Posts Tagged ‘affirmative action’

Pushback Against “Disparate Impact” Style Thinking Begins On College Campuses

Friday, June 9th, 2017

Our government enforces Civil Rights law through the “disparate impact” doctrine: if in a large group, one smaller group is doing poorly while the rest are doing well, it is assumed that the larger group caused the lack of success of the smaller.

This occurs because we are reasoning backward. We start with the precept that all people are equal, which means that they should all have the same result. Therefore, “something else” must have caused the disparate impact.

That idea extends from egalitarianism itself. If the impoverished masses are poor, it must be the fault of those in charge, even if the masses bred themselves into starvation. Therefore, blame the leaders and remove them, putting the masses in their place.

While this logic is fundamentally backward, it appeals to the human psyche because we use a similar logic. We assume that we are right, and when our actions do not work out as we had planned, we blame the world. It is the order of reality that is broken, we think, instead of us. We are equal to the world, at least in how we perceive things in our big brains.

Disparate impact forms the basis of affirmative action, civil rights and anti-discrimination law but also human social thinking. If someone is failing, and they are part of our social group, we reverse our thinking and make the assumption that something bad was done to them.

On college campuses, it forms an integral part of the logic. According to our dubious statistics, women are much more likely to get raped than the presumed but not actual majority of men, and therefore if a rape accusation is lodged, it is likely true.

Unfortunately for most of these accusations, they are impossible to litigate. Two drunk people in a dark room does not provide any firm ground for potentially destroying a life, so the legal professionals fled these cases and transferred them instead to colleges through Title IX pseudo-courts on campus.

Part of the reason for this was the change in US rape law. Originally, rape was viewed as a violent crime which would leave defensive wounds on the body of the violated. When that was changed, rape became a question of consent and the he-said she-said cases proliferated.

Since the transfer to on-campus courts, which have none of the protections of legal courts, the balance has shifted against the accused to the point of absurd injustice. And now, the pendulum swings back:

In the past two years alone, according to the publication Inside Higher Ed, colleges have lost at least a dozen lawsuits filed by men accused of sexual misconduct who say they were treated unfairly by their schools.

“In over 20 years of reviewing higher education law cases, I’ve never seen such a string of legal setbacks for universities,” Gary Pavela, an expert on student conduct issues, told the publication. “Something is going seriously wrong.”

In the broader cultural sense, this means that relying on someone having membership in a victim group can no longer serve as a presumption of innocence. This will have ripples that will affect all levels of civil rights, affirmative action and anti-discrimination law.

Egalitarianism can only be implemented in one way: taking from the successful and giving to the unsuccessful. Every method suggested for it ultimately amounts to a transfer of wealth to a subsidy, including Title IX courts which transfer power to accusers.

As this presumption falls apart, the idea of a necessary attachment between more successful groups and the rest will fragment as well. When the less successful groups do not have a blind legal shield, the wealth transfer will stop.

Workplace Diversity (Including Women)

Thursday, June 8th, 2017

Operation Mockingbird tackles the ugly question of Affirmative Action in the workplace, specifically looking at the mixing of men and women in the workplace at dot-com 3.0 company Uber.

Host Joe Arrigo raises some good points, including that: having men and women in the workplace leads to inevitable infidelities, forced de facto quota hiring based on civil rights law leads to resentment, and that in male-dominated workplaces, an inevitable quid pro quo will emerge which leads to abuse.

Here is the episode:

To what he has already raised, it makes sense to add a few other observations. By hiring women, we double the workforce and effectively halve salaries; this can be somewhat hidden by adding new job titles and then passing on the cost as higher prices to the consumer. We have then compounded that error with immigration, which ensures that workers are seeing the value of their labor decrease.

In addition, we should think hard about the different natures of men and women. Even outside of considerations of the intelligence differential between the sexes, men and women think differently, and these modes of thought lead to some roles fitting each sex — for the most part; exceptions exist and prove the rule — but forcing a mixed workplace ensures people in the wrong roles.

Americans seemed fascinated by the 1960s world of Mad Men where the office was still very much segregated by sex roles, and how this not only seemed to work better, but be more fun and allow women and men to appreciate being what they are. The power of women comes from femininity, not emulating masculinity, and forcing men into feminine roles ensures resentment and absurd behavior.

“Broken Windows” And Affirmative Action

Saturday, June 3rd, 2017

The Left is based in a single idea, egalitarianism, or defense of the individual against social standards. Equality is compulsory social inclusion, which means that people are not held accountable to values and principles according to which they are ranked in social status; instead, everyone is included, and they are ranked by wealth, power, novelty, and social popularity.

Not an improvement.

As part of its jihad crusade for equality, the Left hates any form of strong authority that can impose standards on people. Individualists hate being forced to conform, even when it is for obvious reasons, because they hope to express their individuality through external methods instead of developing internal ones, because developing internal ones requires yoking the personality to reality. You do not grow, develop, refine, mature, and become wiser by sealing the inner self away from the world, but it is what individualists desire, and the Left is the party of individualism.

For years the Left has been chafing at the success of broken windows policing in New York, and now they are trotting out what they view as a smoking gun against the “broken windows” theory:

“Crime was starting to go down in New York prior to the Giuliani election and prior to the implementation of broken windows policing,” says Harcourt, the Columbia law professor. “And of course what we witnessed from that period, basically from about 1991, was that the crime in the country starts going down, and it’s a remarkable drop in violent crime in this country. Now, what’s so remarkable about it is how widespread it was.”

Harcourt points out that crime dropped not only in New York, but in many other cities where nothing like broken windows policing was in place. In fact, crime even fell in parts of the country where police departments were mired in corruption scandals and largely viewed as dysfunctional, such as Los Angeles.

He seems to have forgotten about the violent riots the following year. But even more, he has made the fundamental error of assuming that a lessening in crime across the nation would lessen it as much as broken windows policing did, and forgets to mention that in some areas, crime did not immediately go down. We should also consider that crime as a whole has increased in New York:

National Public Radio’s Justice Correspondent Carrie Johnson simply wrote, “Homicides in New York remain low relative to the 1980s and 1990s, according to FBI data and the Brennan Center for Justice.”

In truth, this is actually a mixed bag. If you look at the 2015 numbers, homicides, rape and robbery did spike (via WSJ):

…while crime in the city continued its historic downward trend, led largely by a drop in burglaries and stolen vehicles, three of the most serious crimes rose in 2015: homicides were up 5.1%, rapes 6.3% and robberies 2.1%. Also, crime increased in two of the city’s five boroughs: Manhattan and the Bronx.

Politico had a post about the 2015 and 2016 homicide numbers so far, showing just 252 murders through September 25, a 5.3 percent decline from the same time last year. Yet, in August, it appeared to be a 23 jump in violent crime within the city’s parks over a nine-month period (via NBC NY):

The comparison, which covered more than 1,100 city parks, showed cases of rape increased 40 percent, felony assaults jumped 34 percent and robberies spiked 15 percent. Murders were up 200 percent, from two to six. In total, 417 people reported being the victims of violent crimes compared to 340 in the prior nine months.

“It’s pretty shocking,” says Geoffrey Croft, president of New York Parks Advocates. “A 23-percent rise in violent crime is very serious and the fact that more than one person a day is reporting being a victim of violent crime is very serious.”

In other words, when broken windows policing went away, crime began its upward climb, as it has done so nationwide. This coincides with a drop in “broken windows” policing under Obama, in addition to other policies.

So, maybe Trump should’ve cited the NYPD data, or maybe he should stay focused on his national narrative, which is that violent crime, including homicides, has risen, which was confirmed by the FBI last night (via WaPo):

Homicides in the United States went up by more than 10 percent in 2015 over the year before, while violent crime increased by nearly 4 percent in the same period, according to new statistics released Monday by the FBI.

All told, the country reported its highest estimated violent crime rate in three years, and while these numbers are far below those seen one or two decades earlier, they mark a sharp increase following two years of declines, the FBI’s summary of crime figures showed.

That’s a huge rise in violent crime. Since Barack Obama took office seven years before, it makes sense to view this as the start of the effects of his policies and the national shift from hard-on-crime rhetoric to a softer, more rehabilitation-oriented attitude.

In addition, this shows us another important detail. Let us borrow a concept from economists here: when one thing gets too difficult, people move on to alternatives that are less expensive and less risky instead. When policing goes up, criminals go elsewhere, or turn to other types of crimes.

However, under the “broken windows” policy, all types of crimes drop. Somehow the good professor does not mention that.

The nationwide drop in crime during the 1990s — except for those huge race riots — may spur us to draw other comparisons though. What events went on that could explain this drop? For starters, the United States doubled down on Affirmative Action with the Civil Rights Act of 1991, possibly designed as a way to enfranchise black voters and make them vote democratic. That worked, certainly.

Affirmative action however remains troublesome. According to one study, affirmative action raises costs substantially:

This paper uses California’s Proposition 209, which prohibited the consideration of race or gender in state-funded contracts, to investigate the effect of disadvantaged business enterprise subcontractor participation goals on the winning bids for highway construction contracts.

After Proposition 209, the prices on state funded contracts fell by 5.6 percent relative to federally funded projects, for which preferences still applied. While the subcontractor requirements are found to distort the contractor’s make-versus-buy decision, most of the decline in costs after Proposition 209 results from the productivity of subcontractors employed.

This seems to arise not from productivity differences between minority and non-minority firms in the same location, but from the higher costs of firms located in high-minority areas.

Higher costs of firms located in high minority areas? It stands to reason that if someone gets a contract for some factor other than competition on price/performance, they have a type of mini-monopoly and through that, no reason to lower their costs. When you have only one grocery store for a hundred miles, they can charge whatever they want for breakfast cereal.

We also should ask what we get for those higher costs, and it turns out that affirmative action did not achieve its stated goals:

And affirmative action “worked.” The most immediate and measurable impact was in government hiring. Blacks had always enjoyed relatively better employment prospects in the public sector, and affirmative action greatly enhanced that. By the early 1970s, 57 percent of black male college graduates and 72 percent of black female college graduates were employed in government positions. The private sector also went on a hiring binge. Impelled by the fear of more urban riots, the Fortune 500 launched a flotilla of affirmative action programs aimed at getting as many black hires in the door as quickly as possible. After decades of economic stagnation, between 1969 and 1972, total black income rose from $38.7 billion to $51.1 billion, a 32 percent jump in just three years.

…Today, the statistics on black and white inequality are so unchanging that they can be recited by rote: The black unemployment rate holds steady at double the white unemployment rate; the median net worth for black households is about 7 percent of white households; annual per capita income for blacks is 62 cents for every dollar of per capita income for whites.

In other words, it was a bribe, and it continued the government policy of hiring black people in order to pacify them and reduce the number of riots. If we use the standards that the Leftists in the NPR article use, we might as well claim that crime dropped because of the renewal of Affirmative Action after it was pared down during the Reagan 80s, resulting in greater function for American business and government.

The basic problem with Affirmative Action is that it creates a mini-monopoly in which workers are hired for their race, sex or orientation instead of abilities alone. This is a problem because the law does not distinguish between competent and incompetent members of protected groups, causing permanent hires of incompetents who can never be fired.

They can never be fired because if they sue, they may win, and they will win big. Affirmative Action creates a monopoly that in turn creates a mechanism for extortion. This creates a norming of incompetence, at which point organizations become unstable but cannot remove the privileged monopoly of the protected groups. That in turn acts out the usual Leftist pattern of wealth transfer, bleeding the taxpayers for money that goes to both government bureaucrats and a vast permanent underclass.

When viewed as a strategy, affirmative action is designed to displace whites by taking money away from them and making them wait at the back of the line for jobs, housing and transactions. This in turn has caused the prerequisite conditions for civil war because affirmative action is a cornerstone of ethnic replacement of the founding majority, which will give Leftists a new beige group who will tend more toward the Left than those tedious old white people did.

In the meantime, costs go up for every citizen. Not just for the taxes required for Affirmative Action programs, but the salaries in private industry since now every company must hire token protected groups on every level. Not just in the wave of incompetence, but in the high number of lawsuits that occur and the lawyers who are hired as a preventative measure. Not just in the mountain of paperwork and regulations, but in the distrust of fellow employees because they may well be Affirmative Action babies rather than real people. Like unions, Affirmative Action raises costs and paranoia across the board by forcing protection of a group that otherwise is not working out.

Let us then consider the obvious and terrifying: if crime went down after Affirmative Action, that means that those formerly engaged in illegal activity found another and easier source of income. All of those diversity administrators, sensitivity consultants, tolerance trainers, and columnists writing about diversity cost something, but even more, every company is now hiring such people in addition to its other token hires, and passing the cost on to you. Many of them work in government as well. Affirmative Action effectively shifts millions of criminals into positions of authority, especially in government.

The rise in corruption and incompetence in the American government is no longer surprising. This is not to say that there are not qualified candidates from protected groups, only that Affirmative Action does not make such fine distinctions, and so the bad get hired along with the good. And since bad outnumbers good throughout all of humanity, that means that we are enriching people by giving them Affirmative Action jobs. Look at the figures on diversity lawsuits:

*Civil rights cases in U.S. district courts declined from a high of 17% of all federal civil cases in 1998 to 13% in 2006.

*From 1990 through 2006, about 9 out of 10 civil rights filings involved disputes between private parties. Jury trials became more common than bench trials during the 17-year period covered in this report (figure 1).

*The percent of plaintiffs who won at trial between 1990 and 2006 remained steady at about a third.

*From 2000 through 2006, the median damage award for plaintiffs who won in civil rights trials ranged from $114,000 to $154,500.

*The combined 2000 through 2006 median jury award was $146,125; the median bench award was $71,500.

A median indicates that half of the awards were above that number. It is not an average. This means that half of the awards for diversity related lawsuits were above $154k, and they may have always received a jury award, of which half were above $146k. Keep in mind that a finding of deliberate and knowing infringement will result in that award being tripled in many jurisdictions.

Affirmative Action is in short a complete disaster, introduced by Republicans to minimize racial tensions, but then used by Democrats as a weapon against the white majority in concert with the plan to import many third world people, all of whom qualify for Affirmative Action and thus displace whites from homes, jobs and businesses.

Government gives preference to contractors owned by members of protected groups; the FCC offers easier licensing for protected group owned radio stations. Local governments undergo a bidding process which favors contractors owned by protected groups. All of this adds up over time.

But the main problem with Affirmative Action is that it is itself a broken window. Signaling that we accept defective and unrealistic policies tells all of the scam artists out there that they have found a willing sucker, and that the West is in the process of waging war on its founding groups. This means the West is weak and ready for takeover. It is no surprise that the subtler kinds of criminal behavior have risen thanks to this advertisement of dysfunction and acceptance of parasitism.

Diversity Advocates Reveal Their Actual Goal: Remove Whites

Friday, May 19th, 2017

The American Mathematical Society decided to publish this rant which reveals the intent behind diversity programs of removing the white majority entirely from power:

I have this talk that I give and afterwards, I will often get concerned white men asking me what they can do to fight sexism. But they’re not really thinking about ending sexism. They’re thinking about progress. They want to know which benefits the cis male hoarders-of-power can offer to women so that we don’t feel so bad and complain so much and contribute to such dismal numbers. This is natural, reasonable even, but sexist all the same.

…What can universities do? Well, that’s easier. Stop hiring white cis men (except as needed to get/retain people who are not white cis men) until the problem goes away. If you think this is a bad or un-serious idea, your sexism/racism/transphobia is showing.

…If you are on a hiring committee, and you are looking at applicants and you see a stellar white male applicant, think long and hard about whether your department needs another white man. You are not hiring a researching robot who will output papers from a dark closet. You are hiring an educator, a role model, a spokesperson, an advisor, a committee person. When you hire a non-marginalized person, you are not just supporting this one applicant whom you like, you are rewarding a person who has been rewarded his whole life. You are justifying the system that makes his application look so good. You are not innocent. You are perpetuating a system that requires your participation if not your consent. When your female students of color have no role models in your department, that’s not “meritocracy”; that’s on you. Again, if you think the “great mathematicians” are disproportionately male because of meritocracy, then your sexism is showing.

Diversity and feminism are subsets of egalitarianism; if all people are equal, we cannot admit that some are unequal because of race or sex. For this reason, the inequality of results must be fixed by filtering out the whites, which is what affirmative action was designed to do. No matter how often diversity is represented as the following:

They want to know which benefits the cis male hoarders-of-power can offer to women so that we don’t feel so bad and complain so much and contribute to such dismal numbers.

The actual agenda is:

Stop hiring white cis men (except as needed to get/retain people who are not white cis men) until the problem goes away.

Since the problem with never go away because individuals and groups are inherently diverse, or varied in ability most of which is inherited, then this becomes a permanent crusade against white people, much as affirmative action has.

Affirmative Action Destroys Competence

Friday, May 12th, 2017

From The Unz Review, a startling revelation about the consequences of affirmative action in education:

Black teachers have the highest probability of becoming principals throughout the teacher lifecycle. Hispanic teachers have the lowest probabilities and the probabilities for white teachers are situated between the two minority groups. The racial differences in the hazard functions are statistically significant.

The inclusion of teacher characteristics, school characteristics, and year fixed effects increases the odds ratio from 2.18 to 6.36.

People generally do not understand that Affirmative Action creates a market force through risk and cost. If a black person walks through that door and is not hired, there is a not insignificant chance of a lawsuit, and most of those are settled to avoid bad headlines.

For this reason, if a white person and a black person vie for the same job, it is much safer to give it to the black person, even if there is a competence differential.

This is not an argument that all black candidates are incompetent, but a frank statement of fact: an incompetent black candidate has the same chances of winning a lawsuit or getting a huge settlement as a competent one, so the black candidate is usually chosen.

No one gets fired for hiring a black candidate.

This means that affirmative action is forcing the hiring of incompetents, and as a result, is decreasing the value of what they administrate, in addition to creating the classic culture of incompetents: demanding leadership surrounded by yes-people.

Now consider how much this expands outside of education. The same pressures exist for every business, thanks to government laws and regulations which expose them to liability.

As America struggles to regain a healthy economy, one of the major factors thwarting it is such rules, which cause bloat and incompetence, dragging down industries and raising costs across the board.

Affirmative Action Reveals Its Extortionate Nature

Monday, May 1st, 2017

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, diversity hiring has run into a snag: women and minorities leave jobs more frequently than others, and tend to blame the workplace for creating a hostile environment:

Women, blacks and Latinos are far more likely to quit jobs in tech than white or Asian men, according to a new report by the Kapor Center for Social Impact. The Oakland nonprofit commissioned an online survey by the Harris Poll, which asked 2,006 people who voluntarily left tech jobs in the past three years about why they quit. It found women were twice as likely to leave as men (alternative link), while black and Latino tech workers were 3.5 times likelier to quit than white or Asian colleagues. The most common reason they gave for their departures was workplace mistreatment.

Either all of these businesses are allowing “workplace mistreatment,” or as is more likely with human beings, people have figured out how to work the system. Affirmative Action means that competition for women and minorities enables them to get much higher salaries and be promoted beyond their actual qualifications. At that point, the winning move is to change jobs for more money and a new title.

In addition, these workers have a get-out-of-jail-free card, which is that if they claim mistreatment, companies will not criticize them because lawsuit dynamite has been created. This means that for them to make amazing money, all they need to do is get hired, and after a short time, claim mistreatment and move on to the next job, from which they can effectively not be fired.

Diversity has wrecked the West because by assuming that companies and individuals are in the wrong when something does not work out for a woman or minority person, our government and courts have created permanent entitlement positions which are being exploited because it is economically sensible for workers to do so. This raises costs, which are passed on to the consumer, and penalizes productive workers.

Western Civilization Has Doomed Itself By Choosing Affirmative Action

Wednesday, April 5th, 2017

Western Civilization has cursed itself by implementing affirmative action as part of its culture

It may have been adopted out of good intentions and warm feelings. The reality never changes, however. Affirmative action is inevitably used as a weapon by minorities to extract free benefits at the expense of Western civilization.

It can be equated to self-flagellation in Catholic terms, or psychologically to ad nauseum self-critique of the once proud European individual.

Instead of balancing imperfection, Western man strove for perfection and in the process realized deep down how imperfect he really is. The Germans are a telling example, where their incredible individualist achievements resulted in a deep self-critique type of unintended flawed, even dark organizational culture. All their efforts to regain some stature keep on failing i.e. the European Monetary Union and Volkswagen’s fraudulent exhaust systems.

Another example is the famous Boer nation in Africa. They conquered an arid country resulting in cross-border ambitions which included UN sanctioned administration of Namibia and a successful British de-colonialization project in the 1960s. But in the process they realized deep down that they were/are imperfect resulting in the failed, but valiantly flawed attempt to transfer power to Mandela.

Boers remained the skunk, just like the Germans remained the Nazi.

They say that intelligent peoples are subdued by their known lack of knowledge, while dumb people are enamored by the same.

This self-curse is of course widespread in American culture. It reached a pinnacle when America literally elected an Affirmative Action President riding on the progressive wave of a soon-to-fail Mandela. Just like in Germany and South Africa, Americans suffer the same self-critique continuing even after their capitulation to Obama.

This is evident in the failed election polls that predicted a landslide Clinton victory. The reason polls failed is that people lied.  And the fact is, despite getting their secret wish fulfilled, they keep on lying. Further evidence of this is found in the unusually confused fake news stories where journalists, previously thinking that they were the only ones lying, now have to depend on a lying public.

The American culture will always be called progressive and they will suffer the same outcome as a result that Germans and Boers are suffering.  If one takes that Germans had a massive production machinery resource and Boers had a massive gold resource, then it could be said that America had a massive human resource.

This means that changing our method of managing these resources will not help because affirmative action grows to consume all available resources. What we tolerate increases. When we create policies that encourage free riding, and do so on the basis of presumed racial guilt, the group of takers will increase to sabotage the makers just enough to create collapse conditions.

Our only way out is through nihilism: an end to the politics of human intent, and a beginning to leadership by results. Affirmative action is destructive and will never reach an end date, but will only expand. This means that affirmative action has failed in terms of results, and needs to be abolished.

Once that form of guilt-mongering is out of the way, we can re-balance our political dialogue to establish a realistic self-critique instead of an overly-emotional one. But for this to happen, affirmative action first must die.

Los Angeles Schools and The Dolezal Option

Friday, March 31st, 2017

So how much are you willing to pay for the right to publically announce that you are White? How much of a negative externality are you willing to place on your neighbors? Let’s submit racial identity to a von Nuemann-Morgenstern Preference Lottery.

If Johnnie Whitebread would pay $750/child/month to subscribe to the Caucasian Persuasion like it was DirecTV, he could be said to value his White Privelege at least that much. Otherwise, he could resign from Whiteness and become whatever else his can of spray tan could make him. Call it The Dolezal Option.

The thesis stated above would be considered ridiculous in any polite society. Perhaps it’s why I don’t live in Los Angeles, California. You see, if you get control of the public schools, and slant the playing field against White Parents hoping to have their children educated and prepared to join adult society, then you can essentially tax their lack of Melanin. To avoid this sort of sanction, parents effectively give up their Whiteness.

White parents who stand to lose teachers and counselors at their neighborhood public school in Los Angeles are changing their ethnic status with LA Unified to get around a district policy that strips extra staff from schools that are more than 30 percent white. And some Latino parents who fear deportation under the Trump Administration are saying they are white, further imperiling the smaller class sizes guaranteed under a 40-year-old desegregation settlement. A 1978 legal settlement requires that LA schools with less than 30 percent white students get extra teachers, counselors, and parent-teacher conferences. But each year, a handful of schools lose that status, known as PHBAO (pronounced “fuh-BOW”) — an acronym for “Predominantly Hispanic, Black, Asian, or Other.”

As a student of Economic Mathematics, the Linear Algebra of Racism occurring here is fascinating in a cynically detached sort of a way. This all came to a head in the case of Walter Reed Middle School. You see, Walter Reed will lose money, teachers and councilors should it exceed the hard racial cap of 30% White. In one row of the Racial Identity Gaming Matrix, we have Evil Caucasoids identifying as Talcum X, or anything that will prevent the loss of school quality. On another row, we have Hispanics claiming to be Trump Compliant in order to prevent too close an examination of their current immigration status. If ICE fears generate Off-Whites more rapidly than The Quota System generates Dolezals, then Walter Reed Middle School fires or transfers teachers.

In essence, we have an environment that attacks the traditions of communities and families by providing them with perverse economic incentives to disavow their racial past. Call it ethnic cleansing via moral hazard. While professional Cost Estimators are chided not to consider cost avoidances as monetary benefits, I guaruntee you that they take them into account everytime they examine their bank accounts. The perhaps unintended consequence of Los Angeles’ Civil Rights Raceturbation involving the LAUSD is that they are effectively paying people to deny their own racial heritage. If it works as well as terrorism, you can bet on seeing it proliferate.

This isn’t a new trend in Hyper-racial Amerika. A personnel man my father used to know was African-American enough to professionally survive suggesting that his buddy exploit a DoD program that gave preferences in small business contracting to Native Americans. He told him he could make a fortune if he just stopped being black and joined the MoNig Tribe when he filled out his bid paperwork. Perhaps he meant it as a joke. If the system is cynical, many will cynically game it in retribution. The Law of Attraction works whether we know of it or want it to.

But what of these children at Walter Reed Middle? Do they know their parents feel enjoined to lie about their God-breathed origins? Does it effect how they view themselves and their families? And what would you see in the mirror if you seriously tried to defraud the government as a proud founder of the MoNig Tribe. Does this help kill off who these people are? Is it the predictable consequence of attempting to enforce equality at the price of individual dignity? Is this existential ennui the only possible result of economically coercing people into The Dolezal Option?

Affirmative Action And The Coming White on White Civil War

Monday, March 6th, 2017

Affirmative Action is a weapon in the hands of wealthy white progressives. The SWPLs employ this weapon to marginalize, demean and strip wealth and opportunity from other, less affluent Whites who they collectively and personally detest on a deep and visceral level. Audacious Antigone describes the disparate impact of the typical Affirmative Action college admissions policy below.

For simplification, just think about whites and blacks. In both cases, the wealthier a person (or the family he grows up in) is, the better his academic performance tends to be. Whites outperform blacks at every level of socio-economic status (SES), but in the cases of both whites and blacks as SES increases so does academic performance. So if some number of whites who would otherwise be accepted to a school have to be cut out to make room for a corresponding number of blacks, it tends to be low SES whites who get the cutting. The blacks who get in are those who (relatively) narrowly missed getting in before the racial handicapping. These tend to be high SES blacks.

So “Affirmative Action” is a class stratification tool. It keeps down the JD Vances of Appalachia the way DDT got sprayed on mosquitoes in a wiser age. It’s been keeping the dirty and dangerous out of SWPL Honkeytopia since 1965. People who wonder why our nation is so divided need to get past just race. They need to look at how race issues have been weaponized, and just who they’ve been fired at, perhaps since Reconstruction.

It’s not just a question of letting Django off the chain. It’s who he gets directed towards once all the weapons are locked and loaded. Every time the SWPLs unleash a new policy to “undo racial discrimination” or “rectify the mistakes of the past” these never quite seem to rectify the goddam hell out Chelsea Clinton or one of The Kennedys. And this, my five to seven Constant Readers, is in no way, shape or form some unintentional externality.

As technology grew and distance receeded as a fact of life, Americans were effectively forced closer together. Put several competing species in the same ecosystem and the fit will invariable make contact with the shan. One subculture would get to be lead dog; while all the of the rest would quickly come to hate the view. This Z-Man post about Rock Music makes that insight in a different fashion.

Prior to the two great industrial wars of the 20th century, America did not have a unified national culture. It was federation of regions. New England may as well have been a different country from the Deep South or the Southwest. The South was very different from Appalachia. There was no unified “American” culture to which all the regional cultures submitted.

This enforced unification did what diversity does. Diversity plus proximity let to conflict. Affirmative Action was yet another weapon in the war to establish a certain group of Brahmins as cultural hegemons in The United States. How this “Great Society” impacted actual living and breathing blacks was an afterthought. It was about nailing down a pecking order and knocking certain people’s peckers on down into the dirt. It helped finish wrecking what opposition to progressivism still remained standing after Reconstruction and The New Deal. Once the outcaste Whites were cucked, then the outcaste Whites could be ruled.

So what happens when the masses uncuck? Well, Van Jones might have even had a point when he called it a Whitelash. Where he swung out of his cleats and missed on the Lord Charles was his assumption that it was specifically aimed at Blacks. Just as the original Civil War was predominantly white on white; so shall this one be as well. African Americans may get collatorally damaged; but as the YouTube saying goes: “Your blues are not my blues.” This is White on White – in house and in family. An old score, perhaps dating to 1867 is getting settled.

That puts the Left in a new and scary world. Issues can’t get graphed on an XY Axis between Authoritarianism v. Autonomy and Freedom v. Altruism. There’s a Z-Axis now. Elitism V. Populism. People fighting a 2-D battle are in a lot of trouble. This will be true of Elitist “Conservatives” as well as those on the Left. If Van Jones has a shell, he needs to make like a turtle. The artillary will yea verily start to fly.

Affirmative Action In The Crosshairs

Monday, March 6th, 2017

Despite having a journalist home among Communists, Ross Douthat tries to express an alternative (sometimes called “conservative”) view such as this suggestion that the imminent fall of Affirmative Action is a good thing:

After all, what are white Americans supposed to make of a system that offers Hispanic or Asian business owners an advantage never enjoyed by their own Irish or Polish or Scots-Irish forefathers, or boosts upper-class African and Caribbean college applicants whose ancestors never lived in slavery? What are they supposed to think of a system that was established 50 years ago as a temporary experiment, but keeps gaining new half-lives and further beneficiaries — moving “swiftly and imperceptibly,” as Chris Caldwell once put it, “from a world in which affirmative action can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too weak to a world in which it can’t be ended because its beneficiaries are too strong”?

His attack takes the form of a it-does-not-work analysis which is probably correct, and hints at what white people have noticed, which is that all legal actions styled after the Civil Rights act are based on impact, or “inequality of outcome” as last week’s internet trope has it, which means that white people are penalized for succeeding because the disparate results are considered de facto proof of racism.

This hint expands into other areas. Wealth transfer, as is usual for the Left, is at the top. Another is the thought that, as Plato mentioned, tyrants always buy loyalty from foreigners as a means of supplanting the power of the indigenous majority. Still more is that Affirmative Action and Civil Rights law are a basic form of tribalism where one tribe is presumed to be guilty and therefore, condemned until eternity to support the others.

Douthat offers a suggestion which, like 99.99% of everything in media, offers a band-aid for a gaping wound. “The good enough is the enemy of the good,” as the old saying goes, and most people — being inclined toward chumpiness, or greater fear of conflict than zeal for realistic answers — just want to patch up the leaky boat. He wants reparations without repatriation:

Instead of reparations as an addition to our current affirmative-action regime, then, maybe they should be considered as an alternative — one that directly addresses a unique government-sanctioned crime against part of the American people, without requiring a preference regime that makes lower-class white Americans feel like victims of a multicultural version of The Man.

So, this week’s immodest proposal: Abolish racial preferences in college admissions, phase out preferences in government hiring and contracting, eliminate the disparate-impact standard in the private sector, and allow state-sanctioned discrimination only on the basis of socioeconomic status, if at all. Then at the same time, create a reparations program — the Frederick Douglass Fund, let’s call it — that pays out exclusively, directly and one time only to the proven descendants of American slaves.

On the surface, like all things partially true and all things Modern, this seems to make sense. Instead of those expensive benefits, welfare payouts and the disaster that Affirmative Action has wrought in making our industry non-competitive, we should just do a one-time cash award and be done with it. Douthat suggests $10,000 and that it would cost $370bn in total.

What he forgets is that $10,000 is chump change (heh) in our modern world. That will not buy anyone out of poverty, which is itself an illusion because poverty is a relative measurement and thus exists in all societies, and expands as wealth is dumped into it. It will not make anyone retired. It will just give them a small boost, and leave racial resentment where it is.

Douthat cannot say any of this of course because in Leftist-dominated Amerika, he would lose his job, never get another one and never have another friend. He would become an ideological enemy of the state, and people would scatter from him as if he were a leper because to be seen as an ally of an ideological dissident is to become an enemy of The People, and then your life is basically over as surely as if you committed multiple felonies ending in murder.

But, a more practical plan is this: reparations-with-repatriation, or giving those who are not of the founding group a one-time stipend contingent upon loss of citizenship and relocation. No piddly $10,000 either. Yes, it would cost trillions, but also save trillions over the next ten years in terms of entitlement programs, Affirmative Action damage to our economy, but even more, in terms of the sheer amount of social, political and cultural destruction and chaos caused by diversity.

Those trillions would be well spent. We could end this disaster as friends. True, the cost is shocking… and Leftists will never admit that their stupidity caused it. But there is only one way to end a problem, and that is to get to its root cause, and the root cause of ethnic inequality in this country is diversity, and the only solution to that is ending diversity as gently as we know how.

Recommended Reading