|
|
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
