|
|
Harvard
Hates Whites—Does America, Too?
Edmund
Connelly
February
16, 2009
"The
United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic
elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media
elite."
English
author Samuel Johnson famously quipped that “People need to be reminded more
often than they need to be instructed.” Today I’ll follow that advice,
reminding people—especially whites —of the deleterious effect decades of
affirmative action has had on them. As with recent columns, this one will
further the argument that the America system is not broken; it is being very
deliberately manipulated to dispossess whites of the country they
built.
An
obvious place to start is with Harvard University, which sits at the pinnacle of
American higher education. The vast underrepresentation of non-Jewish whites in
student body and among faculty is representative of what has happened throughout
much of America and presages what America will increasingly look like in the
future.
A
decade ago, when the likelihood that an African American would be sitting in the
Oval Office was still more of a joke than a serious consideration, Harvard’s
revealing racial breakdown made the news in an unpredictable way. Ron Unz, the
California businessman who successfully led that state’s initiative to abolish
bilingual education, wrote a candid editorial
that appeared in the Wall
Street Journal.
Unz noted that whites Gentiles were getting heavily squeezed by mandatory enrollment goals for blacks and Hispanics on one end and high performing Jews and Asians on the other. Of course we are familiar with the way affirmative action has worked for four decades to advance blacks and Hispanics to positions not warranted by their efforts or achievements. But Unz opened up the Pandora’s Box of talking about Jewish overrepresentation.
Unz,
himself Jewish, noted that at his alma mater, “Asians comprise between 2% and 3%
of the U.S. population, but nearly 20% of Harvard undergraduates. Then too,
between a quarter and a third of Harvard students identify themselves as Jewish,
while Jews also represent just 2% to 3% of the overall population.” Not only was
he so blunt about this, he took the step — rare in the mainstream media — of
drawing the logical conclusion: “Thus, it appears that Jews and Asians
constitute approximately half of Harvard's student body, leaving the other half
for the remaining 95% of America.”
To
no one’s surprise, that bulldog of the right, Patrick Buchanan, pounced on this
juicy bone and gave it a good shaking. A week after Unz’s article appeared,
Buchanan had penned a response titled The
Dispossession of Christian Americans
and concluded, “Talk about underrepresentation! Now we know who really gets the
shaft at Harvard — white Christians.”
After
taking flak for saying something no different than what a Jew had said, the
Irish Catholic Buchanan continued to address the blatant assault on whites.
Buchanan again reasonably
demanded:
As
these schools feed off tax dollars, they should be required to publish exact
statistics on the religious and ethnic composition of all faculties and student
bodies and the percentage of student slots chosen by methods other than merit —
and identify those methods.
Next,
they should indicate, by ethnic group and religion, who lost out when slots went
to preferred minorities, whether ethnic or the children of faculty members or
alumni. We know who the beneficiaries are of this discrimination. Let's see its
victims.
Needless
to say, nothing remotely close to this pipedream transpired. After all, what
powerful organization agitates on behalf of beleaguered whites? The Republican
Party? I don’t think so.
To
his credit, Buchanan was slow to release this bone. Three years later, he again
hammered the issue of massive white underrepresentation at Harvard. Given his
well-known tendency to discuss problems Jews cause, the final line in his column
is not hard to unpack: “Unfortunately, ours has become a country where those who
preach loudest about injustice and persecution turn out to be its most
unexcelled practitioners, once they get into the driver’s
seat.”
Just
to clarify things, let me say that if one is confused about whether it is the
roughly one-third proportion of Jewish students and faculty at Harvard or the
nearly one-quarter of students who are Asian that represent who is in the
driver’s seat, name for me even one powerful Asian American or Asian American
organization in America that preaches loudly about injustice and
persecution. I’ll bet you could quickly make a list of powerful Jewish
organizations and Jewish activists who do indeed preach loudest about injustice
and persecution (while also supporting the slaughters committed by their racial
Zionist brethren in Israel). Further, I’ll bet a good number of these Jews have
attended Ivy League schools.
Again,
let’s make clear why this effort to exclude white Americans is so important.
Civil rights activist David Duke recently summarized
the issue well:
Most
people know that most universities have programs of admittance that give
less-qualified minorities preference over better-qualified Whites. Almost all of
the Fortune 500 largest corporations have affirmative action and diversity
programs that discriminate against White people, both male and female, in
hiring. They also have programs of discrimination that favor non-Whites in
promotions and advancement. This is true in the academic area as well. You can
look at almost any academic department of any American university and you will
see in place a strong racial bias for “minorities” in preference over Whites in
hiring and advancement. Whether you are talking about a university History,
English or Math department in almost any university, these policies are in place
and powerful. These racial discriminatory policies are real, and they can be
easily proven to exist.
Of
course “our” government is not interested in quantifying the relative decline
non-Jewish whites are experiencing, but a few have done this independently. One
researcher
has used government statistics to graphically demonstrate how whites are
penalized at all levels of intelligence when earnings are compared to others in
the same IQ cohort. As he concluded, “A bright mind is indeed a terrible thing
to waste, and it is the bright White gentile minds that are being denied
educational opportunities at significant costs to our
country.”
Unz
understood this, too, demonstrating how education levels play out over one’s
career. What he found at Harvard about white Christian underrepresentation
“is present to a greater or lesser degree at most of our other elite educational
institutions: Yale, Princeton, Stanford, Berkeley and so on. And partly because
these universities act as a natural springboard to elite careers in law,
medicine, finance and technology, many of these commanding heights of American
society seem to exhibit a similar skew in demographic
composition.”
Let’s
take an arena that has touched me personally. After earning a graduate degree at
an Ivy League university, I hoped to work for the federal government in
Washington. Having attained a proficiency in a language that The Foreign Service
Institute of the U.S. Department of State considered Category III (Languages
which are exceptionally
difficult
for native English speakers), I was disappointed when I failed to get even a
nibble.
In
the ensuing dozen and a half years, however, I have noticed that it was the very
kind of discrimination I have been talking about above that was more than likely
responsible for my dismal results in Washington. To be sure, while job searching
and interning, I was told by a few white mentors that entry level jobs for white
males were just not going to happen during those early Clinton years. Evidence
suggests they were right.
For
instance, at the CIA, Clinton’s mandate to make federal agencies more diverse
resulted in Director John
Deutch—who
has been described in Jewish community weeklies as “the first practicing Jew to
head the CIA”—bringing aboard Nora Slatkin, also Jewish, to implement
affirmative action. The Jewish monthly Commentary
featured an article critical of these enforced changes: “To reduce these statistical discrepancies,
Slatkin declared ‘a goal that one out of every three officers hired in fiscal
years 1995–97 be of Hispanic or Asian-Pacific origin.’ She moved no less
aggressively to alter the ethnic and sexual complexion of the CIA’s higher
levels. In just six months, she was able to report, ‘42 percent of officers
selected for senior assignments ha[d] been women or
minorities.’”
It
gets worse. Thomas E. Woods Jr. writes in his book The
Politically Incorrect Guide to American History
that during the Clinton years, the Pentagon let it be known that “special
permission will be required for the promotion of all white men without
disabilities.” The Food and Drug Administration radically relaxed standards on
writing so that “underrepresented groups or individuals with disabilities” would
not be discouraged from applying. I wonder which groups that might refer
to.
The
most bizarre claim Woods makes (he’s working from a book
by James Bovard) is that the U.S. Forest Service, woefully short of female
firefighters, posted a job announcement which read, “Only unqualified applicants
may apply.” For me, that has the same Orwellian ring I associate with those
ubiquitous proclamations in announcements for academic positions: “Women and
minorities are highly encouraged to apply.” Whom, now, might they be
targeting?
Some
ten years after Unz’s editorial, the affirmative action juggernaut rolls on,
with white Christians further excluded or demoted or denied earned advancement.
With all types of immigration driving the Hispanic population to perhaps the 14%
mark and Jews using previous positions of prominence to further improve their
position, the crisis for non-Jewish whites grows. Further, since Unz wrote,
important judicial decisions have gone against whites in both Texas
and Michigan.
Buchanan
continues to rally for the rights of whites. And he comes fairly close to naming
who it is that hates us and wants us displaced. Excoriating New
York Times'
editorial writers, he writes that “to oppose the Times'
agenda on social or moral issues is ascribed to mental illness or moral
sickness.” This, of course, is precisely Kevin MacDonald’s argument in
The
Culture of Critique,
particularly with respect to the Frankfurt School.
Continuing,
Buchanan notes that the Times
comes off “as loathing Middle America.” Referencing a Christian parable, he asks
“In its own mind, the Times
is battling heroically the forces of hatred. Can it not, by rereading its own
words, see the hatred in its own heart?”
Ah,
hatred. “From what poisoned well comes this hatred of the America we love?”
Buchanan inquires. The answer, I am convinced, is from the Jews, for hatred is a
Jewish
virtue.
Once again to the credit of Commentary
magazine,
they published an
essay
that clearly spelled out this uncomfortable truth. Author David Gelernter, the
Yale University computer scientist nearly killed by an explosive sent by the
Unabomber, wrote of America that “the old elite used to get on fairly well with
the country it was set over. Members of the old social upper-crust elite were
richer and better educated than the public at large, but approached life on
basically the same terms.” The new elite is not only different from the masses,
“it loathes the nation it rules.”
It
loathes
the nation it rules. Consider that. And, as we at TOO
have noted, Jews form a vastly disproportionate role in this new elite. The
loathing of this new elite for the rest of America may be considered a Jewish
value — the
hatred of the people and culture of non-Jews
that is so central to Jews throughout their history.
As
one acquaintance lamented not long ago, “Just think of what white males (and the
white females depending on them for survival) have experienced in the last
twenty years. If that hasn’t woken them up, what will?” I can’t answer that, but
wake up they must.
For
those who have awoken from their slumber, I suggest turning to Kevin MacDonald’s
essay "Can
the Jewish Model Help the West Survive?"
There he wrote that “The elaborate Jewish effort on behalf of their ethnic
brethren in Israel is legendary and can only be described as awesome in its
effectiveness.” Obviously, we need to do the same here at
home.
Further,
he wrote, “The best way to preserve ethnic interests is to defend an
ethnostate—a nation that is explicitly intended to preserve the ethnic interests
of its citizens.” Professor Virginia Abernethy, quoted in MacDonald’s
essay, understood the new rules: “The goals of the multicultural game are ethnic
separatism, ethnic privilege, and ethnic power. I began to realize not too long
ago that I have to play the multicultural game, at least defensively, or I
and my family and kin will lose out. It is what every ethnic group except, in
the main, European-Americans, does these days.”
I
can think of no better role model in this fight than Patrick Buchanan himself,
who strenuously denounced the reverse discrimination in places like Harvard.
Buchanan wants to take the fight to Harvard—and every other enemy of whites: “If
Harvard balks, denounce it as bigoted and demand a cut-off of federal funds. If
proportional representation is the name of the game, Christian and
European-Americans should get into the game, and demand their fair share of
every pie: 75 percent, and no less.”
As
Michael
O'Meara noted in the Occidental Quarterly:
For
though US elites have not the slightest interest in the welfare and security of
the white majority, the majority was willing to be bought off as longs as the
elites provided the material benefits to ensure its allegiance. Today, we are
entering an era when that ability to deliver the goods may be rapidly
diminishing.
For
this reason, I believe catastrophe alone will cause white Americans to abandon
their allegiance to the existing system and to see the elites controlling it as
their real enemies. Such a transfer of loyalties away from the state is thus
likely to entail less a racial awakening than an understanding how to live in a
hostile reality, once the virtual realities that are at the heart of the
American System have collapsed. Nevertheless, at that point when whites abandon
the status quo, the possibility of an emerging white national movement will
quicken.
Our
role as nationalists ought thus to be subversive and revolutionary, not
conservative. For there is nothing worth conserving in the existing anti-white
system. Instead, we need to forge a spirit that opposes it at its root, that
defines America as a nativist variant of European civilization, and that
prepares a new Declaration of Independence.
We’ve
all see how tenacious Jews can be in their various efforts to advance Jewish
group interests. We need to be equally as aggressive, confrontational, and even
belligerent if necessary. Affirmative action is blatant discrimination against
whites and it can be defeated. Rather than let it continue to grow, we need to
attack it and repeal it. Then we can rise or fall on our own merits. After all,
that’s supposed to be the American way.
Edmund Connelly is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.
Permanent
link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Connelly-Harvard.html
