|
|
|
Does the U.S.
Naval Academy (and Sonya Sotomayor?) Hate Whites?
Edmund Connelly
June 20, 2009
Earlier this year, I wrote
about
Harvard’s
seeming hatred of Whites. (See
here
for a possible explanation.) I wrote then that “The vast underrepresentation of
non-Jewish Whites in the 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.” This graph gives a visual impression:
In addition to elite old
schools like Harvard, Princeton and Yale, America also has its prestigious
military academies, particularly West Point and the
U.S. Naval Academy
in Annapolis, MD. (In keeping with the spirit of our multicultural times, one of
the first images you will see on their official site is this, which bolsters my
arguments about
the visual
displacement of White males):
The Public Image Projected by the USNA
This week one of the faculty
there published a startling expose about the depth and breadth of the robust
campaign to exclude highly qualified White candidates from that taxpayer-funded
institution. Bruce Fleming, a
highly accomplished professor of English there, wrote
in an
Annapolis newspaper that the Naval Academy revealed
that it had “an incoming class that was ‘more diverse’ than ever before: 35
percent minority. Sounds good, only this comes with a huge price tag.” He then
reveals the extent and gross unfairness (toward Whites) of the process.
Fleming bluntly admits that “applicants checked a box on their application that says they are Hispanic, African American, Native American”—and now Asian. This comes as a result of the leadership commitment to the multicultural commandment: "Diversity is the number one priority." As Fleming states, “Everyone understands that ‘diversity’ here means nonwhite skins.” In practice, he explains, this means that a completely different set of rules applies for non-Whites. The result is that minority applicants qualify with lower standards and are automatically accepted. Whites, on the other hand, have higher standards for qualifying and then only one in ten is admitted.
To deal with the profoundly
lower test scores of the bulk of minority students, the Academy uses tax money
for a remedial school, the Naval
Academy Preparatory School. From there, it is pro forma that they
will enter the Academy proper. Never mind that “All this is probably
unconstitutional.” As Fleming points out, “That's what the Supreme Court said
about the University of Michigan's two-track admissions in 2003.”
It’s nice to get the inside
scoop on how this anti-White affirmative action works in practice (Fleming spent
a year on the Academy’s admissions board, so he should know.) Wouldn’t it be
nice to find out how, for instance, Harvard does it? We already have mainstream
evidence that Harvard—like most modern institutions in America today—willfully
weeds out qualified Whites. Recall, for instance, the
Wall Street Journal
editorial by Ron Unz, the California businessman and current
publisher of The American Conservative
magazine. 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. (Unz, himself Jewish, is the source of
the figures in the above Harvard graph on enrollment. Not surprisingly, Pat
Buchanan took this information and wrote
The Dispossession of Christian Americans.
Be sure to download and save both before they disappear down the Great Memory
Hole. )
Unz also took the rare step 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.” Normally, such a focus on Jewish overrepresentation is not allowed. Which brings us to a similar story. You’ve all heard about Obama’s choice of nominee for a seat on the Supreme Court, Sonya Sotomayor, a Puerto Rican American winner of the Affirmative Action Lottery. It seems that her case allows us to illustrate an interesting way in which minorities act for the benefit of Jewish Americans—and against that of White Americans. As Kevin MacDonald noted last month, “Sotomayor has long been courted by Jewish groups. Part of the full court press style of Jewish activism is that any person who is influential or who may at some point in the future become influential will be socialized to be sensitive to Jewish issues.”
How’s this for some instant
confirmation:
Henry McCulloch informs us that two Beverly Hills lawyers have
divulged that many of Sotomayor’s former law clerks signed a letter supporting
her confirmation. And nearly half of the signatories are Jews. Consider, then,
that of the 36 or 37 former clerks (of the 45) who wrote, “14 or 15 might
conceivably be white, non-Jewish Americans—while a full 22 appear to be Jewish.”
Uh-oh.
Do the math—Jewish
representation in the general population vs. their preponderance here—and you’ll
discover that “Jews appear to make up a minimum of 60% of La Sotomayor’s
white clerks,
and nearly half overall.”
Even accounting for the
demographics of the region of the country in which this takes place, McCulloch,
still notes that “this is an astonishing disparity.”
McCulloch next goes where few
goyim dare venture, disaggregating Gentile from Jewish “Whites.” “Some white
Americans, he begins, “apparently, are more equal than
others.”
Rather than backtrack or drop
the scent, McCulloch (and by extension VDARE’s editor Peter Brimelow) presses on
with the hunt: “Sotomayor’s clerks
are more evidence, as if we need any, of the
ongoing dispossession of
"non-Jewish" White
Americans from every important institution they
founded in the
country
they
settled
and whose
independence
they
won.”
Wow, this is bound to turn the
$PLC’s Heidi Beirich, famed
anti-White storm trooper, from turning her tricks in Montpellier,
Vermont, where—if only virtually—
she’s been hounding poor
Robert Griffin for his “White Pride” offenses.
In fact, McCulloch’s
concluding words may well draw the attention of more than just Ms. Beirich, as
he writes:
It might be instructive to ponder why
that is so—and to ask what those dispossessed Americans, while they remain a
majority, should do about their plight.
Is this a veiled threat?
Should dispossessed White Americans do
something about their plight? Yes, I think they should, beginning by recognizing
that they are in the midst of a serious plight indeed.
As for “the
anti-discrimination bureaucracy of
‘their’ federal government” closing ranks against them, that is a legitimate
fear, as
Brimelow
made clear earlier this year: “If the killer in [an upstate New York]
immigration center massacre had been a white American, I have no doubt that much
of the
VDARE.com Editorial Collective
would be in police custody right now.”
Brimelow is worth listening to for many reasons, not the least of which is his pointed defense of the interests of increasingly excluded Whites. Echoing my theme of dispossession above, he noted that
Obama doesn’t have 43% of his appointees white Protestants, in fact I don’t think even 4% are white Protestants. So you have to ask yourself what’s going on here. How can the founding stock of the country have so completely lost control? They could reasonably regard the Obama administration as kind of an occupation government: a coalition of united minorities that succeeded in uniting the minorities and dividing the majority.
The Sotomayor story is merely an aspect of that. One need merely examine her
position in the
Ricci v. DeStefano
case to see how she is unsympathetic to the interests of White men. (Steve
Sailer discusses this well
here and
here.)
Let me close by repeating
something I’ve said time and again: the American system is not broken; it is
being very deliberately manipulated to dispossess Whites of the country they
built.
