Affirmative Action/Minority Preferences

Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities explained

Steve Sailer has an important blog at VDARE.com quoting  from Russel K. Nieli’s essay on No Longer Separate, Not Yet Equal: Race and Class in Elite College Admission and Campus Life by Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford. It’s no surprise that there is affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos: “To have the same chances of gaining admission as a black student with an SAT score of 1100, an Hispanic student otherwise equally matched in background characteristics would have to have a 1230, a white student a 1410, and an Asian student a 1550.”

Unfortunately, the authors lump Jews and non-Jews into the White category, but combining their results with what we know about Jewish admissions to elite universities yields some interesting results.

In a 1998 op-ed (“Some minorities are more minor than others”), Ron Unz pointed out “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. 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” (See also Edmund Connelly’s take.)  A 2009 article in the Daily Princetonian (“Choosing the Chosen People”) cited data from Hillel, a Jewish campus organization, that with the exception of Princeton and Dartmouth, on average Jews made up 24% of Ivy League undergrads. (Princeton had only 13% Jews, leading to much anxiety and a drive to recruit more Jewish students. The rabbi leading the campaign said she “would love 20 percent”—an increase from over 6 times the Jewish percentage in the population to around 10 times.)

Jews therefore constitute a vastly disproportionate share of the population classified as White at elite universities. Data from an earlier study by Espenshade show that around half of the students at elite universities are classified as White, suggesting that Jews and non-Jews classified as White are approximately equal in numbers. (Given that students from the Middle East are also classified as White, there is the suggestion that Jews outnumber non-Jewish students of Christian European descent.)

One might simply suppose that this is due to higher Jewish IQ. However, on the basis of Richard Lynn’s estimates of Ashkenazi Jewish IQ and correcting for the greater numbers of European Whites, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews should be around 7 to 1 (IQ >130) or  4.5 to 1 (IQ > 145). Instead, the ratio of non-Jewish Whites to Jews is around 1 to 1 or less. (See here.)

So there must be some other reason besides IQ that Jews are such a large percentage of the population classified as White at elite universities.

Espenshade and Radford show that there is discrimination against poor Whites and against non-urban Whites—exactly the population groups that are least likely to be Jewish. There is a “a general disregard for improving the admission chances of poor and otherwise disadvantaged whites.”

When lower-class whites are matched with lower-class blacks and other non-whites the degree of the non-white advantage becomes astronomical: lower-class Asian applicants are seven times as likely to be accepted to the competitive private institutions as similarly qualified whites, lower-class Hispanic applicants eight times as likely, and lower-class blacks ten times as likely. These are enormous differences and reflect the fact that lower-class whites were rarely accepted to the private institutions Espenshade and Radford surveyed. Their diversity-enhancement value was obviously rated very low.

One possible explanation is that the desire for better off students reflects the universities’ desire to have students who are better able to pay their way, so that more money can be diverted to less well-off non-Whites. Nieli points out that this “cannot explain why well-qualified lower-class whites are not at least offered admission without financial aid. The mere offer of admission is costless, and at least a few among the poor whites accepted would probably be able to come up with outside scholarship aid.” Right.

Nieli suggests that the real reason that rejecting less well-off Whites benefits the university is because it raises the yield score (the ratio of those accepted to those who enroll) and lowers the  acceptance rate (the ratio of applicants received to those accepted) on the theory that less well-off Whites would not be able to afford to attend without scholarship money that the university wants to reserve for non-Whites. This makes them look good to the rating agencies.

This explanation seems rather  ad hoc. Quite a few less well-off Whites would doubtless be willing to take out loans in order to satisfy their dream of an education at an elite university. To be convincing, Nieli should at least have some data supporting his theory. Even an anecdote or a colorful story gleaned from an academic cocktail party would be nice.

The other finding is

what might be called an urban/Blue State bias against rural and Red State occupations and values. This is most clearly shown in a little remarked statistic in the study’s treatment of the admissions advantage of participation in various high school extra-curricular activities. In the competitive private schools surveyed participation in many types of extra-curricular activities — including community service activities, performing arts activities, and “cultural diversity” activities — conferred a substantial improvement in an applicant’s chances of admission. The admissions advantage was usually greatest for those who held leadership positions or who received awards or honors associated with their activities. No surprise here — every student applying to competitive colleges knows about the importance of extracurriculars.

But what Espenshade and Radford found in regard to what they call “career-oriented activities” was truly shocking even to this hardened veteran of the campus ideological and cultural wars. Participation in such Red State activities as high school ROTC, 4-H clubs, or the Future Farmers of America was found to reduce very substantially a student’s chances of gaining admission to the competitive private colleges in the NSCE database on an all-other-things-considered basis. The admissions disadvantage was greatest for those in leadership positions in these activities or those winning honors and awards. … Excelling in these activities “is associated with 60 or 65 percent lower odds of admission.”

It’s interesting that the bias against Red State interests holds even when controlling for other variables such as family income. These students are being rejected not because of their family income but because of their attitudes and interests–a finding that casts doubt on the yield rate/acceptance rate explanation for the bias against less well-off Whites as well.

These data strongly suggest that Jewish overrepresentation at elite universities has nothing to do with IQ but with discrimination against non-Jewish White Americans, especially those from the working class or with rural origins. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of the admissions process. How many admissions officers are Jewish? And, whether or not they are Jewish,what pressures are they under to admit Jewish students? The brouhaha that engulfed the Princeton campus because Jews were “only” overrepresented by around 6.5 times their percentage of the population suggests that there is considerable pressure for high levels of Jewish admission. The Daily Princetonian ran four front-page articles on the topic, and the New York Times ran an article titled “The Princeton Puzzle.” (See here; the original NYTimes article is here.) Clearly anything less than 20% Jewish enrollment would be met with raised eyebrows and perhaps intimations of anti-Semitism.

The big picture is that this is a prime example of the corruption of our new elite. As noted previously, the poster child for this corruption is the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court. The fact that she is a Princeton graduate now makes even more sense given that when she went to Princeton the percentage of Jews was around 18% — more in line with the de facto affirmative action policies favoring Jews that we see now in most Ivy League universities.

Whatever else one can say about the new elite, it certainly does not believe in merit. The only common denominator is that Whites of European extraction are being systematically excluded and displaced to the point that they are now underrepresented in all the important areas of the elite compared to their percentage of the population.

Bookmark and Share

Whites’ lack of empathy for other Whites

There are doubtless a great many factors accounting for the general willingness of Whites to allow themselves to be pushed aside and to voluntarily become a minority amid a sea of non-Whites, most of whom hold historical grudges against them. My general view is that these cultural transformations are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting tendencies of Europeans toward individualism interacting with the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of Europe.

The problem with individualism is that we have weak ties to other Whites and we don’t have a sense (yet) of common fate. In other words, we are low on ethnocentrism. We hear about a White person who was victimized by a Black criminal or denied a promotion or admission to a university in favor of an “underrepresented minority”, and we don’t feel empathy for the victims simply because they are White. We don’t feel any psychological pain when we hear that White working class men have moved out of an area because their jobs have been taken by illegal Mexican immigrants.

At a rational level, Whites may well think that victimization of Whites is morally wrong. Hence the finding that Whites support ending affirmative action and ending immigration (especially illegal immigration) as has been shown in California and other states. But I suspect that there isn’t any real gut feeling of empathy with other Whites. And it’s the gut feeling of empathy that in the end motivates the sort of behavior that can really begin to alter things politically.

This was demonstrated recently in a study that scanned the brains of Black and White subjects viewing Black and White victims of Hurricane Katrina (Race and Empathy Matter on Neural Level, Science Daily). Everyone reported empathy for the victims. This is a verbal judgment that reflects nothing more than conventional morality. People certainly would not want to tell the experimenter that they have callous disregard for suffering.

But the brain’s emotion centers told a different story. Black subjects had empathic responses to Black victims, and the more ethnocentric Blacks had stronger emotional responses. Whites on the other hand, did not show any empathic responses to people of either race.

It’s not that Whites are incapable of empathy. Images of family members would doubtless result in strong empathic responses among Whites — responses that would motivate helping family members. Indeed, all the research shows much stronger family bonds among Whites than among Blacks — bonds that are motivated at least in part by empathic concern for family. But in general, we just  don’t get emotionally aroused when we see Whites  suffering or victimized.

And it also suggests that the many Whites who do behave altruistically toward Blacks or other non-Whites are not acting out of an emotional imperative of empathy, but for some other  reason — quite possibly social approval. What better way these days to show you are a good person?  I thought about this today when viewing a photo of Sandra Bullock with her newly adopted Black baby. Of course, it may be misplaced maternal affection.


But this lack of empathy for other Whites is a problem for political action on behalf of Whites. People are motivated far more by emotions than by rational appraisals. The  empathy among Jews for Jewish suffering is legendary. As Walter Benjamin once said, Hatred and [the] spirit of sacrifice . . . are nourished by the image of enslaved ancestors rather than that of liberated grandchildren. (Illuminations, 1968, 262)

There is undoubtedly variation among Whites for ethnocentrism, implying that at least some Whites would be upset by the suffering of other Whites more than by the suffering of, say, Blacks. In other words, they would have the same pattern that Blacks show, only reversed.

Personally, I have found that I do have an emotional reaction to Whites being victimized. This could be because I am more genetically inclined toward ethnocentrism than most Whites. But it could also be influenced by living in Southern California where Whites are now a minority. Social psychologists have shown that members of majority groups do not have the same sense of an ingroup feeling as do members of minority groups.

The good news is that as Whites become a minority, ingroup solidarity–and empathy for other Whites–would be expected to increase. And getting involved in White advocacy with like-minded others doubtless has the effect of reinforcing and increasing those tendencies, especially when it is not at all difficult to imagine nightmarish scenarios of the future for Whites. Such nightmarish scenarios have a great deal of emotional impact, especially when they are graphically depicted. That is the reason why we will not see such depictions in the media.

The bad news is that even with empathy for other Whites, there are still huge barriers for Whites to really get involved in White advocacy — barriers such as losing one’s job and social ostracism. The power of the left to inflict economic pain is huge, as recently shown by the burgeoning movement to inflict economic sanctions on Arizona for having the temerity to enact a law aimed at getting rid of illegal aliens.

But having empathy for other Whites would certainly be a great first step in the right direction–and probably a step that is necessary if we are going to see really intense commitment by Whites to change the current regime.

My view is that these cultural transformations
are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted
Winter 2006-2007 / MacDonald 23
tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science)
and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of
EuropeMy view is that these cultural transformations
are the result of a complex interaction between preexisting deep-rooted
Winter 2006-2007 / MacDonald 23
tendencies of Europeans (individualism, moral universalism, and science)
and the rise of a Jewish elite hostile to the traditional peoples and culture of
Europe..

Bookmark and Share

Women, Minorities and Academia

I recall that someone—perhaps it was William F. Buckley—said that you can’t have both affirmative action and nuclear power.

His point, of course, is obvious: merit of the highest order is necessary to invent, build and maintain a highly complex system like America’s nuclear power industry. To the extent standards are bent or diluted in favor of political goals such as increasing the number of minorities and women—though they be less qualified—a cost will be paid in efficiency, reliability, and potentially safety.

Despite this truism, America and other Western nations have headed down the road to diversity despite these costs. Thus, we have seen robust efforts to change the demographic face of life-saving occupations such as firefighting, where highly qualified White males are often passed over in favor of politically favored groups such as Blacks, Hispanics or women. For example, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Maria Sotomayor famously ruled against White firefighter Frank Ricci (the pre-Sotomayor Supreme Court overturned the ruling, a rare instance of justice and safety winning out over political correctness).

Another instance where ability and inclination still prevail over politics is commercial aviation, which has remained solidly in the hands of White males. Among commercial airline pilots, for example, only about 2% are women, with blacks accounting for far less than that. The Organization of Black Airline Pilots reports around 700 African-Americans working for U.S. airlines, about fifteen of whom are women.

In many areas of life, however, stakes are far lower, so blatant affirmative action policies elicit far less concern or reaction. For instance, does it really matter if your freshman English teacher at a community college is male, female, Black, White or other? Probably not that much. Even at better schools it is not a matter of life and death, though cumulatively it could affect the culture in some way.

Thus, the humanities have been able to politically alter the make-up of university faculty across America. Where White males overwhelmingly filled professorial roles through the 1960s, today’s academy is the dream-come-true of the  minority activists of the 70’s (though not of today’s activist, where complete absence of straight White non-Jewish able-bodied males is taken for granted as the holy grail).

As you leave the humanities and move toward the more quantitative subjects, however, political gerrymandering gets a little harder. By the time you are in the highly objective fields such as mathematics, engineering and physics, ability and merit are harder to fudge. Then-president of Harvard Larry Summers ran smack into this uncomfortable fact when in 2005 he commented on why, in the previous year, 88 percent (28 of 32) of newly tenured faculty had been men. Despite having reliable evidence on his side, his conjecture that men and women could have differing abilities in some fields created an uproar. (See Steve Sailer’s take here.)

As is so depressingly common under our multicultural regime, Summers was forced to apologize repeatedly, “in the style of a Communist show trial,” in the words of one observer. Wikipedia gives us the follow-through:

Desperately trying to keep his job, Summers quickly appointed female historian Drew Gilpin Faust, head of Harvard’s Radcliffe Institute For Advanced Study, to lead Harvard’s Task Forces on Women Faculty and on Women in Science and Engineering.

Heather Mac Donald noted in Harvard’s Faustian Bargain in City Journal:

“Faust runs one of the most powerful incubators of feminist complaint and nonsensical academic theory in the country.”

Eventually, Dr. Faust brought back a $50 million wish list of payoffs to feminist interests, which the beleaguered Summers immediately agreed to fund. Hey, the money wasn’t coming out of Larry’s pocket, so why not?

Such aggression on the part of Dr. Faust did no harm, as she now sits in the Harvard president’s office, where her website proudly displays endeavors such as this: Empowering girls all over the world.

This is all meant as background material for our current leading example of  “The Disappearing of the White Male Academic: Shirley Tilghman and Princeton.” As Kevin MacDonald reported in this blog space, “Once again . . . all of our elite institutions are essentially enemy-occupied territory. Princeton’s president, Shirley Tilghman, is the sort of White person that is absolutely poisonous to our cause…. She is also doing her best to absolutely eliminate White males from high-profile positions.” MacDonald noted something that stood out for me as well: “My favorite is making a woman dean of the School of Engineering even though she is not an engineer.” What could be more blatant than this?

And don’t think that Tilghman is alone as a female president of an Ivy League school. Currently half of the eight Ivy League universities have women presidents, with Ruth Simmons being the only African American. (I’m not sure if this is better or worse than the days when six or seven of the Ivy League presidents were Jews.)

This topic of White male displacement in academia has cropped up in other instances this week as well. For example, a friend who earned a graduate degree in the field of American Studies sent me information on gender representation in the discipline to justify his decision to abandon a career in the field. (This reminded me of Alex Kurtagic’s own justification “Memoirs of a Dissident Student in Postmodern Academia”.)

American Studies was once a White male preserve that sought academic diversity by combining the study of American literature and history in an interdisciplinary way. Since then it’s gone the way of most other humanities departments and hosts minority activist groups such as The Minority Scholars Committee, Ethnic Studies Committee and Women’s Committee.

The women’s committee, of course, looks after the interests of women. Fair enough.

What, then, are we to make of the fact that women in American Studies today by far outnumber males? And by the looks of it, this disparity will only increase in the future, for recent Ph.D.s become future faculty, and they too are overwhelmingly female.

Last year, for instance, freshly-minted female Ph.D.s outnumbers males 65% to 35%. In 2008 it was a whopping 75% to 25%. I told my friend he should inquire about why American Studies still needs a Women’s Committee. (Better yet, why not agitate to establish a men’s committee?  Yeah, right.)

Anyway, I can only thank my lucky stars for the fact that I was born with and continue to enjoy White male privilege.

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

Selective Moral Panics in Higher Education

Christopher Kernich: Kent State student Murdered by Blacks

James Edwards and his crew from The Political Cesspool have done a great job of bringing to our attention the alarming disparity in how minor non-violent acts against Blacks in university-related settings are treated by the American press versus how murder of Whites by Blacks in the same setting is treated. For instance, he told the story of John White, who survived Iraq, but not Diversity:

John White was a young white man who had served in Iraq, and was working on a second master’s degree at Kent State University, in small town Kent, Ohio. Unfortunately, Kent isn’t far from Akron, or as many folks call it, Crackron, and Akron blacks like to drive over to Kent and beat white college students for fun. In January, John White’s number came up. He was savagely beaten on January 23rd, and finally died from his injuries a few days ago. John White is the second white KSU student beaten to death by Akron blacks in the past few months. Two Crackron thugs beat Christopher Kernich to death back in November.

John White and Christopher Kernich, RIP.

And if you want an eye-opening revelation, do a search on Google to see how KSU is responding to this crisis of black on white violence. In the last three months, four KSU students have been attacked by blacks, and two of them have died from their beatings. But you’d never have a clue that there’s any problem by the lack of the university’s response. Good luck finding anything. Compare that with the university in San Diego that went into full fledged crisis mode last week after a few white students held a ghetto-themed party, which was all over the national news. The administration issued several press releases denouncing the kids, held emergency meetings with black students, and caved in to one demand after another from the blacks on campus wailing about how they don’t feel safe on campus. They even promised the blacks that private parties that they don’t approve of will no longer be tolerated. But four white students attacked in three months by blacks, and two of them dying, and the university and media are completely silent.

Two things are happening here. First, the disproportionate attention given to alleged anti-Black racist behavior (many turn out to be hoaxes, as we’ll see below) is a deliberate propaganda technique known as creating a “moral panic.”Kevin MacDonald has already described this at our site: “Right now, the media ignores brutal Black on White crimes while fomenting moral panics when some college students at UC-San Diego failed to express officially sanctioned attitudes on Black History Month. (The LA Times has had 13 articles on this crisis, with no end in sight.) This demonization of Whites is the first step in large scale murderous revenge.”

The chilling last sentence describes the second part of the process: plans for White Americans.

While Blacks are indiscriminately killing White college students across the country, the media bombards us with stories such as this:

2 Wisconsin Colleges Investigate Racist Flyers

Two Wisconsin colleges are trying to determine who distributed racist flyers on their campuses.

“White pride” flyers turned up at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh on Monday and last Thursday at St. Norbert College in De Pere.

St. Norbert says as many as 150 flyers were distributed on vehicles in two parking lots. The college captured video of the incident. The video and flyers were turned over to police. Jim Skorczewski, director of campus safety, says the suspect is not believed to be a student or school employee.

Both UW-Oshkosh and St. Norbert sent campus-wide e-mails Tuesday.

The UW-Oshkosh chancellor made a public appeal for anyone with information to contact university police.

Around the same time, California educators were obsessing over statewide allegations of White “racism.”

Pledge to students: strategies to combat intolerance

SACRAMENTO — President Mark Yudof and UC Regents Chairman Russell Gould met face to face Monday (March 1) with students concerned about recent incidents of intolerance at University of California campuses and pledged to focus attention system wide on strategies to prevent such acts in the future.

“These are the worst incidents of racism I have seen on campuses in 20 years,” Yudof told about 100 students who were staging a sit-in on the sidewalk in front of the UC Center Sacramento building on K Street. “I understand that students don’t feel safe, they don’t feel comfortable on their campuses.” . . .

In a wide-ranging discussion, Yudof and the students also talked about UC Davis, where a swastika was carved on a Jewish student’s door, and where anti-gay graffiti was sprayed in the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender Resource Center.

“The university is in danger of losing the trust of its students” given the spate of incidents, said Jesse Cheng, student regent-designate.

Students asked UC leaders to endorse a request they delivered to 120 legislative offices Monday for legislation that would declare across California’s three systems of public higher education “there is ZERO tolerance policy for acts of hate with intent to terrorize.” The students’ proposal would require students who commit such acts to be expelled and have their actions included in their permanent academic records.

There is now a university-sponsored site here which beseeches students to “Join the Battle Against Hate.” A moral panic in full swing.

Meanwhile, we leave it to James Edwards to unravel the story:

Who hung the noose at UC-San Diego?

UC-San Diego has been in an uproar the past couple weeks because some white students held an off campus party whose theme was ridiculing ghetto behavior. Never mind that it was off campus. Never mind about free speech. Never mind that one of the organizers was “Jiggaboo Jones”, who calls himself The #1 Nigger In America. Never mind that ghetto behavior is ridiculous, and should be ridiculed. None of that matters if colored people are offended, so university authorities denounced the private party, repeatedly, and are looking for excuses to punish the students involved. Blacks have been up in arms, holding protests, and making demands, and the school has been giving into almost all of them. They even promised blacks that parties they don’t approve of will no longer be tolerated.

Then things got even more out of hand, after someone hung a noose in the campus library Thursday night. In response, hundreds of blacks stormed and occupied the office of university Chancellor Mary Anne Foxe, who’s been doing nothing but groveling and pandering to them all week. This caused a new frenzy of media coverage, and almost every article mentioned that in California, hanging or displaying a noose “with intent to terrorize” is a hate crime punishable by a year in prison. Then, suddenly, the university announced that a female student had admitted to hanging the noose. She has been suspended, but apparently she hasn’t been arrested. Both the university and the cops are refusing to release her name or any other details.

Which means one thing, of course. The female student who hung the noose isn’t white. If a white person had confessed, the cops would’ve arrested him, and his bail would be ridiculously high, and his name and face would be all over the internet, newspapers, and cable TV. Everyone knows it’s true, and yet the media will never, ever report this fact.

Another thing the media refuse to discuss is that these noose incidents (and many other “hate crimes”) almost always turn out to be “self-inflicted”, and the perpetrator rarely gets anything but a slap on the wrist, while a white person would’ve faced years in prison for doing the exact same thing in many jurisdictions. But when a black or other non-white confesses, they’re portrayed as someone who meant well, but just went a bit too far in an attempt to “raise awareness” of racism. They’re misguided and confused, good people at heart, who “made a mistake” and shouldn’t be punished. They may pay a fine, do a little community service, and have to get counseling. While a white man who would do such a thing is seen as the very incarnation of evil, and would have to be locked up for years in prison.

There’s two sets of laws in this country — one for white people, and one for non-whites.

Naturally, some uppity white folks have noticed the curious situation, and are wondering why the school and the cops won’t release her name. Actually, they have a pretty good idea why, and they’re saying so. (See the comments.) And what do liberals do when white people point out this utter hypocrisy, and are curious about who confessed to a crime that’s been all over the news for the past few days, and why it’s now being hushed up? What else? They denounce the white people, and accuse them of being on a witch hunt.

You can’t win if you’re white. If you commit a “hate crime”, you face years in prison, while a black or other non-white faces, at worst, a slap on the wrist. Then if you point out this double standard, you’re accused of “injecting race” into the discussion, and being on some kind of “witch hunt”, etc.

(See also C-San Diego noose culprit is non-white.)

To make his point about the vast disparity between how minorities and Whites are treated in this sensitive area of “hate crimes,” consider this:

Are Q-tips a hate crime?

Q-tips a hate crime? Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? But in a few years, I’m sure some black or insane white liberal will be insisting that Q-tips are racist. Look at what’s going on in Missouri, where police are “investigating” a bunch of cotton balls left on the ground:

University of Missouri police are investigating what appears to have been a racially motivated incident Friday morning at the campus’ Gaines/Oldham Black Cultural Center.

Cotton balls were strewn across the center’s lawn, walkway and bushes between 1:30 and 2:30 a.m. Police said two people were seen running from the center grounds.

Whoever is responsible could be charged with littering or tampering, said MU Police Capt. Brian Weimer. State statutes contain no hate crime law, but if racial motivation were found, “it would enhance the punishment for the crime,” he said.

Well, such a crime cannot go unsolved let alone unpunished, and fortunately our men in blue were up to the task, as reported on VDARE: Two White Students Prosecuted In Missouri For Felony Littering: “Because authorities suspect the placement of the cotton balls on the center’s lawn, walkway and bushes was racially motivated, the charges against the students were raised to Class D felony status.”

Think about that: a FELONY. The horrifying part of this is that today’s America seemingly finds this appropriate. The reason for such acceptance of official actions was explained in an insightful article posted by George Hocking on TOQ online recently:

Racism now irrevocably taints all whites as much as original sin once tainted their ancestors. Just as those ancestors were once reminded of their sinfulness each Sunday morning, their descendents are reminded of their racism each day by a media cacophony. And its logic is impeccable. Since racial equality is as unquestioned as God once was and evidence of inequality is everywhere in non-white poverty, crime, low achievement, and general misbehavior, the only possible explanation is white racism.

That is why it really doesn’t matter if such incidents are actual hate crimes perpetrated by Whites. Hoaxes committed by minorities, Jews and feminists are rampant and they succeed because the initial message spattered across the headlines is what counts. White males have been accused again—which is almost the same in the media as being convicted.

With such an explosive payoff for perpetrating hoaxes that seek to frame Whites for racism, it is no wonder that such instances are widespread. A classic account in this field is Laird Wilcox’s spiral-bound study Crying Wolf: Hate Crimes Hoaxes in America. A detailed report of a more recent incident can be found inUntil Proven Innocent: Political Correctness and the Shameful Injustices of the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case.

Let’s close with some (dark) humor dealing with these cases. We turn again to James Edwards, who reports on how at least a few university leaders are immune to these moral panics (or are they?):

UC-Santa Cruz noose graffiti horror!

Another day, another phony “hate crime” on a college campus. Another noose, but this time it’s only a picture of one, scribbled on the inside of a restroom door. For once, though, a college administration reacted rationally. Chancellor George Blumenthal responded to a reporter’s inquiry about the incident:

“You have got to be kidding me! You’re actually writing a story on restroom graffiti?! What the hell is wrong with you? And you wonder why newspapers are going out of business?! Whatever… Yes, I was informed of this noose scribbling earlier this morning, by one of the university vice presidents. After listening to his breathless tale, I asked him if he knew the difference between a university chancellor and a janitor. He said he did. So I told him to call the freakin’ janitorial department and have it cleaned up, and that if he ever wasted any more of my time on nonsense like this he would be fired on the spot. And that’s the end of the “story.” Racism and hate on campus? You’re a reporter, and you fall for this crap?! Almost every incident of this kind turns out to have been perpetrated by a member of the alleged “target” group. Everybody knows that. Except you, apparently. Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have a lot more important things to do than waste my time on this kind of garbage. So if you want to write it up in your paper, go ahead. Then I suggest you get a freakin’ life.”

Nah, I’m just pullin’ your leg, man! He didn’t really say that. Instead, he went through the usual motions. Chancellor Blumenthal knows the drill:

Chancellor George Blumenthal posted this statement on the UCSC website on Monday. “This incident is deeply disturbing. I want to be clear: There is no place on this campus for racial intolerance or hate of any kind. To students and others who were subjected to this threatening message before it was removed, I want to apologize and offer my deepest assurance that I am committed to a zero-tolerance policy regarding racism at UCSC.”

No place on campus for racial intolerance or hate? Zero tolerance policy for this kind of stuff? What a bunch of bull. What Blumenthal means is that there’s zero tolerance for white people who draw nooses on doors, or hang real ones in libraries. But if a non-white does it, there’s plenty of tolerance for that, as we just saw with UC-San Diego.

Somehow I feel I am not properly emphasizing the vast difference that exists between emphasis on White racial missteps on campus vs. that of non-Whites, particularly Blacks. Here, let me explain it this way.

Just prior to Christmas Break 2006, healthy Eastern Michigan University coedLaura Dickinson passed away unexpectedly in her dorm room. There was no foul play, the school said. Well, they lied. In fact, officials had reason to be suspicious of a black student, Orange Amir Taylor III, 20. Eventually he was arrested for raping and killing Miss Dickinson.

Laura’s father was devastated that the school had lied to them. “They let us bury her thinking that a healthy 22-year-old girl died by some freak accident.”

Again, contrast such active lying about a Black-on-White RAPE/MURDER with discoveries of graffiti or cotton balls. There is no sane way to explain it. Academia may be further left than the nation as a whole, but the nation always manages to catch up.

That’s why I discouraged one of my nephews from going into the humanities to earn a Ph.D. Based on my own experiences, I knew that the odds were stacked heavily against him at every turn—scholarships, grades, the right to enjoy a non-hostile environment in the classroom, etc.

Now that he has a fresh Ph.D. and is in the job market, race reality in academia is getting too real, beginning with the application process.

Though many schools only send an e-mail letter of rejection (or no response at all), he has immediately gotten mail to his house from EVERY academic job he has applied for. What is that correspondence? It’s a form asking for demographic, i.e., racial, information. Again, based on my own experience in academia (fudging grades for affirmative action candidates, etc.) I have no doubt whatsoever that such forms are used to weed out White males and promote the privileged groups of multiculturalism.

Let’s finish by returning to the topic of disparate emphasis put on (alleged) White hate crimes vs. all-too-real murders of White students. George Hocking’s account explains why it is so crucial to constantly repeat these stories of condemnation of White racism: It is the prelude to our elimination. “Just as the only route to the eternal bliss of heaven in the old story [Christianity] was death, the only path to a blissful utopian future of racial equality in the new story is death of the white race.”

The creation and propagation of this race-killing story can only be called wickedly brilliant. Unfortunately, it is working all too well as a critical mass of Whites has internalized it and therefore accepts these race crime reports uncritically. Worse, they demand punishment through race suicide.

Edmund Connelly (email him) is a freelance writer, academic, and expert on the cinema arts. He has previously written for The Occidental Quarterly.

The Morality of Majority Rights and Interests

Assertions that Whites have interests are met with a firestorm of moral condemnation and ostracism. These moral panics warrant any and all actions against the miscreant, including removal from one’s livelihood, or even physical assault.

So what is the morality of ethnic self interest? There are at least two ways to think about. One is that many of the people who are most eager to create moral panics about such ideas also have strong ethnic identities and interests of their own. This is one of the first things that struck me about Jewish political and intellectual rhetoric — that they managed to create a culture of critique in which only Whites had a moral obligation to disappear as a racial/ethnic entity while minority cultures such as their own were encouraged to hold on to their traditions and group cohesiveness.

This way of thinking goes back to Horace Kallen, an important Jewish intellectual who was the first to develop a vision of multicultural America, combining this vision with a deep attachment to Zionism. Obviously, Kallen’s prescription for America is quite the opposite of his vision of the Jewish state as a state for the Jews. The only thing these beliefs have in common  is that they serve Jewish interests. This is an example of Jewish moral particularism — the age old “Is it good for the Jews?.” Kallen appeals to the tradition of Western moral universalism to attain the interests of his ethnic group.

Kallen had a major influence on Randolph Bourne whowrote a classic statement of a multicultural ideal for America in his famous “Trans-National America that appeared in Atlantic Monthly in 1916. All other ethnic groups would be allowed to retain their identity and cohesion. It is only the Anglo-Saxon that is implored to be cosmopolitan.

Randolph Bourne: High-minded Anglo-Saxon

This is a prescription for racial/ethnic suicide. However, at the time he wrote it, Anglo-Saxons like Bourne may have been confident enough to believe that they could safely allow others to have an ethnic identity and retain their cultures while shedding their own. Bourne’s implicit view of the world is that the ethnic identities of non-WASPs would make his world more colorful and interesting but not really threaten his basic interests. Like his mentor Kallen, he envisions of world of peaceful harmony amidst ethnic diversity:

America is already the world-federation in miniature, the continent where for the first time in history has been achieved that miracle of hope, the peaceful living side by side, with character substantially preserved, of the most heterogeneous peoples under the sun. Nowhere else has such contiguity been anything but the breeder of misery. Here, notwithstanding our tragic failures of adjustment, the outlines are already too clear not to give us a new vision and a new orientation of the American mind in the world.

I rather doubt that Bourne would have written what he did if he was aware that carrying out his recommendations would ultimately mean that Anglo-Saxons would lose control of their culture and their political destiny — and that even basic institutions like democracy and constitutional government would be in jeopardy.

What is the moral status of such a principled abdication of normal human strivings? Whites give up any claim to political and cultural control and hope that we will all enter a never-never land where we’ll all live happily ever after — White people expressing their individualism and everyone else advancing their ethnic interests.

The problem is that there is no way to rule out racial oppression and violence where Whites will be in a relatively powerless situation — at the mercy of people with festering historical grudges. Jewish historical memory about the 1924 immigration law and anti-Jewish attitudes, especially prior to World War II, is particularly bitter. The historical memory of Blacks in America is also especially bitter (Rev. Jeremiah Wright comes to mind), and Mexicans and Asians (see also here) have their own axes to grind.

The fact that Jews are an elite in the US and throughout the West and the fact that Jews have been a hostile elite in other times and places, most notably in the Soviet Union until at least the end of World War II, does not give much confidence in a rosy multicultural future when Whites cease to have the power to assert their interests. The great tragedy of the Russians and Ukrainians in the aftermath of the Bolshevik Revolution is that they came to be ruled by ethnic outsiders with historic grudges against them.

[adrotate group=”1″]

Add to that the fact that Jewish political activism on behalf of a non-White America has often been accompanied by overt expressions of hostility toward White elites and toward Western civilization — even among Jewish “conservatives.” There is no reason to think that such hostility will be eliminated when Whites have less power.

In the multicultural America of the near future, gulags and anti-White totalitarian controls are at least as likely as the multicultural utopia envisioned by Bourne. And if they can’t be ruled out, there is a compelling moral case to be made that Whites should not enter willingly into such a world. If there is one thing we should have learned by thinking about the history of the 20th century, it’s that we should not believe in utopias.

I am reminded of the minister quoted in Eric Kaufmann’s The Rise and Fall of Anglo-America who stated “Political optimism is one of the vices of the American people…. We deem ourselves a chosen people, and incline to the belief that the Almighty stands pledged to our prosperity. Until within a few years probably not one in a hundred of our population has ever questioned the security of our future. Such optimism is as senseless as pessimism is faithless” (pp. 68–69).

The good minister wrote this in 1885 — definitely ahead of the curve. And he was quite right that the Anglo-Saxons should not have been too confident. That’s why the title of Kaufmann’s book refers to the fall of Anglo-America. Well-meaning White Americans who are not concerned that the future could turn out horribly for people like them are simply not paying attention to all the signs around them.

The good news is that there does seem to be a growing anger and insecurity in White America. Spurred by the Obama presidency, large numbers of Whites seem to be questioning their future. But it’s far too early to guess whether this will lead to effective political action — much less a resurgence of White identity and explicit and confident assertions of White interests. The fact that this White anger will probably benefit Republicans scarcely gives one confidence that it will have a positive long term result.

Another set of moral issues derives from biological differences among humans. If there is one common denominator to leftist activism throughout the last century, it is that biology doesn’t matter: Ethnicity is nothing more than culture. Unwelcome racial and ethnic differences in traits like IQ, academic achievement, and criminality are due to White evil. We are all familiar with this litany.

But this ideology leads to very real moral issues. The healthcare debate is a good example where the left is impervious to very real concerns among Whites that the proposed healthcare system will involve a massive transfer of resources, mainly from Whites to massive numbers of non-Whites, including tens of millions of legal and illegal immigrants imported by hostile elites against their wishes. From an evolutionary perspective, such concerns reflect evolved preferences and willingness to help people who look like them and have similar cultural proclivities.

Affirmative action raises a host of moral issues for the majority. Whites are doubtless concerned about the effects of affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos and competition from Asians, especially in states with high Asian populations, such as California which is ground zero for the multicultural future. By using “holistic” rating systems that deemphasize test scores, Blacks entering UCLA had SAT scores that were on average 300 points below White and Asian students. At the other end of the achievement curve, 46% of the undergraduates at the University of California’s flagship university, UC-Berkeley, are Asians despite the fact that Asians are only 12% of the state population.

Ironically, Whites may be unintended beneficiaries of recent policies put in place to aid Blacks and Latinos in a state where it is illegal to consider race in the admissions process. Even so, they will be underrepresented in elite public universities in a state that they built. Asians, who would be less overrepresented among UC students under the new rules (going from 35% to between 29–32%), are predictably outraged.

Welcome to a very small taste of ethnic politics in California where university admissions are still a zero sum game and political processes complexly interact with individual merit to determine how the pie is cut up.

Cleary Randolph Bourne did not think about what the long term effects of multiculturalism would be. There is simply no moral justification for  unleashing all this ethnic competition on the White citizens of California and the rest of the US without their consent. Indeed, the citizens of California voted for Proposition 187 that would have banned services for illegal aliens, but it was struck down by the courts. These same voters — mainly White and Republican — are now refusing to increase taxes that would keep the state of California afloat without drastic cuts in spending on education and health care for everyone.

Of course, the mainstream media sees this as a massive moral failing on the part of California voters. As an evolutionist, I see it as common sense. Why support a system that is fundamentally geared to support people unlike oneself?

This is the problem of donating to public goods like public education and public health care in a multicultural society. Harvard sociologist Robert Putnam has shown that increasing ethnic diversity lowers the willingness to contribute to charity or to public goods (including, apropos the current national debate, public healthcare). It also increases social isolation and it lowers trust both within and between races; it also lowers political participation and lessens confidence in political leaders.

Putnam himself is sanguine about the long term effects of immigration. (Such utopian hopes seem to be an occupational hazard of university professors.) These effects are massively unfair to the White people of the US who never voted for this onslaught and will never see any tangible benefits from it —  unless one counts ethnic cuisine as a really important benefit. Couldn’t we just import ethnic cookbooks?

The social isolation, distrust of the political process, and lack of willingness to contribute to public goods means that as this process continues, Western societies will be increasingly unlivable for everyone. Civic mindedness and a strong concern about the society as a whole have been a hallmark of healthy Western societies.

On the other hand, one of the most striking aspects of the behavior of Orthodox Jews in Postville, Iowa was that they didn’t have any interest in developing social ties with their new neighbors or conform to community norms — even seemingly trivial ones such as taking care of their lawns, shoveling their sidewalks, or raking their leaves. They had no concern about the community as a whole; they treated their neighbors like strangers.

Civic mindedness and trust have been noted as unique features of Western culture. As I noted elsewhere,

Trust is really a way of emphasizing the importance of moral universalism as a trait of individualist societies. In collectivist, family-oriented societies, trust ends at the border of the family and kinship group. Social organization, whether in political culture or in economic enterprise, tends to be a family affair. Morality is defined as what is good for the group—typically the kinship group (e.g., the notorious line, “Is it good for the Jews?”).

This lack of ability to develop a civil society is the fundamental problem of societies in the Middle East and Africa, where divisions into opposing religious and ultimately kinship groups define the political landscape. The movement of the West toward multiculturalism really means the end of individualist Western culture.

In individualist cultures, on the other hand, organizations include nonfamily members in positions of trust. Morality is defined in terms of universal moral principles that are independent of kinship connections or group membership. Trust therefore is of critical importance to individualist society.

Yet, as Putnam has shown, trust and civic mindedness are the first casualties of ethnic diversity.

To inflict the White populations of the West with multiculturalism — especially when support for multiculturalism and support for their own demographic and political eclipse have never been majority views among Whites — is profoundly immoral. Imagine what happens when White Americans begin to behave toward their communities in the same way the Hassidic Jews behaved toward Postville.

What is needed is to pay more attention to the morality of infringing on the legitimate rights and interests of the White majority. Everyone has rights and everyone has interests. The interests and rights of Whites as a majority are no less morally legitimate than anyone else’s rights. Whites must jettison the ideal of moral universalism and ask what is good for the future of Whites.

We have to seek a world in which Whites attempting to atone for their personal transgressions would seek moral legitimacy by working even harder on behalf of their own people.

Kevin MacDonald is a professor of psychology at California State University–Long Beach. Email him.

Harvard Hates Whites—Does America, Too?

“The United States is well on the road to being dominated by an Asian technocratic elite and a Jewish business, professional, and media elite.”

Kevin MacDonald

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.

Fighting the Bell Curve: Why Affirmative Action is an inevitable disaster

Affirmative Action (AA) started out as a well-intentioned effort to increase the representation of black, then other minorities and women, at the higher levels of the American educational system. Well-intentioned, but ill-founded because it was based on the article of faith that the only reason there were fewer blacks in colleges, universities, and professional schools is the legacy of racism and discrimination.

Initially AA was first defined as making every effort to find qualified minority members. The search was expanded to include even the “potentially qualified,” but when that failed, the program transmogrified into one of “goals and timetables” — a euphemism for quotas based on race, etc. This is the antithesis of the supposed objective of the Civil Rights movement, namely judging on “the content of character.”

Well, AA could have benefited from some advice from the other AA — Alcoholics Anonymous, one of whose admonitions to family members of recidivist abusers is “you didn’t make ’em that way, you can’t fix ’em.”

While fair-minded commentators and the public at large  have had their fill of reverse discrimination, ethnic activists continue to make every effort to enforce more and more AA until some critical mass of minorities inhabits every desirable sector of American society.  

In California, citizens led by former University of California Regent Ward Connerly (who happens to be African American) passed Proposition 209, which banned “preferential treatment” of race, sex or ethnicity in admissions to California’s public universities. The box score: by fall 2006, only 250 of the 12,189 students admitted to UCLA’s freshman class were African American, roughly 2%. This is the lowest number since at least 1973 — results that could have been predicted right out of the tables and graphs in The Bell Curve.

The Bell Curve, the outstanding tome by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, shows that African Americans have a mean IQ of 85, one whole standard deviation below the white mean of 100. Even more disconcerting to AA advocates is that Richard Lynn has summarized findings that sub-Saharan Africans have a mean closer to 70.

And the devil in the bell curve is not only in the details but in the tails of the curve. The normal or bell curve describes continuous biological variation that is the result of many genes. The classic case is height, but IQ is almost the same: Most individuals fall at the middle or closely around it. The further one goes either up or down from the average, the fewer the number of individuals. The further out one goes, the greater the effect.

And this applies with a vengeance when two groups differ in their average score. The further out you go in either direction — up or down, good or bad — the greater the differences between the groups. What this means in terms of education is that as one goes from high school to junior college to college to graduate/professional school, the percentage of qualified blacks goes steadily and increasingly down. And the ratio of qualified whites to qualified blacks goes up dramatically.

The figure shows what happens if you have two IQ distributions that differ by a standard deviation — whites on top, blacks on the bottom. If the test is made so that 50% of whites pass, then 16% of blacks will pass. This would mean that if we consider a population of 1000 people taking the test in a population that is 10% black and 90% white, then 16 blacks would qualify, compared to 450 whites—a ratio of around 28 to 1 — much higher than the population ratio of 9 to 1.

The 28 to 1 ratio is pretty steep — exactly the sort of thing that gives the affirmative action industry fits. And it explains why even tests for fire fighters and policemen — which are geared for the middle of the IQ distribution — have to have lower standards for blacks. Here’s a case where white firefighters who scored high on an employment test successfully sued the city of Boston for favoring lower-scoring blacks.

But if the test is made more difficult, it gets way worse. The figure shows what happens when only 16% of whites pass. (This would make the test more like a law school admissions test.) In that case, only 2% of the blacks pass. This means that if we consider a population of 1000 people, 10% black and 90% white, only 2 blacks of the 1000 would qualify, compared to 144 whites—a ratio of over 70 to 1. Hence the desperate need for affirmative action.

And imagine what happens when one adopts the standards of an elite law school like Harvard where the average of successful white applicants approaches the 99th percentile. Finding a black that can compete on the basis of mental ability in a situation like that is like finding a needle in a haystack.

Which reminds us, we’d love to see Barack Obama’s grades and test scores at Harvard Law. In fact, Stanford Law Professor Richard Sanford has already shown that black lawyers have no difficulty being hired by elite firms but are much more likely to leave these firms without making partner. Just recently he filed suit to obtain the records of the Bar Exam of California to replicate previous findings that black law school grads are over 6 times more likely to fail the bar exam even after multiple attempts than whites. His thesis is that blacks are being set up for failure: They are admitted into schools where they cannot hope to compete with those admitted on the basis of intellectual ability.

Maybe that’s why Obama became a “community organizer” instead of trying to compete in the world of big time law.

But Affirmative Action advocates and ethnic minority activists rarely allow fact to disturb their attempts at social engineering. In a recent article, we compared advocates of the No Child Left Behind law to King Canute commanding the tides to behave. It’s the same here. The realities of the two different racial bell curves are such that any would-be affirmative action King Canute who commands that blacks be admitted to law school at the same level as their percentage of the population would have to override not just the tide, but a tsunami tidal wave.

Not that that will stop them. They remain undeterred, seated in their thrones, or at least in their endowed academic chairs.

Case in point: one Darnell M. Hunt, professor of sociology at UCLA and director of the university’s Ralph J. Bunche Center for African American Studies.Pontificating in a recent LA Times OpEd, he decries the effects of Prop 209, while heaping praise and hosannas upon a new “holistic” admission policy implemented at UCLA which considers applicants’ grades and test scores more fully in the context of their life experiences.

Technically, admissions officers would not consider race, gender or ethnicity as a plus, which remains illegal under Prop 209. But they do consider “all available information about a student.” Whereas previously the files of applicants were divided into academic and personal areas and read by separate reviewers, reviewers now consider “the total package.” Although racial preferences per se remain forbidden, “socioeconomic and other factors” can be taken into account. Race by any other name…. (Remember those bad old days when prospective students were required to submit a photograph?)

Prof. Hunt is wholly happy with the results of the “holistic method.” The number of African American freshmen admitted to UCLA in 2007 climbed to 407, and this year it climbed again to 453 — nearly double the 2006 number. He expresses no concern that many of these holistic admissions will either drop out or graduate with meaningless degrees in subjects devoid of market value. To Hunt, that smells like, “important progress”!

While African American activists like Prof. Hunt are gloating about these results, others are not even mildly impressed. Just the opposite. Those with eyes to see and ears to hear have noted that this increase in the relatively small number of African American freshmen admitted constitutes clear evidence of “illegal admissions practices.”

Anti-affirmative action crusader Ward Connerly, for example, called a spade a spade, accusing the university of trying to “rig the system,” while political science professor Tim Groseclose resigned from the UCLA’s admissions oversight committee. Groseclose declared that UCLA is “cheating” on admissions and is engaging in a “cover-up” to keep it from being discovered.

Either outraged by the candor of Connerly and Groseclose or willfully ignorant of the totality of scientific evidence, Prof. Hunt offered up the usual litany of anti-testing mantras (e.g., “test scores are not objective,”), all of which have been tested and disproven, tried and failed. We’d love to see Prof. Hunt make a serious attempt to dispute Arthur Jensen’s massive data on the validity of IQ tests.

Over 100 years of research in mental testing and genetics has established that IQ is measurable and predicts not only academic, but other life outcomes that are critically important to maintaining a complex, technological society. IQ is heritable, culturally fair, and not tractable to any significant degree.

Fortunately, Heather MacDonald has provided readers of the LA Times with the lowdown on the low down machinations of the AA activists.

Ms. MacDonald tells it as it truly is: “The University of California has tried to engineer admissions systems that would replicate the effect of explicit racial quotas while appearing color-blind.”

She then makes public the dirty laundry dumped out of the AA hamper by Prof. Groseclose. In somewhat Stalinist tactics, the university has refused to give him access to the data that would prove the point, thus causing his resignation.

Despite the stonewalling, enough info has leaked out to establish not only the facts, but the motive. When Prop 209 reduced the number of unqualified African Americans admitted to campuses across the state, UC officials resorted to a bit of academic chicanery to sneak underqualified blacks and Latinos back into the system’s most demanding campuses, and they did it without officially “making race a factor.” Rather than race, they introduced a preference for low-income students. But alas, they were hoist on their own petard: Rather than blacks and Hispanics, poor whites (especially Eastern Europeans) and Vietnamese filled up the slots — not the sort of diversity the university had in mind.

This is because whites outperform blacks at every social class level (once again showing that the black/white IQ gap is not caused by social class.)

Administrators cut the low-income preferences in half and went back to the drawing board.

One scheme was to reduce the weight given to academic qualifications in ranking students. For example, in 2002, the law school at UC-Berkeley admitted only 5% of white students in a low academic rank, but it admitted 75% of black applicants in the same range. At UCLA, from 1998 to 2001, black applicants were 3.6 times as likely to be admitted to its undergraduate college as whites, and Latinos 1.8 times as likely, even after controlling for economic status and school ranking, according to an unpublished study by statistician Richard Berk.

The next finagle factor introduced to subvert the will of the people and simple fairness was what is euphemistically termed a “comprehensive review” which, it is claimed, “broadens the conception of merit.” Translation: Students’ academic qualifications are cranked up or knocked down based on their “life situation.” (Guess what that means.)

Even that didn’t do the trick. UCLA still had a dearth of qualified black students. You just can’t beat the bell curve if you take any objective and valid measure into account. Enter acting Chancellor Norman Abrams and the more radical — “holistic” review, so beloved by Darnell Hunt.

But even that’s not enough. UCLA’s Associate Vice Provost for Student Diversity (doubtless a well-paid sinecure for a person with appropriate non-white skin tone) also decreed the admissions committee must increase the number of blacks who read and rate student applications. This resulted in a 25% black representation among readers, which is three times the percentage of blacks in California’s population! Presumably this is a hope that ethnic favoritism will succeed where all else has failed. They’re probably right.

Those interested in the entire sad saga of the UC “Educational” system and the courageous efforts of Prof. Groseclose to restore it should consult Heather MacDonald’s wonderful summary. Suffice it to say the future of the Golden State, once praised as the high tech center of the globe and with the best kindergarten to college educational system in the  nation, is being sacrificed to the gods of political correctness.