over the possibility of his score being thrown out because of his race, decided to write the local newspaper. Although the letter made little difference–except possibly making him feel better–it was the only thing he could do within the limits of the law. Without having thousands of dollars to throw around, without an organization to back him, and without having the time to fight the injustice (because he had to work), he attempted to stop the injustice the only way he could. The legal system would not help him; that is how the laws were enacted in the first place. (Certainly, voters did not make the laws.) In a way, the fellow was admirable, for many people merely accept the preferential treatment that minorities receive at face-value. At least, the fellow was doing something to fight the injustices.
He argued that race should not play a “part in [the] test for firefighters.” It was his fourth attempt to become a Cincinnati firefighter. He had never received bonus points and had “never scored below a 90.” He told the newspaper that it was not right to give Blacks bonus points, though the government refused to listen. He said that it was not his fault that some Blacks “just weren’t smart enough to score as high as those of us who took the time to study and memorize the instruction booklets given out at the time of the application.” He felt that the citizens of Cincinnati should not have to worry about whether the people hired to save their homes and lives were qualified. “Those scoring the highest on the test should be the ones to advance, period,” he said.12
Another person, irritated by the city’s “banding method,” wrote a letter to the editor. He said that he was sorry that the mayor and city manager were distraught about the results from the test. “But,” he continued, “let your home go up in flames, and I’m sure you will want the best.”13
People irked by the “banding method” continued to write letters to the editor. In the hope that someone might hear his futile plea for fairness, one writer said that when he read of the AWD laws, he felt, understandably, “increasing anger.” He felt that the policy was “an insult to blacks” and that it neglected “true equity” and “safety.” The fellow complained that “as a Black,” he was insulted by the White city manager’s “spurious insinuation, which [former Cincinnati] Mayor Tillery [who is Black] advocates, that my race is mentally inferior. Perhaps, race and gender should be left unknown until the tests are graded. In that way, scores alone will speak for the individual and equity will be preserved.”14 He also noted that some citizens’ lives may be in jeopardy by not having the most qualified person working. He continued:
“To suggest that individuals be given special consideration for any reason undermines morale, defeats the purpose of the examination, and perpetuates the stereotype that scoring well is impossible for members of certain groups, based on inherent inferiority.”15
People were still complaining–several weeks later–about the city’s desire to implement the “banding method.” One person wrote a letter that said it must be “devastating to whites” to have qualified for a job with the fire department “and then be told outright that the Cincinnati Fire Division must hire quotas–and that means hiring minorities only, mostly Blacks.” He noted that it was just another form of “reverse discrimination” that had been “going on for almost two generations.”16 He described the only answer for this problem:
“So what’s the answer, after all the millions of dollars spent on special programs for minorities for the last 40 years? . . . Let [non-Whites] make it on their own. By cutting this overhead, the federal debt and deficit would dry up in less than two years. Don’t forget to vote.”17
In the aforementioned statements from firefighter candidates, there were some valid points made by them. One good point made is that the most qualified individual for the job is no longer the sole criterion as to why someone is hired. Oftentimes, a qualified individual is overlooked in an effort to attain a certain percentage of non-Whites. Another good point is that there may be a life-threatening situation that a person encounters where a well-qualified White person, who was rejected for the job because of the White person’s race, could have better handled the job than the lesser-qualified Black, who was hired for the job because of an AWD policy. In other words, giving non-Whites jobs where they are responsible for saving the lives of people that they would not normally merit by their own talent could jeopardize someone’s life. An excellent point is that White taxpayers are being forced to subsidize the gross injustice of the AWD laws. White taxpayers must pay for the government to enforce laws directed against them. Another interesting point, which has some validity, is that if more Blacks were to intensively study the instruction booklets given, just as many Whites do, Blacks will score higher. By advocating the “banding method,” it implies that all Blacks are inherently inferior and cannot compete on an equal footing with any particular White.
When AWD laws caused Whites applicants for firefighters in Cincinnati to be passed over in favor of Blacks who scored less on the test, 15 White males decided to ban together and battle the honest way–the only way they could. They took the case to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court looked the other way, “without comment,” and let the 1974 AWD policy stay in effect.18 The Supreme Court justices did not feel that they should intervene in the anti-White policy. That should not be too surprising. Thurgood Marshall, the late Supreme Court justice, wholeheartedly approved of AWD laws.19
The Supreme Court cannot be expected to end the discrimination perpetrated against Whites. The AWD laws have no effect on the Supreme Court; their seats are guaranteed for life. The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals described its ruling, which the Supreme Court let stand: “Use of the dual lists . . . is constitutional and did not abridge any of the (white) applicants’ constitutional rights.”20 It seems that the point, if any, that was evident in the ruling is that Whites do not have any rights to abridge. Perhaps, the court forgot about its law books. AWD laws are in clear violation of the law under Title VII, section 703(j), of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Civil Rights Act states:
“Nothing contained in this title shall be interpreted to require any employer . . . to grant preferential treatment to any individual or to any group because of the race, color, religion, sex or national origin of such individual or group on account of an imbalance which may exist with respect to the total number or percentage of persons of any race, color, religion, sex or national origin employed by an employer.”
The Cincinnati police force experienced a similar problem. U.S. District Judge Carl Rubin ruled that a “consent decree” that had been instituted, which made quotas for Blacks, was, in fact, constitutional. Although the consent decree violated civil service laws, Rubin said that it was nonetheless still valid. Everyone concurred that the White men who sued the city for anti-White discrimination would have been accepted as recruits had there been a single list for all competitors, but they were rejected because top candidates were taken from separate lists for White men, for women, and for Blacks. Similar problems occur across the U.S., although some cities do not discuss it as openly as Cincinnati.
In all probability, some lives have probably been lost due to putting people who are not the most qualified in positions they would not normally attain by their intelligence or skills. Taxpayers, who subsidize the AWD laws, may be jeopardizing their lives by allowing the AWD policies to remain. That would seem most likely in the position of a police officer, fire fighter, social worker, or any other position where a person’s life is put on the line–perhaps, even a prison guard.
One prison guard has maintained that the riots that occurred at the Lucasville Southern Ohio Correctional Facility (SOCF) were able to occur because of having inexperienced people in the management. The inexperienced people to whom he referred were minorities, and they were promoted to their positions only because they were minorities, said the guard. The Lucasville riots resulted in hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, a guard’s life, and several prisoners’ lives. Here is what the guard noted:
“. . . I have, over the last several months, had to live with the death of a fellow officer, a massacre of inmates, and, if that wasn’t enough, a betrayal by a fellow officer. To say the stress level is high at S.O.C.F. cannot come close to describing the tension that exists out there. . . .
“. . . Affirmative action has made it possible for minority employees to be promoted quickly to positions that they have no experience in [or] training [and] knowledge of. Due to minority promotions, they bypass employees who have been in the system and understand what happens within the prison, and not just what it takes to further their career.
“Before the riot occurred, information was collected from a special team member from a reliable informant that the riot would occur and that it would happen within a four-month time period. This officer reported this information, and it was ignored. During the week prior to the riot, a concerned employee who works in the commissary went to the front office and expressed his concern about the purchases that the inmates were making and the amount of money the inmates were spending. He was also told to mind his own business.
“This lack of knowledge and experience in key administrative positions, not caring or listening to what the more experienced and knowledgeable staff members in lower positions tried to tell them, were major reasons the riot occurred.
“Affirmative action should be reviewed so that more training will be provided before minorities are promoted to key positions. Or perhaps they could try a novel approach and hire and promote on experience and knowledge rather than on race. . . .”21
It is disheartening to see that the death and damage caused in the Lucasville riot may have been caused by so-called “affirmative action” and could have been possibly averted. Anyone who was properly trained and who had experience, as the guard noted, would have thought it strange that the inmates were spending an inordinate amount of money and stock-piling goods. Further, how could one of the superiors not take preventative measures when he was forewarned that a riot would occur? That is not something to take lightly. Unfortunately, 1,000 Lucasville riots could probably occur without the government saying enough-is-enough. The American people have already said enough-is-enough, but the government refuses to listen to them. You have to wonder how many needless deaths may result from AWD laws. It seems like life takes second place to the AWD laws.
Many people believe all we have
to do is shake the mythical money
tree for cash.
The federal government, for the most part, has supported all the AWD laws that have been implemented. Whites cannot look to them for help. In 1990, the Senate ratified a so-called “civil rights” bill that promoted quotas. Senator Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., the bill’s sponsor, felt that it was time take away more jobs from poorer Whites. When told that the bill would promote quotas, he retorted in his usual, brilliant fashion: “Quotas, Schmotas!”22 The bill, as it stood, would require employers to prove a business necessity for hiring differences among different groups, including non-Whites, non-Christians, and women. The burden of proof was to be shifted from the plaintiff to the defendant; the employer was guilty in the event of an accusation until proven innocent. Senator Pete Wilson, R-Calif., said that the bill would have required “quotas–if not in express, explicit language, inevitably, that will be its effect.”23
President Bush (I) did not want to sign the bill because he felt it was a quota bill. “I want a civil rights bill,” said President Bush, “but I will not sign a quota bill.”24
Senator Kennedy’s quota bill was slightly modified by Senator John Danforth. The bill had various stipulations: 1.) In a “disparate impact discrimination case”–that is, in a case where the number of minorities hired at a certain company is not reflective of the general population in the surrounding area–the burden of proof is shifted from the plaintiff, the person making the accusation in the lawsuit, to the defendant, the company claiming innocence (a company would be guilty until proven innocent); 2.) Religious minorities (e.g., the followers of the Santeria religion who sacrifice animals on the street) and women are to be allowed to sue for $300,000 in punitive damages; 3.) There is no limitation for funds awarded to non-Whites who sue; and, 4.) White males were not given any benefit by this bill and would not be allowed to sue under any of its provisions.
After Senator Danforth’s slight changes, President Bush (I) signed the legislation. President Bush thought that it was a good idea. On October 25, 1990, President Bush promulgated: “The Danforth compromise has broken the two year stalemate on this controversial legislation. We didn’t cave in. We worked it out in the spirit of compromise, a negotiated settlement, where I can say to the American people: `This is not a quota bill.’”
Unfortunately, either Bush was naive about what he signed or he was lying. For, the bill did, in fact, encourage quotas. Employers were now faced with a predicament: They had to either discriminate against Whites or face the possibility of frivolous lawsuits brought about by zealous so-called civil rights lawyers. Employers, wishing to prevent an unwarranted lawsuit (especially considering the fact that civil rights lawsuits often run in the tens of thousands of dollars), had to attain minority quotas, even though they were less qualified. Senator Robert Smith, commenting on Bush’s acceptance of the quota bill, declared: “This is a quota bill with a ‘fig leaf’ to cover the stark nakedness of the capitulation.” Representative George Mitchell concurred with Senator Smith’s statement, stating: “If a few changed words provides Bush with a ‘fig leaf’ to cover his retreat, well, that’s fine.” Understandably, Bush was not re-elected. What White people in their right minds would want to vote for someone like that? Clinton was chosen, who proved to be no better, but at least criticized militant black rapper Sister Souljah (his one redeeming point).
Of course, more recently, we saw President Bush (II) praise Michigan’s law school for enacting a quota system that most Whites couldn’t even figure out, being that it was so complicated. A less-complicated quota system for entrance to the main college was struck down, although the Supreme Court said that the law school’s quota system could stay. It seems that the fate of poor Whites is to take second place in the government’s desire to discriminate against them, with many who might otherwise attend law school now being prevented.
Nowhere is race used more than in politics. After the Democrats lost the 1984 presidential election, they decided to investigate it, hoping to figure out “why” it occurred. Apparently, the Democratic Party’s candidate got less than 30 percent of the White male vote; in some areas, the figure was about 10 percent.25 A political scientist, Stanley Greenberg, was asked to conduct the research. He asked a cross-section of White males if “Americans ought to honor a special obligation to Black citizens who lived through the slave experience and racial discrimination,” a statement that was originally said by Robert Kennedy.26 The White males were not too enthusiastic over the statements. Many of them made that known:
“No wonder they killed [Robert Kennedy].”
“I can’t go along with that.”
“I’m fed up with it, man.”
“I really feel that [Blacks] have had so much just handed to them. . . . Most of them are abusing it. It’s where, now, it’s almost a turnaround. They’re getting, getting, getting, and the Whites are becoming the minority.”27
Greenberg concluded that many White Americans were “de-aligned” from the Democratic Party because the words “fairness, equality, and justice had been perceived-not without justification-as code words for quotas.” As a matter of fact, anti-White discrimination was noted as a “top voter concern” in both the 1985 and 1987 report conducted by Greenberg.28 (Hence, if a White presidential candidate was brave enough to say he would end quotas and all the special privileges, he would overwhelmingly be elected to office.)
When Democratic state chairmen circulated a poll at one of their meetings in 1990, it showed that Whites felt that so-called “affirmative action” is “unfair to whites” by a margin of 58 to 31 percent.29 The politics of preferential treatment, which the Democratic Party has stridently and openly promoted in an effort to entice non-White voters (and the Republican Party has been playing to a lesser extent but without the same election results), might help explain part of the reason why presidential candidates from the Democratic Party have not received the majority of White votes since Harry Truman was elected in 1948, with the exception of Lyndon Johnson.30
Despite politicians currying the favor of some minorities with the proverbial carrot dangling, many other minorities would still prefer to compete on an equal basis. Blacks were asked in a 1977 survey whether they preferred “ability” or “preferential treatment” to be used. Fifty-five percent of the Black respondents said that they preferred “ability.”31 Other studies have concluded similar results. In a 1984 Gallup poll, it found that 64 percent of non-Whites preferred “ability” to “preferential treatment” in “getting jobs and places in college.”32 Another study discovered similar results, with 52.5 percent of non-Whites feeling that the “most qualified person” should receive the job.33
Even some groups that have fought for true equal rights are against AWD laws. Charles Wittenstein of the Anti-Defamation League described that group’s feeling on quotas: “We don’t think a racial quota is ever benign because, while conferring a benefit on one race, it imposes a disability on another.”34 Would Wittenstein feel this way if it was shown that Harvard’s Jews received quota-like preference? This is the question of the day, especially since Harvard’s policies might come in to play: 50 percent of Harvard’s students are Jewish, compared with 2 percent of the population. Are they really that much smarter? They’ll certainly tell you so, it seems.
In the past, one Senator had particularly good luck by bringing the injustice of quotas to the surface. Senator Jesse Helms, R-N.C., had used the quota issue in the past to help his campaign. In one television commercial that he had broadcasted, it showed a White worker with a note saying that he was rejected for a job; a narrator commented, “They had to give it to a minority because of a racial quota.”35 But, one man, as in Helms’s case, cannot make a difference; it is unity that makes people strong. And, despite the efforts that Helms has put forth, who is now no longer in congress, his voice cannot do much when every other politician is too busy pandering for minority votes to actually give thought to how unjust the laws are, especially for poor Whites.
A personnel secretary in a defense contractor’s office noted some of the AWD hiring practices that occurred behind-the-scenes at her office. After an applicant left the office, she was instructed to “pencil in their race in the upper right hand corner.” She was told to do that because there were already “enough” Whites and Hispanics at her office, and her office needed more Blacks. If the person who applied for the job was not Black, the application would be put into “an inactive file to be considered no further,” despite the person’s qualifications.36
Sometimes, even if an employer goes to the most significant lengths to have a “diverse” work force, it is not always enough to make Big Brother happy. One fellow was accused of discriminating against a Black lady, although his entire workforce consisted of minorities. He had 26 minorities–21 Hispanics and 5 Blacks–working for him, but the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) was still not satisfied; it felt that the employer should have had at least 8.45 Blacks working for him.37 And, the EEOC was mad–mad, as in completely insane–with the fellow for not having the correct number.
Since the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission supersedes all the laws of the land, the employer was guilty until proven innocent. The EEOC told him two things that it wanted him to do: 1.) $10,000 would be spent on newspaper ads to find Blacks who applied but were not hired; 2.) Once the Blacks-who-applied-but-were-not-hired were found, the fellow was to give them $123,991 for not working for him.38
He explained to the EEOC that, if he did what it wanted him to do, he would go bankrupt. The EEOC was not completely without compassion, though. And, after 18 months of negotiations between his lawyer and the EEOC, the EEOC agreed to only steal $25,000 from the fellow–$5,000 initially and the other $20,000 in payments–so that he would not go bankrupt.39 Somewhat distraught over the incident, he commented:
“It left a stigma in my mind. Sometimes I’m afraid I’m thinking the wrong thoughts . . . asking people the wrong questions when they apply. . . . You can get paranoid from this kind of thing. You’re always afraid you’re not doing the politically correct thing.”40
If a company refuses to obey the rules, it is financially devastated by the government. An excellent example of that is what occurred at the restaurant Shoney’s. The company’s owner and chief executive officer said that his restaurants were becoming “too dark.” That phrase cost him $105 million, which government officials fined him. If hamburgers in the near future start costing $5.00, the place to look might be at AWD lawsuits.
Many Whites fail to look realistically at the consequences of the laws that are instituted in the name of equality, which is often used in ways that are antonymous to the word’s actual meaning. For example, some have said that the intent of the law is to enable poor Blacks to compete with rich Whites. However, that argument does not consider that the Blacks who receive preferential-points for their race may, in fact, be middle class, while the Whites who are discriminated against may be dirt-poor and downtrodden. In the pseudo-egalitarian’s myopic view of reality, all Whites are affluent, inherently racist, middle-class people; all Blacks are poor, oppressed people, who all live in shacks and are incapable of helping themselves. That is where the pseudo-egalitarian’s self-justification comes into place: Since the pseudo-egalitarian believes that Blacks need a helping-hand, that Blacks cannot better themselves without the help of the almighty pseudo-egalitarian, he appoints himself to be the esquire–the shield-bearer of the Blacks–fighting the laws that do not concur with his twisted ideology.
Some Whites have mistakenly assumed that AWD is something new. It has been occurring for quite some time in the U.S. An earlier instance of AWD can be heard as early as 1965:
“Various companies, making every effort to avoid any discrimination in hiring, have required Negro applicants for jobs to take the same tests of skill and aptitude for jobs they required all other applicants to take. Many Negroes have been unable to qualify, and in some states, it appears that such examinations may not be given if they cannot be passed by Negro applicants. It is said that the Negro applicants are culturally unprepared for such examinations and cannot pass them [and], therefore, are subject to discrimination. . . .
“Legislation can assure the Negro his civil rights and is very rapidly doing so. But I am afraid this is not what the Negro wants, unless he is a particularly intelligent Negro. I think what he wants is a higher standard of living than his abilities will allow him to earn. For a short period of time, we can subsidize a few Negroes at the expense of American business by insisting that they be given discriminatory preference over other job applicants. In the long run, the only way of improving the economic lot of Negroes as a group is to improve their educational and occupational capacities and their achievements. . . .
“Up to now, we have sought political remedies for poverty. And I suspect getting a good many votes, and will continue to get votes. But it will not cure poverty.”41
Notice the similarities between 1965 and today, which were mentioned in the aforementioned statement. Just as in the past, many Black applicants are required “to take the same tests of skill and aptitude for jobs . . . required [of] all other applicants. . . .” When Blacks “have been unable to qualify [on tests], it appears that such examinations may not be given if they cannot be passed” by Black applicants. It is still said that the Black “applicants are culturally unprepared for such examinations and cannot pass them [and], therefore, are subject to discrimination. . . .” America continues to subsidize Blacks at the expense of the Whites. Politicians still use the “political remedies for poverty,” including “discriminatory preferences,” to get “a good many votes” from their Black constituents. Three decades ago, things were basically the same–right down to “discriminatory preferences.”
The history of anti-White discrimination is an interesting one. It was mainly the result of court decrees-things which the public had no power to battle. The justice system determined that they knew better than the public, despite overwhelming disapproval of quotas, what was best for them.42 They decided to enact laws which are slowly turning America into a vast wasteland; businesses continue to lose money because they have to hire unqualified individuals. In a study made by Gordon Black Associates, 1 out of 10 White males admitted to losing a job or promotion due to AWD.43
With a fervor unprecedented, the pseudo-egalitarian has had all of his laws instituted since the 1950s, compensating for any minority who fails to perform adequately. Unknown to the pseudo-equalitarian–who is too busy trying to take away the rights of poor Whites, whom he believes are just simple-minded rednecks, compared to his astuteness–is that his methods he uses to combat poverty actually increase poverty, especially among the very same Black people whom the pseudo-egalitarian attempts to help. For, in order to institute the social policies that the pseudo-equalitarian desires, more taxes must be mandated and more unqualified or less-qualified individuals must be appointed to positions that they would not merit from their qualifications, which causes everyone to become poorer. Of course, that does not stop the pseudo-equalitarian; he is too ambitious to stop and think. If it does not work, he reasons, put forth another law. If that law does not work, it does not control the people enough; and another law must be enacted. In order to continually do this, the pseudo-egalitarian must always siphon more money from the government’s gas tank, which is quickly approaching empty.
By giving Blacks jobs that they would not normally merit from their own qualifications, a host of other problems develops. It makes Whites resent Blacks. It makes Whites ask questions about whether a Black hired to fill a position actually deserved it: 1.) Did that Black fellow get the job because the company needed a quota? 2.) Did he really perform better in the interview? 3.) Was he really qualified? 4.) Was a White person overlooked so that the minority could have the job? Those questions are in the backs of many Whites’ minds, although many Whites are hesitant to discuss it.
The argument used by the proponents of AWD is fallacious. In Barry R. Gross’s book Reverse Discrimination, he succinctly and eloquently states the cyclical argument that is used by the proponents of AWD. Barry Gross promulgates:
“If the definition of a minority discriminated against is ipso facto their representation in certain jobs in percentages less than their percentage in the population, one has to remark that the reasoning is circular; for we are trying to prove: (1) that minority C is discriminated against.
“We use as a premise (3) that minority C is underrepresented in good jobs. Since (1) does not follow from (3) (mere under representation not being even prima facie evidence of discrimination), it is necessary to insert (2) that their under representation is due to discrimination. But this completes the circle. . . .
“In addition, some proponents of the population-percentage argument seem to hold: (4) From the contingent fact that members of the group C were discriminated against, it follows, necessarily, that they are underrepresented in the good positions. They then go to assert (5) if members of group C were not discriminated against, they would not be underrepresented; or (6) if they are underrepresented, they are discriminated against.
“But clearly (4) is itself a contingent, not a necessary truth. Clearly, also, neither (5) nor (6) follows from it-(5) being the fallacy of denying the antecedent and (6) the fallacy of affirming the consequent. Lastly, neither (5) nor (6) is necessarily true. The members of a group might simply lack interest in certain jobs (e.g., Italians in the public school system are in short supply). Could one argue that, even though neither (4), (5), nor (6) is necessarily true, the mere fact of under representation in certain occupations does provide evidence of discrimination? The answer is no-no more than the fact of ‘over-representation’ in certain occupations is evidence of favoritism.”44
The Denny’s restaurant ran into some trouble with the NAACP by allegedly not serving Black customers in what looks like an isolated case. Or, perhaps, the employees at Denny’s took their usual amount of time–a lot–to serve the Blacks; and the Blacks felt they should be served faster and left. Most people who have been to Denny’s realize that fast service is something not to be expected. (If the complainants were Whites who went to a Black-owned restaurant, Denny’s probably would not even care.) Whatever the case, Denny’s parent company, Flagstar Corporation, decided that it would make amends. What do you think Flagstar did; what would have been an appropriate response? Giving the Black customers who were reportedly not speedily served a free meal would have been a good response. Perhaps, even a free week’s worth of meals. Heck, maybe even give them a year’s worth of food. Flagstar did much more than that. Flagstar decided to create $1 billion in minority business opportunities for the alleged discrimination.45 And, as if that was not enough, they decided to give Blacks “an avenue into managing and owning Denny’s franchises.”46
Denny’s spelled out what it would give the minorities. Denny’s decided that it will add 325 minority managers–never mind if there will be more qualified Whites who should obtain those positions. Denny’s said that they would create at least 53 Black-owned franchises–never mind at whose expense. Denny’s said that it will purchase 10 percent more of the company’s professional services from Black-owned firms–never mind the least costly firms, even if they happen to be owned by other minority companies (e.g., non-White Hispanic, Asian, et al.) or even Whites. The agreement reached between Flagstar Corporation and the NAACP was designed to cover all of Flagstar’s stores: Canteen (a food-vending operation), Richardson Sports (a company that was created to attract a National Football League expansion and was owned by Jerry Richardson, Flagstar’s chairman), and the restaurants Denny’s, Hardee’s, Quincy’s Family Steakhouse, and El Pollo Loco. The agreement, signed by Richardson, said that Flagstar would also appoint a token Black on its board of directors.47 Benjamin Chavis, the NAACP’s voicepiece, was jubilant over the ordeal and exclaimed:
“We [the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People] are hoping that this relationship between the N.A.A.C.P. and Flagstar will serve as a model for the rest of corporate America and the rest of the civil-rights movement.”48
Jesse Jackson was at the forefront of the Denny’s protest, adding his voice to the other dissenters. He openly complained about Denny’s allegedly discriminating against Blacks in isolated cases. (How many millions of Blacks have been served at Denny’s?) Jackson should be the last person in the world to criticize Denny’s. At one time, he worked at a restaurant and would spit in the White patrons’ food whom he served. The magazine Life had an interview with Jackson that told about his actions:
“Once [Jackson] told of his days as a waiter at the Jack Tar Hotel in his hometown of Greenville, S.C. Just before leaving the kitchen, he would spit in the food of white patrons he hated and then smilingly serve it to them. He did this, he said, `because it gave me psychological gratification.’”49
At the time Jackson admitted to the thing that gave him “psychological gratification,” he was working at Operation Breadbasket. Operation Breadbasket picketed A&P stores for a while back in the 1960s. “We dare any cat in the ghetto to take us on,” said Jackson. “We’ll destroy him.”50 Operation Breadbasket did that because of its AWD demands, which were quite numerous. Remember, this is the 1960s when these demands were made–at a time when everything was supposedly keeping Blacks down, a time when so-called “oppression” ruled the day. The demands that were made, which were given to Operation Breadbasket by A&P, sound like the same ones that are still occurring today. The magazine Life told of Jackson’s demands that were granted by A&P. The agreement accepted by A&P was responsible for hiring “hundreds of black employees” despite qualifications and required all A&P supermarkets in Black neighborhoods “to use black janitorial, extermination and garbage-collection services”; to put products that were sold by Black-owned companies (for example, Jumbo Barbecue Sauce and Joe Louis Milk) in areas of the stores that would generate greater sales; to hire Black contractors when building stores in Black areas; to advertise many of its products in the Black-owned media; to hire Black companies that dealt with public relations; to invest in banks owned by Blacks; to create “’sensitivity seminars’ for A&P executives to attune them to the racial situation”; and, lastly, to hold meetings every month to make sure that A&P was complying with Breadbasket’s demands.51
Jackson wanted the same thing then that he currently desires–namely, preferential treatment when White-owned businesses deal with Blacks. In a competitive society, whoever has the best products or services at the lowest prices gets the money; in Jackson’s society, Blacks get it, regardless of whether they deserve it. In a competitive society, if your company refuses to offer its products or services to all, it loses money; in Jackson’s society, Blacks get it. It is a shame that some White-owned businesses have accepted Jackson’s demands.
Jackson has always blamed “racism” for all his problems. For instance, he claimed that he quit attending the University of Illinois in 1960 because the school discriminated against Blacks in sports. The now-defunct magazine Quest/79 had an interview with Jackson in which Jackson told his interviewer what allegedly happened at the University of Illinois:
“But at Illinois, [Jackson] quickly learned what Big Ten life was like for aspiring black quarterbacks in the fall of 1959. He was advised to become a receiver or a running back; blacks weren’t wanted for positions of leadership on the gridiron. The next year, Jackson enrolled at North Carolina Agricultural and Technical State University, a predominantly black school, where he passed for [sic] touchdowns. . . .”52
That appears to be a blatant falsehood. In 1960, the University of Illinois’s quarterback was Black. The book Profiles of Deception maintains that Jackson left the University of Illinois because he did not have a choice. He was allegedly caught in the act of plagiarism.53 If Jesse Jackson lies like that, could you imagine what would happen if he was elected to an office in the government? (Actually, he probably would not be much different from many of the other politicians in that respect.)
Of course, Jesse Jackson should not be criticized too much; he only follows the ideas of another black who promoted similar AWD: MLK Jr. For example, on May 2, 1956, King’s demand for integrated buses was met. According to the book Chronicles of the 20th Century (1987, p. 780), King, then, articulated the rest of his plan: “Two of our original proposals have been met, but we are awaiting on the third: employment of Negro bus drivers for predominantly Negro routes.”
One of King’s aides mentioned–on King’s behalf–the preferential treatment that they sought. On Sunday, July 21, 1963, KTTV in Los Angeles, California, and other stations across the U.S. had a show called The American Experience. A few prominent African-Americans were featured on the show: Wyatt Walker, an aid to Martin Luther King, Jr.; Malcolm X (Little), who was a minister of the Nation of Islam at the time; Allen Morrison, editor of the magazine Ebony; and James Farmer, the head of the Congress of Racial Equality (CORE). Malcolm X said that his Muslims wanted Whites to give African-Americans a nation, businesses, houses, etcetera far away from white people. The others felt somewhat different. Walker, Farmer, and Morrison demanded full integration and “compensatory preference”–the exact term used–by coercive force if necessary. They felt that “mere equality” was insufficient; “massive preferential treatment,” they said, was to be required. They felt that African-Americans should be paid more for the same jobs that whites do; that employers should fire whites and replace them with African-Americans; that employers should actively go out and find African-Americans, provide transportation, and hire them-qualified or not; that the constitution must be changed or replaced to enforce this; that America should rapidly move towards a socialist system; and that violent revolutionary measures would be taken if America failed to do this. Unfortunately, a number of politicians in Congress granted many of the demands, despite the protests of a few honorable Americans.
As you might expect, government officials often institute AWD practices (except for congressmen, who do not have to abide by the laws that they make for their constituents). Louis Freeh, whom President Clinton helped get instated as the head of the FBI, noted that the FBI was going to be cutting jobs.54 A day later, however, Freeh noted that there were going to be more people hired. Although that may sound contradictory, it is not if you understood Freeh’s FBI: The day after he announced cuts of “47 high-level jobs”–jobs that were held by White people–he announced that there would be more jobs held by non-Whites in the FBI’s near-future.55
Cincinnati, Ohio, has what is called the “Cincinnati Minority Business Enterprise Mentoring Program.” The purpose of the program is “to cultivate sensitivity to minority business issues” by a “long-term mentoring relationship.” That is not too surprising, since Cincinnati had set aside some of its city contracts for only non-Whites. Many small White businesses owned by Whites would like the “long-term mentoring relationship,” but it is not available for them solely because of their race. If the converse were applied-that is, if only Whites were given the mentoring relationship-you would hear the screams of “Discrimination!” all the way to Honolulu.
Sometimes, loans are made only available to minority-owned companies. Blue Chip Venture Fund Co., a subsidiary of the Gradison division of McDonald & Co. Securities, goes out of its way to invest in small businesses owned by minorities. That company will invest a minimum of $200,000 to a maximum of $1 million in companies owned by minorities. The problem with that is that there may be safer investments–perhaps, even an investment in a company owned by a White male–that Blue Chip overlooks in its quest to finance minorities. A special fund of $10 million is created for the investment.
Burger King is discriminating against Whites. Although the majority of the company’s business is produced from Whites and by Whites, Burger King has announced that it is setting aside $100 million to “support minority group franchisees and suppliers.” Whites need not apply.56
By instituting AWD laws, businesses often lose money. For example, Stanley Burnham, a White college teacher, had a discussion with one of his colleagues who works as the personnel director for a major bank in New York. During the course of a conversation, the personnel director told Burnham of how Blacks at the bank do not even offset their cost. Burnham described what he discovered: “. . . [L]ongitudinal studies conducted by his office have established that the participation of black employees over the previous few years actually produced a net loss in profits as opposed to the average net gain employees are expected to earn for their companies.” Burnham noted that his acquaintance has attempted to keep enough Blacks working there to satisfy the government’s anti-White discrimination policy, and that has caused “an additional financial burden resulting from theft, laziness, inefficiency, infantile power-tripping, deteriorating morale, and, most devastating of all, high court costs from trying to settle these other problems when they get out of hand.” Burnham is quick to point out that the government gives free legal aid to Blacks, “regardless of the specific reason for their dismissal.”57 That, in itself, is just another financial burden; for a company must defend itself against lawsuits–no matter how unjustified.
One firefighter, concerned about the anti-White discrimination at where he works, felt that it should not be applicable to him. “But I’m only second generation in this country,” he noted. “I didn’t own any slaves. I didn’t have anything to do with that. Now, I’m being made to pay for these atrocities?”58 He is right, of course. He should not be expected to be overlooked because he is White. The past is the past. If some people do not like it, that is just too bad.
If the anti-White discrimination laws are in effect to make restitutions for slavery, we must ask ourselves a few questions: 1.) Why are these laws also applicable to any non-White who moves to America? 2.) Why should Whites whose forefathers were not living here at the time be forced to endure the same anti-White discrimination? 3.) If a person has one great-great-grandparent who is Black (and 15 who are White-1/16th Black being the government’s criterion), why should that person receive the same benefits as someone who has 16 Black great-great-grandparents? (The average American “Black” has 1 White grandparent.) 4.) Why should poor Whites–whose forefathers may have been indentured servants or slaves themselves and certainly did not own Black slaves–be forced to pay for the anti-White laws that have no effect on richer Whites, whose forefathers may have owned slaves? Perhaps, dignifying the AWD argument–by demonstrating how ridiculous it is–is unnecessarily giving it the credibility that it should not warrant. This is obviously a sociological problem.
The sociologist Frederick Lynch says that many White people have difficulties debating the AWD laws for a certain reason. The reason, says Lynch, that many people do not want to discuss AWD policies is because of two conflicting feelings: (1) guilt for slavery, which is unwarranted because no one alive today has ever had slaves, and (2) equality. He calls the effect of these conflicting feelings “cognitive dissonance.” The cognitive dissonance remains effective because preferential treatment focuses on Blacks and past injustices committed against them, rather than other minorities (like non-White Hispanics, Puerto Ricans, etc.) who also receive the minority-status benefits. Lynch says that there is always an “obligatory neutralization” that a White person must say before engaging in discourse of this topic: “I’m not racist, but . . .”59
As if there are not enough minority groups who receive special treatment in America, there is now one more group-namely, really heavy people. In America’s television generation-where countless people sit around all day and fill their bellies with bon bons while watching smut-shows about transsexuals, mother and daughters who have the same lovers, biker moms with purple hair, and other assorted weirdness permeating American culture at an ever increasing rate-it had to happen.60 It seems sad that physical laziness has become so prevalent and acceptable, causing multitudes of overweight people who care little about themselves.
The federal appeals court recently ruled that “morbidly obese” people are protected under the law, because it qualifies as a disability. (“Morbidly obese” is defined as being twice the weight you should be.) The ruling was made when a really, really fat person was fired from her job because she was not able to perform up to the company’s standards. Peggy Mastroianni, director of the disabilities policy for the Equal Employment Opportunities Commission, said, “Before, if something was deemed voluntary, it wasn’t a disability. . . . That had some very disturbing implications-what if someone became paraplegic because they participated in a dangerous sport?”61 Her argument is flawed. The difference is, of course, that the fat person can always diet; the paraplegic can never do anything to rid himself of the disabilities that he faces. And, even the paraplegic should not receive a job that he is not capable of performing, like teaching dance lessons.
The court decided that it knew what constituted discrimination for fat people. “In a society that all too often confuses `slim’ with `beautiful’ or `good,’ morbid obesity can present formidable barriers to employment,” said the decree.62 The morbidly obese woman was then awarded $100,000 for her problems. (She ought to be able to find a good diet-doctor for that much, since she obviously does not have the self-will to diet on her own.)
Another heavy woman decided to use the law to her benefit. The heavy woman went to a movie theater. She went to sit down, but the seat was too small. That is right: She was not too large; the seat was too small. At least, that was her argument. In an attempt to elicit pity or sympathy, the woman said, “We’re sort of the last group of people that society has said, `Well, it’s okay to hurt these people.’”63 No one is saying let us “hurt these people”; however, people are–or at least I am–saying: Why should we have to pay cinemas extra so that they can accommodate people who care so little about themselves that they need to take up two seats? She sued the movie theater with the hope, as if it needs to be said, to get money and so that the movie theater will have to make special accommodations for herself and any pleasantly plump friends.64
There is another group of people who are receiving special treatment in the fine city of Cincinnati. They are Appalachians. People who live in Appalachia are now another protected group on Cincinnati’s Special People List. Whether it is from their accent or simply because they do not live in the city, Appalachians are now on the list of whom is to receive special protection by the city.
In some places like San Francisco, homosexuals have been given special protection as well. At one time, I have often wondered if some people even need to take the test for government jobs. If a handicapped morbidly obese Black lesbian veteran of the Palo Mayombe religion from the Appalachian mountains took a test for a government job, she would probably get all kinds of bonus points, being an ultra-privileged, super point-getting seven-fer.65
You might think it would do good to complain to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. However, even that isn’t necessarily the case. A White man who was foolish enough to be employed there was continually overlooked for promotions. Even though he was a licensed attorney, received “superior” performance ratings, and had significant training, he was denied a promotion for 11 years, while lesser-qualified minorities were promoted. In one case, a Black high school dropout with very little training received a promotion instead of the White attorney. The EEOC just didn’t want a White guy around. In fact, 19 of the 21 directors at the time were non-Whites. The attorney ended up suing and won. (It is tragic that an intelligent White man should work for an organization that discriminates against Whites and promotes the same under the guise of “equality.”)
It is pretty fair to blame America’s current economic struggle on the anti-White discriminatory laws. In an attempt to make certain that minorities (within the U.S., at least, as Whites are clearly the minorities in the world) easily qualified for loans, qualifications for all people were lowered. The Wall Street Journal reported:
“Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990’s by reducing down payment requirements,” said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae’s chairman and chief executive officer. “Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.”
Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.
Be sure to see the link above, as it describes in much more detail the situation that occurred. Certainly, some of the loans went to Mexican Indians and other non-whites as well. And, while the majority of the loans may have gone to whites, who are also the majority of society, without lowering the qualifications for non-whites (as was intended to defray any potential lawsuits for discrimination), it is doubtful that the collapse of these financial institutions would have occurred. In response to this, the government’s act to recover demands more of the same preferences for non-white home buyers.
Despite America’s economic collapse as the result of its failed anti-White discriminatory policies, people have encouraged more of the same. In fact, Robert Reich, Obama’s Jewish Economic Advisor, announced on C-SPAN, Jan. 7, 2009, that more AWD laws should be encouraged:
“I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high skilled people who are already professionals or to White male construction workers. I have nothing against White male construction workers. I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well. And therefore, in my remarks I have suggested to you, and I’m certainly happy to talk about it more, ways in which the money can be–criteria can be–set so that they money does go to others: the long term unemployed [as long as they’re not White], minorities, women [who are not White]–people who are not necessarily [White] construction workers or [White] high-skilled professionals.” (Comments in brackets  have been added.)
White women suffer from the AWD laws–just as White males and the rest of society have suffered–and have been for some time.66 For example, one White woman, working at Montgomery Ward in Topeka, Kansas, learned first-hand what an AWD policy is. The White woman was told that she was going to be paid $3,000 less a year and that her job would be given to a Black woman with nine years less experience, whom the White woman was expected to train. When the White woman refused to accept the demotion, she was fired. Rather than merely accept the AWD policy, she fought it. The White woman took the case to court and won her case, with the settlement being $50,000. U.S. District Judge Earl O’Connor, presiding over the case, described Montgomery Ward’s AWD policy: “Both economic and personal pressures were exerted upon store managers to meet minority requirements. Supervisors were told to promote blacks over whites, regardless of their qualifications.”67
All White people should learn from that feisty woman. If you are White and feel that you or other Whites are being discriminated against by less-skilled minorities, sue the company. Even if you cannot win, if enough Whites file AWD lawsuits, Whites can give the courts and companies many lawsuits with which to deal. White people should join together to do this; however, the lawsuits should be filed on an individual basis, with each White person filing a separate suit, so that the courts will be overwhelmed. Whites can continue to do it so much that the courts will be forced to take actions to end the AWD policies. And, the companies will become overburdened with the costs of defending themselves against the Whites who are discriminated against. Could you imagine what would happen if 10,000 Whites who applied for a job at the police station, where Blacks were given bonus points, filed lawsuits on an individual basis? The paperwork alone would overwhelm the courts. Perhaps, the courts might just notice that everyone does not have the cushy jobs that some judges–the ones who are responsible for the laws that were made against the will of the people–do.
Another way to make businesses understand that these AWD policies are unacceptable is to quit going there. Whites should take measures to stop patronizing businesses that openly discriminate against them. Protests should be organized, boycotts started. Letters to the heads of companies should be wrote, telling them that any AWD policy is unacceptable and will not be tolerated. Perhaps, even strikes may become necessary if certain companies refuse to listen.
White people are paying for the AWD laws with their tax dollars. Whites pay for themselves to be discriminated against. Whites pay for minorities from other lands to come here (while White immigrants are discriminated against, I might add) and receive benefits for which Whites labored. Perhaps, we should listen to what one of America’s forefathers, Thomas Jefferson, said: “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical.” Nowhere is that statement more applicable than in dealing with these AWD laws; the opinions which allow the propagation of AWD laws are “sinful and tyrannical.”
While this was originally part of a manuscript written about a decade ago, not really too much has changed since then. One can read about numerous anti-white discrimination cases at websites across the Internet. One such website is www.adversity.net . However, if you want to donate money to a website that stands against anti-white discrimination, rather than the Jewish-run Adversity.net , let me just recommend attorney Edgar Steele’s website.
I have no doubt that if Mr. Steele had enough donations, under his leadership, he could make a difference. While Mr. Steele doesn’t promote himself as he should—probably because he doesn’t want to be perceived as being in this thing for the money (and it’s doubtful that he is in it for the money, as he is truly a man of principle)—I am quite certain that if Steele’s war chest had even 1-10th of what Morris Dees’ war chest contained (in excess of $100 million), the Anti-White Discrimination laws that we currently face would be a thing of the past. And while you’re at it, check out Steele’s book too—well worth whatever he charges. If you’re like me and don’t have the time to go protest every place in the U.S. that discriminates against Whites (which is just about every place), consider putting your money with Steele; it would be well spent. I’m not affiliated with him in any way, but I consider him to be a fine, upstanding American—and someone worth backing.
To learn more about America’s past leaders and their “racist” (by today’s definition) ideas, see the DVD When the Darkness Falls.
NOTE: Although the cost to upgrade Blacks has cost the U.S. $2.5 trillion since the 1960s to the mid-1990s, according to Buckley who is cited at the beginning of this article, the cost to integrate Blacks has been significantly more. In 1990 alone, the cost to integrate Blacks in California has been estimated at $500 billion—just one state. And what are the costs of the riots in various cities that regularly occur? The true amount spent is probably much more than the national deficit. And when you add the $1.6 trillion that Israel has caused the U.S., noted by the economist Dr. Thomas Stauffer in the Christian Science Monitor of Jan. 9, 2002 (see http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/1209/p16s01-wmgn.html for more information), you have to really wonder why the heck the average white person working in the streets is paying THEIR bills.
1 The term “redneck” has an interesting origin. Apparently, the word is from poor Whites who labored outside in the sun all day, causing their “necks” to become “red” (or sunburnt). Although many people use the term in a derogatory manner, it should not be taken as an insult since its meaning is, basically, a White person who is a hard-worker.
2 The government has taken measures to ensure that Blacks will be attracted to predominantly White areas. One apartment complex in Clermont County, Ohio, an area that is almost all-White, has been required by a government agency to rent one-third of the complex’s three-bedroom apartments and one-fourth of the two-bedroom apartments to Blacks. The apartment owners were concerned that it might lose business from Whites moving out because the same criteria used to find decent White renters could not be applied to Blacks in an effort to meet the government’s plans. Karla Irvine, head of the government agency Housing Opportunities Made Equal, said, “I don’t think there’s going to be white flight; but if there is, I’ll offer them opportunities for public housing in the city.” The sole reason that many Whites live in Clermont County is to avoid “public housing in the city,” which Karla Irvine just does not seem to understand. Obviously, she could not understand that some people do not want to live in the city (though I doubt if she lives there); she just did not get it. Ben Kaufman, “Integration Pact Settles Clermont Housing Complaint: Owners Get Protection Against `White Flight,’” The Cincinnati Enquirer (February 22, 1994), p. B7.
3 Frederick Lynch, Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1991), p. XIII.
4 David Gates et al., “White Male Paranoia,” Newsweek (March 29, 1993), p. 53.
5 Gates et al., “White Male Paranoia,” Newsweek, p. 52. His feelings were justified. In Miami, a fire department lieutenant described the department’s hiring practice: “We hire 60 percent Hispanics here, regardless of qualifications.” Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), p. 131.
6 Jared Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions: The Failure of Race Relations in Contemporary America (New York: Carroll & Graf, 1992), p. 133.
7 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 44-citing Time (September 3, 1984).
8 David Kahn, “On `Banding,’” Chronicles (May 1993), p. 4. One city employee was fired for testifying that the “culturally unbiased” test could be passed by illiterates.
9 The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 1, 1992).
10 The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 8, 1992). Another method that has been used lately is “dual lists.” That method keeps two distinct lists-one for White applicants and one for Black applicants. In Cincinnati, Blacks automatically received 40 percent of the firefighter jobs available, and Whites receive 60 percent of those jobs. In the process of dual lists, numerous Whites were discriminated against because they were White. The Cincinnati Post (May 17, 1993), p. 1A.
11 The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 8, 1992).
12 “Race Must Play No Part in Test for Firefighters,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 8, 1992), p. A15.
13 “Fighting Fire,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 8, 1992), p. A15.
14 “Rejecting Fire Scores Is an Insult to Blacks,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 15, 1992), p. A15.
15 “Rejecting Fire Scores Is an Insult to Blacks,” The Cincinnati Enquirer.
16 “Hiring Quotas,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 27, 1992), p. A5.
17 “Hiring Quotas,” The Cincinnati Enquirer.
18 The Cincinnati Post (May 17, 1993), p. 1A.
19 Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, speaking to Justice William Douglas, explained his reasoning as to why White people should accept the AWD laws: “You [White] guys have been practicing discrimination for years. Now it is our turn.” William Douglas, The Court Years 1939-1975 (New York: Random House, 1980), p. 149.
20 The Cincinnati Post (May 17, 1993), pp.1A, 3A. Blacks are routinely given preference in government jobs over Whites (not to mention public sector jobs). Approximately 25 percent of all Blacks are employed by the government, compared to about 14 percent of all Whites. Half of Black professionals and managers work for the government. Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions p. 163. The government’s ineptness can be directly attributed to the unqualified or lesser qualified non-Whites who are hired in order to enforce its AWD policies.
21 The Cincinnati Enquirer (September 23, 1993), p. A15.
22 Tom Mathews, “Quotas,” Newsweek (December 31, 1990), p. 28.
23 “Civil Rights Bill OK’d by Split Senate,” USA Today (July 19, 1990), p.1A. Since “religious minorities” were allowed to sue under the bill’s guidelines, the logical thing to do would be to become one.
24 Tom Mathews, “Quotas,” Newsweek (December 31, 1990), p. 28.
25 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 2.
26 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 2.
27 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 3.
28 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 3.
29 Eleanor Clift, “Bennet Hits the Hot Button: Is the GOP Looking to Play the Politics of Quotas?” Newsweek (December 3, 1990), p. 26.
30 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 167.
31 Bruno Leone, Racism: Opposing Viewpoints (St. Paul, Minnesota: Greenhaven Press, 1986), p. 145.
32 Leone, Racism, p. 146.
33 Leone, Racism, p. 146.
34 Adolph L. Reed, Jr., The Jesse Jackson Phenomenon (New Haven and London: Yale University Press), 1986, p. 102.
35 Clift, “Bennet Hits the Hot Button: Is the GOP Looking to Play the Politics of Quotas?” Newsweek.
36 Lynch, Invisible Victims, pp. 5-6; citing the Los Angeles Times (October 2, 1983), p. 6.
37 The Cincinnati Post (October 1, 1993), p. 15A.
38 Mike Royko, The Cincinnati Post (October 1, 1993), p.15A.
39 Mike Royko, The Cincinnati Post (October 1, 1993), p.15A.
40 Mike Royko, The Cincinnati Post (October 1, 1993), p.15A.
41 Congressman Charles Gubser of California, citing Dr. Lawrence Lockley. Congressional Record (October 6, 1965), p. A5618.
42 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 5.
43 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 7.
44 Barry Gross, Reverse Discrimination (Buffalo: Prometheus Books, 1977), pp. 380-381.
45 The Cincinnati Enquirer (July 2, 1993), p. A4.
46 The Cincinnati Post (July 1, 1993), p. 2A.
47 The Cincinnati Enquirer (July 2, 1993), p. A4.
48 The Cincinnati Enquirer (July 2, 1993), p. A4.
49 John Pekkanen, “The Jesse Jackson Style: Militant but Nonviolent,” Life (November 21, 1969), p.68.
50 Pekkanen, “The Jesse Jackson Style,” Life, p. 71.
51 Pekkanen, “The Jesse Jackson Style,” Life, p. 70. What a surprise it is to know that there were “black banks,” “black products,” “black media,” and “black public relation firms” in the 1960s-at the height of so-called oppression!
52 Clayton Riley, “P.U.S.H. Comes to Shove,” Quest/79 (November/December 1979), p. 19.
53 Reed Irvine and Cliff Kincaid, Profiles of Deception: How the News Media Are Deceiving the American People (Smithtown, New York: Book Distributors, 1990), p. 100.
54 The Cincinnati Enquirer (October 13, 1993), p. A2.
55 The Cincinnati Post (October 14, 1993), p. 2A. It appears that the FBI was following a similar trend that the U.S.’s law enforcement has made. Although Blacks only account for about 13 percent of the population, during the twenty year period from 1970 to 1990, 41 percent of all people hired for the police department have been Black. Andrew Hacker, “The Myths of Racial Division,” The New Republic (March 23, 1992), p. 21.
56 “Chain Backs Minorities,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (December 7, 1993), p. A2.
57 Stanley Burnham, Black Intelligence in White Society (Athens, Georgia: Social Science Press), 1985, pp. 81-82.
58 Gates, “White Male Paranoia,” Newsweek, p. 52.
59 Lynch, Invisible Victims, pp. 112-113.
60 Speaking of television, it is a very powerful medium. An average American spends a total of nine years of his life watching TV. Four- to six-year-old children were asked, “Which do you like better-TV or your daddy?” Fifty-four percent of the children responded, “TV.” A Roper Poll conducted in 1979 with more than 3,000 couples discovered that the number one cause of marital disputes is arguing over what television show will be watched. “TV in America,” The Wilson Quarterly (Autumn 1993), p. 44, citing Jack Mingo, The Official Couch Potato Handbook (San Fransisco: Last Gasp Publications, 1988).
61 “Obesity Can Be `Disability’ Even If Diet at Fault, U.S. Says,” The Cincinnati Post (November 13, 1993), p. 11A. “Obesity Ruled Handicap,” The Cincinnati Post (November 23, 1993), p. 2A.
62 Carl T. Rowan, “Beauty’s in the Eye of the Beholder,” The Cincinnati Enquirer (November 29, 1993), p. A11.
63 Associated Press, “Obese Woman Suing Theater,” The Cincinnati Post (February 24, 1994), p. 2A.
64 Associated Press, “Obese Woman Suing Theater,” The Cincinnati Post (February 24, 1994), p. 2A.
65 Black women are often referred to as twofers when applying for certain jobs. That is because they get points for being Black and being women.
66 In 1960, Black women who were college graduates earned two percent more than White females with college degrees, and the difference was even greater in 1970. In 1979, the disparities were even worse, with all Black women having made 8 percent more than White women with similar qualifications. Taylor, Paved with Good Intentions, p. 24.
67 Lynch, Invisible Victims, p. 48, citing Topeka Capital-Journal (August 1, 1985).