Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

A Legal Precedent For White Civil Rights?

Friday, May 19th, 2017

In the lexicon of modern American government, the Irish are “white.” Despite Civil Rights being primarily interpreted — through intersectionality and privilege theory — as a one-way street, an older court cases raise the possibility of civil rights protection for European-descended people:

The most serious charge against five of the teenagers—Sean, Ashley Longe, Kayla Narey, Sharon Chanon Velazquez, and Flannery Mullins—is civil rights violation with bodily injury. Defense lawyers expect Scheibel to argue that Phoebe’s civil rights were violated because she was called an “Irish slut”—a denigration of her national origin—and because the bullying interfered with her right to an education. The bodily injury, the defense lawyers say, is Phoebe’s death by suicide. The maximum penalty for this charge is 10 years in prison. The teens are also charged with other crimes, including criminal harassment and stalking.

Unfortunately, while the precedent for prosecution was set, the case was not decided on the basis of the civil rights charge because the defendants pled out to lesser charges to avoid the risk of long prison sentences:

All five teens struck plea deals with the prosecution where, in exchange to pleading guilty on the misdemeanor charge of criminal harassment, the more serious charges they faced were dropped. Longe faced the most serious charges including one count of each assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, criminal harassment, disturbing a school assembly and a civil rights violation with a bodily injury resulting. The felony charge civil rights violation with bodily injury alone carries a 10-year maximum sentence. Some of the other accused teens also faced the violation of civil rights with bodily injury charge, as well as statutory rape and stalking.

While the civil rights charges were not assessed by the court for their validity, the threat was at least serious enough that lawyers from both sides approved these deals. Perhaps this is something that nationalists can resurrect as an idea in cases where white people face discrimination, including affirmative action cases.

For example, we might fragment the category “white.” If affirmative action is designed to protect minorities, the Irish deserve protection as well. From that point, we get into a game of subdividing the population to its smallest groups, revealing exactly how the “whites are victimizers, minorities are victims” (WAVMAV) approach to government has failed us.

End Affirmative Action

Sunday, November 20th, 2016

white_people_are_a_plague_to_the_planet

While many are talking about the options for the Alt Right in its campaign to push further for a sane civilization, one stands out as a tempting and easily conquered target: Affirmative Action.

Affirmative Action pervades all areas of life in the West. The primary damage it does is by putting employers, renters and sellers on the defensive through the legal presumption that if an ethnic, sexual or gender minority is turned down, discrimination is to blame. This leads to vast payouts in the courtroom and has made companies paranoid, causing them to be overly-solicitous to non-majority people.

In hiring, if a majority person and non-majority person both apply, a singular situation results: there is legal liability for not hiring the non-majority person. For this reason, the majority person is always at a disadvantage, and indirectly so are non-majorities, who are hired not for their competence but for political reasons, leading to a prevalence of the less competent.

In renting and selling, the same thing applies. Sell to the majority person, and bias possibly exists, which can result in an expensive court case even if you win, and no one will reimburse you for your costs. For this reason, properties flow away from the majority.

Most government contracts give preference to businesses “owned” (usually in figurehead) by non-majority people. This reduces competition and raises government costs, but also ensures that majority people cannot own their own businesses if they want to compete in this area.

In education, affirmative action has created an empire of preferences for the non-majority students, lowering standards. This has created a base level of mediocrity that is responsible for the current flood of safe spaces and special snowflakes from academia.

Even more damaging, affirmative action has set a legal precedent by which failure to transfer wealth to non-majority people is viewed as prima facie evidence of discrimination. The furthest extension of this, “disparate impact,” creates the bias that holds that if a minority group is not succeeding as much as a majority group, some form of discrimination must be to blame. This idea is now being extended to housing where majority-oriented neighborhoods are seen as discriminatory, with the conclusion that they must be forcibly diversified.

Affirmative Action came into life through the actions of silver tea set socialist Franklin Delano Roosevelt who in 1941 issued a directive forcing defense contractors to avoid using racially discriminatory hiring preferences, essentially demanding they hire with preference for non-majorities.

The doctrine expanded in 1961 and and 1965 when presidents John F. [[[ Kennedy ]]] and Lyndon Baines Johnson wrote executive orders targeting federal contractors. From there, it expanded into all areas of law, strengthened by Civil Rights legislation in the 1960s through 1980s.

At this point, Affirmative Action has taken on a life of its own. It is obviously discriminatory against the majority, but indirectly so, because by creating legal liability, it forces companies to act on their own initiative instead of ordering that directly by government command. Its effects have been ruinous, raising costs and marginalizing majority citizens, all while reducing the quality of our institutions across the board by hiring for political reasons instead of practical ones.

The Affirmative Action debacle really exploded in the 1970s, paving the way for the horrors of the 1980s job market and expanding government:

President Richard Nixon built on Johnson’s legacy in 1969 with the “Philadelphia Order,” which set specific goals and timetables for federal contractors to hire shares of minorities reflecting the racial makeup of their local area. State and local governments soon introduced affirmative action programs of their own, as did many colleges, some with great enthusiasm. In 1974 the University of California mandated that the entering class of the statewide university system aim to have the same share of minorities as the state’s high school graduating class — that is, a quota.

Although it is now enshrined in multiple federal, state and local laws, Affirmative Action has a weak part of its armor: its interpretation. If a president were to write an executive order changing how discrimination is inferred, and clarifying that discrimination only occurs on the level of the individual candidate, “disparate impact” and Affirmative Action would both fall.

This would reduce the red tape and legal harassment faced by the average business, ensure the competence of personnel, and stop the legal discrimination against majority citizens that has caused much of our current political divide. It would in turn force us to re-assess diversity in the wake of a population rapidly separating by membership in identity groups, so we could — for the first time — honestly discuss the future of diversity and what it has done to our society.

Airbnb Enforces The Media Narrative

Friday, October 28th, 2016

Rent-your-shack “gig economy” dot-com Airbnb has decided to go the way of conformity rather than independence and require its members to adhere to a totalitarian standard that prohibits them from refusing a renter for any reason if that renter is also a member of a protected group:

What is the Community Commitment?

You commit to treat everyone—regardless of race, religion, national origin, ethnicity, disability, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation or age—with respect, and without judgment or bias.

How do I accept the commitment?

On or after November 1, we’ll show you the commitment when you log in to or open the Airbnb website, mobile or tablet app and we’ll automatically ask you to accept.

What if I decline the commitment?

If you decline the commitment, you won’t be able to host or book using Airbnb, and you have the option to cancel your account. Once your account is canceled, future booked trips will be canceled. You will still be able to browse Airbnb but you won’t be able to book any reservations or host any guests.

The problem with this is obvious. A 400-lb transsexual wants to rent from you, but xzhir bulk, bad hygiene, criminal record and slovenly behavior are a deterrent. You reject xzhes application, and xzhe files a complaint. Airbnb then removes you from its roster to avoid controversy.

In this way, all good things are ruined. Our favor of the underdog makes us blind to the other attributes of the individual that are non-political, and often more important, in addition to using the free markets to force ideological conformity on people regarding their own property.