Costs of Multiculturalism

Christopher Donovan: Smith v. Berghuis: The Black Defendant's Right to a Not Guilty Verdict

/9 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: On Wednesday, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Smith v. Berghuis, quite possibly the most absurd lawsuit of the year.  Needless to say, the claim was racial discrimination. 

Equally needless to say, he’s got supporters in the media and among whites.

Diapolis Smith, a Black man, shot and killed Christopher Rumbley during a bar fight in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1991.  He was convicted of second-degree murder.  On appeal, he claimed that he was denied a fair trial because the jury pool had too few Blacks. 

Get this:  The percentage of Blacks in the community was 7 percent.  For Smith’s jury pool, it was 6 percent. 

How this laughably trivial complaint makes it to the Supreme Court is a testament to the insanity of the multiracial society.  The slightest claim of racial discrimination — provided it’s lodged by a non-white — throws our whole administrative apparatus into a tailspin. 

Caselaw does say, however, that a criminal defendant is entitled to a jury pulled from a fair cross-section of the community.  This has been interpreted to mean that “identifiable groups” cannot be excluded. 

So, how were Blacks “excluded” from Smith’s jury pool?   A big sign declaring “no Blacks”?  An evil White racist jury administrator who tossed every other Black person? 

Not quite. 

Blacks, evidence showed, were more likely to be excused because they asked to be excused, often for child-care or transporation reasons. 

Or, they were kept off because of their felony records. 

In other words, the slightly lower number of Blacks was because of their own behavior, not because of any exclusionary intent.  And imagine if the court refused to excuse Blacks who complained that they couldn’t serve because of a lack of money — another lawsuit would have resulted.  Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.

But all of this is only one level of insanity — a level that assumes the “cross section of the community” demand is a legitimate one to begin with. 

The supporters of Black murderer Smith, interestingly, don’t seem to doubt the existence or importance of race, despite the constant left-wing assertion that “race does not exist” or is “only a social construct.”  As always, this argument only applies when it benefits non-Whites.  Just ask Sonia Sotomayor, who whipped hostile questions Michigan’s way — but of course found no fault with New Haven, Connecticut’s exclusion of White firefighters.  

Dig a little deeper, and you see that what Smith is really claiming is the right to be tried by fellow Blacks, not Whites.  Or at least as many Blacks as he can get on his jury. 

Dig deeper still, and you see that what he’s claiming is a right to be found “not guilty” — because he presumes that his racial brothers and sisters will side with him, the evidence be damned.  There’s simply no other reason for Blacks to demand that they be tried by fellow Blacks. 

Nevertheless, I am beginning to suspect that the dreaded “all-White jury” doesn’t sometimes acquit Black defendants for fear of being seen as “racist.”  If anyone’s got evidence of this, let me know.  

Despite the insanity of Smith v. Berghuis, I see almost no critical media coverage of this suit.  Look at the “friend of the court” briefs, and you’ll see plenty — filed for Smith.  One lonely brief takes Michigan’s side. 

It all makes me want to stand on a mountain and scream, “Can’t anyone see what’s going on here?” 

If it’s the case that Blacks are wrongly accused and convicted — or cannot be fairly judged but by fellow Blacks — then I have a solution:  racial separation.  Could it be any crazier than the status quo?

Bookmark and Share

Kevin MacDonald: Charles Dodgson on Stratfor

/22 Comments/in , , , , , /by

Kevin MacDonald: Charles Dodgson’s current TOO article “Stratfor’s Global Forecast: Myopia or Neoconservative Manipulation?” is a real eye-opener. I have often seen Stratfor’s forecasts distributed on email lists and other venues as representing objective, hardheaded analysis. Now it turns out that Stratfor is run by a strongly identified Jew who sees the world through a typical neoconservative Jewish lens — biased toward Israel. And, by emphasizing the benefits of immigration into Western countries but not the ethnic costs to Whites, Stratfor is an effective cheerleader for White dispossession in Europe and America.

Because they are tiny minority in Western societies, all  successful Jewish intellectual and political movements  must appeal to non-Jews. This has certainly been true of the Jewish movements of the left that dominate so much of contemporary thinking in the West. This is also true of neoconservative movements, and Dodgson’s analysis shows that Stratfor appeals to non-Jewish conservatives because  it emphasizes national sovereignty and other hot button conservative issues. But, in the end, Stratfor is yet another illustration of neoconservative Jews  reinforcing the fundamentally leftist, multicultural, anti-White status quo in the West while simultaneously advocating Jewish ethnic nationalism in Israel.

Bookmark and Share

Stephen Pollard on the English Defense League

/29 Comments/in , , , , , /by

The TOO article on right-wing culturism reminds us once again that race and ethnicity are the true bogeymen of political discourse in the West. Stephen Pollard’s statement is particularly striking: “Mainstream Islam …  is no more of a threat to Western society than the Quakers.”

This is nothing more than a gratuitous wave-of-the-hand gesture aimed at preempting all debate. No need to discuss whether a predominately Muslim England would compromise the interests of native Brits, whether it would lead to a society hopelessly fractured along ethnic and cultural lines, increased social alienation, chronic friction and jockeying for position by the different groups, etc.

According to Pollard, who is the editor of The Jewish Chronicle, England’s leading Jewish publication, anti-Muslim groups like the English Defense League “are racists who would expunge all who do not fit their supposedly native White Anglo-Saxon Protestant definition of English society.”

“Supposedly native”? No one has a problem identifying indigenous peoples in any other culture in the world. No one would talk about the “supposedly native” Koreans or the “supposedly native” Native Americans. What is it about White people that they can’t be indigenous–even in Europe where they have existed for thousands of years? The mindset that questions whether Whites can be indigenous is the same mindset that questions the reality of race and ethnicity as biological realities — while nevertheless behaving as an ethnic activist within his ethnic group.

What animates someone like Pollard is a fear of any expression of White solidarity. The EDL is clearly doing its best to fit into the politically correct zeitgeist. It admits Blacks and it has shown no hostility toward Jews or Hindus. It’s pro-Israel stance is clearly an attempt to ingratiate itself with the powers that be — to no avail. The politically correct posturings of the EDL are not enough for Jewish activists like Pollard. The ideology of Western suicide is that Whites — and no one else, least of all Jews among whom the idea of Israel as a Jewish state is sacrosanct — must give up any attempt to defend themselves or their culture.

Pollard’s article is another example of how the organized Jewish community is attempting to manage White rage at their dispossession. As I noted previously in a comment on the American context, Jewish interests may suffer with the influx of masses of Muslims and other groups who are hostile to Israel or do not have any history of philo-Semitism. Nevertheless, Jews overwhelmingly continue to favor mass immigration because they “may well have a reasonable fear that any movement to restrict immigration is bound to bring White racial consciousness to the fore.”

Similarly, the image of all those White people in the EDL protesting against Islam (even with a sprinkling of Blacks and waving Israeli flags) is troubling for Jews because such White people are not far from adopting an explicitly White racialist viewpoint.  And when they do, they may well see that  historically the organized Jewish community has indeed been a major force acting against White people and their interests.  Based on its historical experience in Europe, what Jews fear most is a culturally and ethnically homogeneous White society with a confident sense of its identity and its interests.

The strategy is to continue to suppress and demonize any expression of  White solidarity and opposition to White dispossession — even by organizations like the EDL who do everthing they can to ingratiate themselves with Jews.

So far it’s working. But the game is far from over.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: In Berekely, Ca., Robbing Whites to Pay Non-Whites

/13 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: Occasionally, injustices confronting whites are too diffuse to be seen clearly.  We fight wars on behalf of Jewish causes, but it’s rarely discussed.  We pay a heavy tax burden for the non-whites in our midst, but the cause and effect takes a few mental steps to track.

Recently in Berkeley, California, however, the issue was put squarely for all to see.  The science labs at a school — which were patronized mostly by Whites —  were voted to be scrapped to provide more resources for “struggling” black and Hispanic students.  In other words, a direct wealth transfer from whites to non-Whites, in such a tight proximity that it may as well have been a street mugging.

We are not “enriched” by living with non-Whites.  We are impoverished.  Even parents in the lefty mecca of Berkeley are starting to notice.

Christopher Donovan: New York City Begins (More Precipitous) Slide Detroit-ward

/20 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan:  I learned a lot in my seven years of living in New York City.  It’s got allure for a reason.  For bright lights, big adventure and sheer cliffs of challenge, New York is unmatched.

It is also, for a White person, no place to make a home.  New York City is essentially a boiling cauldron of competing racial and ethnic groups, all of which scrap and tear for a share of the spoils.  The job of the mayor, his chief lawyer once told me, is to figure out “which ethnic group is mad at him that day and how to make them happy again”, or words to that effect.  The effect is an atmosphere thick with barely suppressed tension.  Every human interaction is fraught, suspicious, and pregnant with explosion.  It’s all very bad for the blood pressure.

From the mayor (and that chief lawyer I mentioned) on down, New York is Jewish territory.  A few white ethnic groups have some presence, chief among them Irish and Italian (though always as those specific ethnicities, and never just “white”).  Blacks and the Hispanic groups loom large.  But it has been a long, long time since WASPs like John Lindsay held sway (and power for him meant sucking up to minorities).

If, like me, your heritage is “undifferentiated, but mostly Anglo-Saxon, White”, you are operating in New York without an ethnic safety net.  You might find a niche, like Taki, provided you’re mind-bogglingly rich.  But even talented ad execs or white-shoe law firm partners are ultimately toiling in the vinyards of a city they’ll never be completely at home in and can barely afford.

The numbers are now official.  Whites are a minority in New York as both citizens and voters.  None of it points in a good direction for whites living there.

Bookmark and Share

Christopher Donovan: Ricci Decision Hurts Whom, Again?

/3 Comments/in , , /by

Christopher Donovan: It’s amazing the tidbits you find while crumpling up old newspaper for kindling for a Christmas fire. “Employers Hurt By Bias Decision” was the odd headline I spied in a July edition of LawyersUSA, a trade rag for the legal profession, while trying to get the logs to ignite.

My first thought was: Imagine a Supreme Court decision on a “civil rights” case benefitting blacks being described by the media as anything but divine wisdom revealed. “Decision long overdue”, “Blacks commend decision” or “Decision hailed, but more work needed” is more like it.

But as I read the story, the point was fair enough — in the wake of the Ricci decision, employers are put into yet another “sued if you do, sued if you don’t” situation. If an employment test keeps out too many non-Whites, tossing it out could get you into “Ricci” trouble. But keeping it in could get you into “disparate impact” trouble.

Of course, this is just the sort of impossible situation you’ll find yourself in when you try to reconcile the irreconcileable: a Black and Hispanic population that is inherently less intelligent than the white population, and a policy that requires equal outcomes for members of all racial groups.

Better headline: Whites Hurt By Multiracial Society. Watch for it soon.

Christopher Donovan: More Costs of Diversity

/in , /by

Christopher Donovan: I once had an e-mail exchange with a prominent pro-white thinker on the (actual dollar figure) costs of racial diversity. I was nudging his publication to hire an economist to tally it up. From welfare to crime to affirmative action, the cost to American whites must be staggering, I wrote. I was thinking in particular of the amount lost by American business owing to black and Hispanic incompetence, criminality and lack of motivation. He responded that the project would simply be too large — it would take 1000 economists, not one. The idea drifted away.

But we can continue to take note of the very strong anecdotal evidence. The latest bit comes from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has decided to go after businesses that “unfairly” make use of criminal records and credit checks when hiring. Naturally, blacks and Hispanics are disproportionately affected.

Of course, I would make the argument that racial discrimination laws should be thrown out entirely — employers, landlords or anyone else should be able to choose their employees or tenants as they please, and if they don’t want black employees, so be it.

Equally of course, the EEOC under Obama (or Bush, or anyone else) would not go for such an argument. By applying the “disparate impact” test to criminal background tests, it would indeed boost black and Hispanic employment. It will also dramatically increase the cost of doing business by allowing pilferers and incompetents onto the payroll.

If the EEOC prevails in this, whites will once again pay the costs of forced racial association, multiracialism and unwanted “diversity.”

Bookmark and Share