Hugh Murray "Affirmative Action and the Elite War against White Males"

From The Barnes Review: A Journal of Nationalist Thought and Review, Vol. 10, No. 4, July/August 2004, 29-37.

“There is a war against the white male, the traditional American working class and middle class, conducted by the elites of labor, the captains of capital, the chiefs of the military and the celebrities of ‘academedia.’”

Anthony Flood

August 6, 2009

Affirmative Action and the Elite War against White Males

Hugh Murray

In a 2003 New York Times Op-Ed column black author Bob Herbert gingerly discussed a problem encountered by good black students.¹ Herbert’s report only touched the surface, for the situation is considerably worse. If blacks do well in school, if they study and are attentive to the teacher, if they do their homework and are eager to answer in class, they are tormented by fellow blacks, who accuse them of “acting white.” To the intellectually stunted black students: those who achieve in school are either white, or they are acting white. After graduation from high school, one could assume that the high-achieving, white-acting black will be admitted to university, while his tormentors will be rejected. Wrong. To his chagrin, the affirmative action university admissions office—in order to achieve a “critical mass” of minority students (the latest euphemism for “quota”—will undoubtedly admit many blacks who act black—his old tormentors. The boom-box bullies will be admitted to a university, where they can enroll in the “ethnic studies” programs, receive easy As; reside in special “ethnic” housing; confiscate and burn any campus newspapers that question their privileges; protest and shout down conservative speakers; intimidate fellow students who dare to wear a Confederate symbol, and those who don’t; threaten those who question the latest demand for slavery reparations; consult and complain to the campus EEOC office about “racist” professors who dare to flunk them or even require of them the same standards expected for all students. Enrolling such students, the university can truly be proud of its “diversity.” And with the summer 2003 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court on affirmative action at the University of Michigan’s Law School, one can anticipate decades more of the same.

Do whites really require a “critical mass” of lesser qualified, angry, resentful, threatening blacks around them to enhance their educational experience? One would have to be a liberal academic or a Supreme Court justice to believe that. W. E. B. Du Bois may have been the only black on campus when he studied at Harvard in the 19th century. Similarly, few blacks would have been in his classes when he studied in Berlin several years later. Du Bois later wrote in one of his autobiographies that when he felt alone at university, he could sit at a table across from Shakespeare and Schiller. After all, Du Bois could read. His isolation certainly did not curtail his academic achievements. However one judges his politics, or even the theories that underlay his scholarship and popular writings, Du Bois produced more than most of today’s academics of any race. Isolation did not impair his academic output. Would a critical mass of lesser-qualified blacks at Harvard or at Berlin have aided Du Bois in his scholarly endeavors? Or might their presence have distracted or even destroyed him?

If some blacks, even those who are intellectually gifted, believe they do require a critical mass of other blacks in order to achieve, then throughout the South, and in some states of the North, there exist historically black colleges and universities. Quality may vary, but the better aspects of human culture usually thrive at these largely segregated institu-tions. (Once again, the double standards imposed by our government are evident. The federals permit all-black colleges and all-female colleges, which receive government funds; but they deny whites and males the right to create or even maintain similar, non-diversified institutions.)

What does this have to do with the June 2003 decision by the U.S. Supreme Court on affirmative action?

First, what did they decide? By a vote of 5-4 the majority ruled that universities may continue to discriminate against white males by taking race and gender into account when admitting students. Writing for the majority, Reagan appointee Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote: “If admissions decisions were based primarily on undergraduate GPAs [grade point averages] and LSAT [Law Student Achievement Test] scores, . . . a critical mass of underrepresented minority students could not be enrolled.” Indeed, if race were not considered in admissions at the University of Michigan Law School, and minorities not granted preferences, their admission rate would drop from 35 percent of the applicants to a mere 10 percent—and they would compose a tiny 4 percent of the student body. Therefore, the admissions officers “had to consider the race of applicants” in order to enroll a critical mass of such students. University officials defined “critical mass”—and O’Connor quoted them—as “meaningful numbers” and “mean-ingful representation” so underrepresented minorities can “participate in the classroom and not feel isolated.”² With a critical mass “racial stereo-types lose their force because non-minority students learn there is no ‘minority viewpoint’ but rather a variety of viewpoints among minority students.”³

Even by her own standards, this seems untrue. Stanley Rothman and others in a recent study report that most students and faculty believe educational quality is lowered when large numbers of affirmative action students are on campus.⁴ Furthermore, ridiculous stereotypes of blacks as intellectually incapable are more likely to be reinforced—among whites, Asians, Hispanics and blacks—when large numbers of lesser-qualified minorities cannot uphold their end in classroom discussions, in the laboratories or on exams. O’Connor’s arguments in behalf of racial preferences in admissions are as spurious as her conclusion—that race preferences to obtain a diverse student body are a “compelling state interest.”

Furthermore, because law schools are so important in American life, with so many attorneys in Congress and in the judiciary, in order for the nation to maintain legitimacy in the eyes of minorities, those minorities must have access to the path of leadership (as in law schools and ROTC). O’Connor, in her majority opinion, actually cites amici curiae submitted by attorneys for 3M Corporation and General Motors, in addition to one from attorneys for some high-ranking retired officers and civilian leaders of the military. Leaders of some of America’s largest companies and of its military find diversity to be a necessity—even to the extent of the “military’s ability . . . to provide national security.”⁵

O’Connor proclaims that the Law School’s “race-conscious admission program does not unduly harm non-minority applicants.” This assertion, even by a Supreme Court majority, does not make it a fact. Simply ask those who initiated the lawsuits.

O’Connor concludes her opinion by declaring: “We expect that 25 years from now, the use of racial preferences will no longer be necessary to further the interest approved today.”⁶ I ask, if the elite can impose anti-white racial preferences while whites are over 70 percent of the nation’s population, will the anti-white preferences really cease as whites decrease toward a mere 50 percent of America’s population in the year 2050?

Chief Justice Rehnquist effectively demolishes the brief of O’Connor and the majority by homing in on the phrase “critical mass.” In the deliberations of the majority, it is an amorphous number, but never the same as a quota. (O’Connor herself emphasizes that quotas are illegal.) Nor is the “critical mass” the same as racial balancing, for again, in the words of O’Connor, that too would be illegal. Well, what is this “critical mass”? Rehnquist answers: “Stripped of its ‘critical mass’ veil, the law school’s program is revealed as a naked effort to achieve racial balan-cing.” Rehnquist presents the numbers. During 1995-2000 the “critical mass” admitted to the University of Michigan Law School for underrepre-sented blacks was between 91 and 108; for Hispanics, between 47 and 56; but for American Indians a mere 13 to 19. He inquires, why do Amerindians require a much smaller group than blacks to achieve a “critical mass”? Moreover, the university applied different standards to each group in order to achieve these numbers for admissions. And so Rehnquist writes: “[W]e are bound to conclude that the law school has managed its admission program, not to achieve a ‘critical mass,’ but to extend offers of admission to members of selected minority groups in proportions to their statistical representation in the applicant pool. But that is precisely the type of racial balancing that the court defines as ‘patently unconstitutional.’” Rehnquist also denies the majority view that the court applied strict scrutiny to the law school’s policies, or that it might terminate in 25 years.⁷

What are some of the consequences of affirmative action? The Chronicle of Higher Education’s Almanac Issue contains some interesting statistics on college attendance over two decades. For example, from 1980 to 2000 the number of American Indians enrolled nearly doubled, from 83,900 to 151,000. Black enrollment rose by 50 percent, from 1,106,800 in 1980 to 1,730,300 in 2000. Hispanics in college tripled, expanding from 471,800 in 1980 to 1,461,800 in 2000. Asians nearly quadrupled, from 286,400 to 978,000. Whites also experienced some growth, from 9,833,000 in 1980 to 10,462,000 two decades later. However the general statistics convey a misleading impression, for when analyzed further an obvious discrepancy emerges. While white women increased enrollment by over 10 percent, from 5,060,000 in 1980 to 5,827,500 by 2000, white men decreased by half a percent, from 4,772,900 in 1980 to 4,634,600 in 2000.⁸ Thus, the number of white males attending college declined not only in percentage terms since 1980 with affirmative action, they have declined in absolute terms as well. Where is the outcry on television? Where are the PBS specials and the NPR alarming reports exposing this crisis and demanding change? Have you seen this story on the nightly news on NBC, CBS or ABC? The liberal elite who controls the media is silent concerning this decline of a minority group’s plummeting numbers in higher education. Most of the elite probably do not really care what happens to poor and middle-class white males. Indeed, many in the elite probably smile approvingly, as some of the elite seem to detest white men.

There is a great irony when considering the Supreme Court’s affirmative action decision of 2003. Though a certain phrase began with Republican President Eisenhower, it was usually liberal Democrats who have continued over the decades to inveigh against the dangers of “the military-industrial complex.” In the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, Justice O’Connor contends that affirmative action and race preferences are a compelling state interest because, in separate briefs filed before the court by major corporations and important military leaders, they maintain that affirmative action is necessary. The Supreme Court majority defers to the military-industrial complex, and liberals applaud. Most interesting. Some of America’s best-known corporations filed “friends of the court” briefs in favor of affirmative action, including Bank One, Procter & Gamble, General Motors, Coca-Cola and Pepsi. These corporations, and the elite who control them, aligned themselves with those who favor preferences for people of color, and legalized discrimination against white men. Why?

Corporations promote the view that all whites in general, and white men in particular, are privileged, exploiters. Whites are therefore lesser people, second-class citizens, 10th-class moral actors, and thus deserving of hostile ads and hostile treatment in hiring, promotion and in applying for university enrollment. By encouraging this view, and by contributing sums to Jesse Jackson, the NAACP, La Raza and a plethora of organizations mobilizing their constituencies to demand special favors and special privileges as rights, the corporations and their boards can avoid being judged “racists.” They also avoid boycotts. Moreover, they may also win “humanitar-ian” awards and receive favorable publicity in the liberal mainstream media and in the special ethnic media. The corporations can also more readily sell themselves and their products on the world scene so that blacks, browns and yellows will drink their drinks and eat their fries.

Why have corporations chosen this path? Because it is profitable. A few chose it in the first years of the Kennedy presidency in the early 1960s. To attract a more colored work force Motorola and the Bank of America began hiring by quotas, rejecting better-qualified whites and hiring lesser-qualified Blacks instead. When news spread, it became part of the debate in Congress over passage of the civil rights bill in 1964. Indeed, it was to prevent such practices that several amendments were added to the legislation. Thus, as passed, racial quotas were explicitly forbidden, and Sen. Hubert Humphrey, floor leader for the passage of the entire bill, averred that he would eat his hat if, because of the proposed civil rights law, a lesser-qualified Negro were ever hired over a better-qualified white. Indeed, supporters of the civil rights bill argued that it would make merit the grounds for hiring and promotion. One wonders what would have happened to the quota policy of Bank America and Motorola had the Civil Rights Act of 1964 been enforced as enacted.

Unfortunately, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was not enforced as written. As I have elsewhere elaborated, Alfred Blumrosen and Sonia Pressman of the EEOC—the main enforcement agency of the Civil Rights Act—conspired to sabotage the law as written.⁹ With advice from the Anti-Defamation League’s Herman Edelsberg, who was the EEOC’s staff director from 1965 to 1967, the new law was turned upside down into a quota bill.¹⁰ In effect, if corporations and government agencies did not hire blacks (or later, women, Indians, Asians and Hispanics) so that the employment roster of the firm matched the census roster in proportions of various groups, then that corporation was deemed in violation of the law. In practice, the EEOC was demanding quotas and racial balancing, but not calling them such. Republican President Richard Nixon expanded this outrage into national policy, and the U.S. Supreme Court, in a series of decisions, concluded that in order to achieve racial balance and quotas, blacks (or women or Hispanics et al.) could be given preferences over overrepresented whites. Because the law explicitly forbid quotas, quotas were required surreptitiously using euphemisms like “providing goals and timetables” (for achieving racial balance); later quotas were required to promote “diversity”; and most recently in Sandra Day O’Connor’s judgment, racial preference quotas are a national necessity for “obtaining a critical mass” of minority students.

In my previous article [for The Barnes Review, “Who’s to Blame for the Affirmative Action Fiasco?”] I noted the utter hypocrisy involved. Because Blacks were underrepresented in various occupations, it was assumed that the underrepresentation was a consequence of anti-black racism, either conscious or unconscious. The result was the same. This same reasoning was then applied to other underrepre-sented groups: Amerindians, Hispanics, Asians and even women, the majority group. With this template, it was thus clear who the oppressed were. And who were their oppressors? White men, invariably overrepresented in most occupations and at universities, were now condemned as privileged exploiters and oppressors. The “academedia” complex began to produce articles, books, university courses and whole departments, and sit-coms, all elaborating on the theme of white male privilege and the oppressive nature of white males. In recent years academics have even promoted a new program in whiteness studies. Unlike the long-existing programs in black studies, women’s studies and Chicano studies, this is more akin to men’s studies. Black studies departments research, study, celebrate and promote the interests of the blacks whom they study. Similarly, women’s studies are meant to further women’s rights and special privileges (even if it means fabricating smear stories that are disseminated by friendly reporters, as the lie that more women are beaten by their mates during the Super Bowl than at any other time of year). By contrast, men’s studies is dominated by feminists, male and female. True, I once presented a paper “Diversity Be Damned,” but the thrust of the men’s studies association is pro-feminist—and not particularly interested in demanding equal rights for men. White studies is worse. Its leaders openly state they are not objective, and that they hope to abolish the white race. In their view-colored equals good, white bad. They make no attempt to view history objectively, choosing rather to condemn the people whom they study. No wonder some of the early leaders of this “movement” marched at the front of a pro-affirmative action parade seeking to defeat California’s Proposition 209. No wonder one of their scholarly magazines is titled Race Treason. In reality, leaders of this movement seek the extermination of the white race and culture. And this racist, genocidal group is encouraged in academia.

Despite the barrage of propaganda, white male privilege is a hoax. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbade discrimination based on race, sex, ethnic heritage and religion. The EEOC under Blumrosen and his successors essentially declared there is one test to detect, and to overcome discrimination—proportionalism. If a group is underrepresented, it is the victim of discrimination, conscious or uncon-scious, and must receive affirmative action preferences until it achieves the proportion of a profession, staff, enrollment, promotions, ownership of TV stations, coaching positions, bank loans, it presumably deserve—based upon its percentage of the general population. Concomitantly, underrepre-sentation inevitably stirs charges of racism, sexism and discrimination, and the villain in these scenarios is invariably the villainous white man.

Corporations soon discovered that they could be charged by the EEOC if they did not have a sufficient number of minorities and women on their payrolls. If they did not have a proportional amount of the work force in their employ, they could be sued and compelled to pay heavy fines. Moreover, liberal judges, as part of settlements, often pushed the corporations to conclude agreements with the EEOC to hire more blacks or women until their EEOC quota had been met. Because blacks often failed to meet even minimal qualifications for employment, the EEOC, beginning in the 1960s, sought to destroy previous definitions of “qualified.” Thus, because blacks were more likely to have a criminal record, the EEOC deemed that it was discriminatory to inquire into a prospective employee’s criminal past for most jobs because such a process would have a disparate impact on the prospects for black applicants. So eventually, for most jobs, a clean police record ceased to be helpful in gaining employment. Similarly, in the 1950s, most corporations used aptitude tests to ascertain who was best qualified for employment in specific posts, and most companies used these exams in hiring and promotion. Generally, blacks performed poorly on such tests. Again, the EEOC led the assault, making it prohibitively expensive to employ such tests; their usage was greatly curtailed, and applicants were assigned jobs to which they lacked aptitude. But more minorities were hired. So what if all performed less efficiently at their posts; the EEOC got what it demanded.

Soon corporations, hiring minorities and women by the percentages (quotas) to avoid prosecution by the EEOC, found that the absence of the aptitude tests meant hiring unqualified people. So, under President Ronald Reagan, a variation of the system developed. (Reagan could have abolished affirma-tive action with the stroke of a pen but never did so.) In the 1980s, job applicants would continue to take the aptitude tests, but they would be graded differently. Prospective employers would not be informed of the applicant’s score, only of his percentile among those taking the exam, but not the percentile of all taking it, but only the percentile among his ethnic or racial group. For example, a white, a black and a Hispanic, all of whom did exactly the same on the test and received the same raw score, might be in very different percentiles for their groups. The white might be only in the 38th percentile of whites; the Hispanic in the 50th among Hispanics and the black in the 68th of the blacks. But the government agency would inform the prospective employer only of the percentiles of the three applicants. Thus, the black with a 68 would seem far superior to the white with a mere 38 although on the test they had performed equally well. When news of this “race norming” became known, the discrimina-tion against whites was so blatant, that Congress eventually forbade it in the 1991 Civil Rights Act, signed by Republican George H. Bush. However, as the same legislation made hiring by affirmative action easier, that law was hardly a step toward equal treatment of all. Now corporations may still hire by quotas, using racial preferences to achieve a critical mass, but they cannot use the tests that had been so effective. And in 2003 it is interesting to note that the Supreme Court that upheld race preferences for the University of Michigan’s Law School, struck down the obvious discrimination in the practices of its undergraduate admission’s policy whereby Blacks were granted an extra 20 points out of a total of 150, just because of their race. Apparently, the elite prefer blatant discrimination against white men to be administered behind closed doors—a gentlemen’s agreement, an elite agreement. Not the clear and obvious methods of anti-white discrimination through race-norming and granting 20 points because of race. “Stupid” white men might waken and seethe with anger upon experiencing just how incredibly unjustly the elite institutions treat them. So the courts prefer anti-white discrimination to be practiced wherein it avoids the mathematics of race-norming and an add-on of 20 points just for being black. Avoid the obvious. The same discrimination is to be accomplished more deviously using phrases like “considering each individual holistically.” The elite prefer a smoke screen so the masses will be less aware of how determined the elite are to prevent whites from acquiring real, equal status and treatment. The experts adjourn to their chambers, return and announce that the admissions, or promotions, or prizes are granted to various individuals, and somehow, the grantees are always proportional, not to their merits, but to their group percentage of the general population. And the experts, if questioned, proclaim the results a happy coincidence.

Of course, the corporations have found an out. They simply do less hiring—in America. After World War II America was by far the richest nation on earth, and a third of its laborers were members of labor unions, often receiving high wages for industrial work. A worker usually earned enough to care comfortably for himself, his wife and children. Since then, trade policies have reduced tariffs that protected American factories and their workers. These trade policies have been implemented by Democrats and Republicans—GATT, NAFTA and fast track-policies supported by both Bushes, Clinton, Gingrich and their predecessors. Ever more corporations move their plants abroad where they pay few taxes, may hire whom they wish at incredibly low wages, and where they need not fear environmental, or even basic safety regulations. Even if the corporate leaders prefer to retain their factories in the United States, can they afford to do so? Facing competition from items manufactured abroad at coolie wages some corporate leaders may reluctantly have to open factories abroad. American workers face unpleasant choices. If they continue at the same plant, they may be told they can no longer receive high wages, or the plant may close. Other benefits may also have to be trimmed. Other workers may be laid off, to endure unemployment or new jobs at lesser wages. While workers slide downscale, the squeeze creeps upscale. Whereas the crisis was once limited to blue collar workers in factories, more recently white-collar jobs are also found to be exportable, as technical support may be provided on line from Ireland or India or Indonesia. Today, only 13 percent of America’s laborers are unionized, and many of them in the non-manu-facturing sectors like teachers and other government workers, where strikes may be illegal. Some of the corporations that abandoned factories in America for Mexico, where labor was cheaper, have now abandoned Mexico for China, where labor is even cheaper still. Our tariff policies make “the race to the bottom” more than just a phrase. True, some American workers may gain from the free trade agreements (as consumers, we all gain by paying less for shoes, for trousers, VCRs and DVD players manufactured abroad), but many more suffer wage loss or unemployment. They may no longer be capable of affording a VCR, and exist with fewer purchases of trousers.

The elite, of course, enrich themselves with the new system of globalism. This elite does not care about America. So what if U.S. Steel and Bethlehem Steel are rusted memories, they’ll buy steel from Japan or China, at a cheaper rate. So what if the Silicon Valley sinks beneath a flood of chips from China? America will have to rely on “friendly” China for our new weapons. What’s the fuss? The elite can make a bigger profit. The elite do not care about the American nation, and even less about the American worker. If the EEOC demands that the corporation hire drug-using, slow learners, with criminal records, the corporation will hire them, and even make a show of doing so—and then close the plant. The company can pay off a minority politico, contribute to the NAACP and win an award. So what if those organizations demand discrimination against white, male workers. The elite are willing to discriminate—so long as it is against poor and middle-class whites. That wins awards. That ensures that no one calls the corporation “racist.” Boycotts are averted. Moreover, the image of the corporation is enhanced, making it easier to sell Chinese-manufactured items to Africa and the Middle East. See our diversity in practice. Tariff borders no longer exist. It is the world—not America—that concerns our elite. The corporations have gone global; they have ceased to be American firms.

Again, over the decades there has been collusion between Republicans and Democrats to increase legal immigration and to permit and then forgive massive illegal immigration (unless, of course, the immigrant is an elderly European who someone alleges persecuted Jews during the 1940s). The Democrats are gratified to welcome millions of Third World immigrants, viewing them as future voters for their party. Why then do Republicans accede to the invasion? Big business, which has a major voice in the Republican Party, views immigrants as cheap laborers, easier to exploit than native Americans. The result—four decades of invasion by millions of immigrants, legal and illegal, who soon after arrival in the U.S. are provided affirmative action preferences denied to native white male American citizens. This occurs to the satisfaction of the elite because of policies and programs enacted by the elite. Bluntly, America has become less and less America because of the elite. Of course, the elite identifies less and less as Americans; the elite envisions itself as cosmopolitan.

However, it is not only the corporations that have turned against the white male citizen to embrace special privileges for “the other.” The American labor movement itself, under leftist leadership, has also succumbed to the same phenomenon. In the 1960s, Kaiser Aluminum and Chemical Corp. constructed a new plant in Louisiana. Because it was new, there was no history of discrimination at that workplace; nevertheless, the Kaiser executives signed a collective bargaining agreement with the United Steelworkers of America. One provision was that in assigning trainees for promotion, 50 percent should be blacks. It was clearly a quota. Brian Weber, a white employee, was passed over for the program and a black selected, even though Weber had seniority. He sued. When finally the U.S. Supreme Court decided the case in 1979, it ruled against Weber. Poor white workers have little to propel them to advancement, other than their skills and their seniority. The EEOC did much to ensure that the employee’s skills, as reflected on tests, would not be considered. And in Weber, the Supreme Court ruled that race quotas could trump a worker’s seniority. Weber’s union did not represent his interests; it sold him out, crushing his dreams for promotion and higher pay. The union leadership showed it was less interested in defending the rights of all its members, including white males, than in aligning itself with the corporate, globalist elite.

More recently, in this century, executives at Tyson Chicken were found guilty of conspiring with Mexicans to import many illegal aliens into the U.S. to work at their chicken plants. When the scandal finally broke in the news, what was the reaction of American labor leaders? They chose not to demand the deportation of the illegals and their replacement by American workers at decent wages. Instead, the union sought to organize the illegals. Labor also supported amnesty for illegals in the 1980s, with the result of millions of more illegals invading the nation. Today, labor endorses yet another amnesty. Indeed, many labor groups supported the 2003 “freedom ride for immigrants’ rights,” though the result will be ever more laborers competing for the same jobs, and thus lowering wages for Americans who are able to find jobs. Worse, if amnestied, those illegals will have race preferences over native American citizens when applying to university, thanks to Sandra Day O’Connor. No wonder the plight of the traditional American worker, the white male, grows worse with every year.

There is a war against the white male, the traditional American working class and middle class, conducted by the elites of labor, the captains of capital, the chiefs of the military and the celebrities of “academedia.” Patrick Buchanan recalled that in 1950 white men earned enough so that their wives could remain at home and raise the children. Now, both parents must work, and children are raised in day-care, then attend violent schools, hang out at drug-infested playgrounds and know no values beyond, “does it feel good?” Whites must often journey long hours to work and are restricted as to where they can live because they are squeezed by the high cost of some neighborhoods, and the high crime in others. Today, they are under siege and squeezed by various elements—but behind those elements stands an enemy elite. Thus, the coddling of minority criminals; the refusal to execute murderers; the opening of our borders to millions of illegal and legal immigrants; the refusal to demand assimilation of those immigrants though requiring knowledge of English to drive and to vote and to become a citizen; the demand that government provide public schooling for illegals, hospital care for illegals, even public housing for illegals; and race preferences for illegals over native citizens. Who lurks behind the “insane” policies of the past few decades that have so decimated the traditional American? Of course, the policies are not insane. They are calculated to destroy the traditional American working and middle classes. They are calculated to replace us with other, foreign peoples who do not share our language, our culture or our values. These policies are calculated to destroy us, and they are succeeding. They are turning America into a Third World nation with Third World salaries and Third World crime and culture. They are destroying America for the enrichment of the elite.

Finally, who is this elite? I hope not to be overly simplistic, but to be fair and accurate, I must raise a taboo topic. If white men are not the privileged elite, who is? How can so much television footage, so many conferences, so many articles and books, so many studies departments at university, all proclaim that “white male privilege” is the problem, when it is not? In their controversial study, The Bell Curve, Charles Murray and David Herrnstein contended that how various groups fared economically was depen-dent upon their intelligence, i.e., the IQs of the members of those groups.¹¹ While there was much variation within groups, the average IQ of some groups is considerably higher than that of others; consequently, the groups with higher IQs were usually wealthier than those with lower IQs. Because the average IQ of Jews was higher than that of most whites, Murray and Herrnstein accepted that as an explanation of the economic success of Jews.

Steven Silbiger, a good liberal, rejects the IQ argument. He declared that the purpose of his book, The Jewish Phenomenon, was to refute the argu-ments of Murray and Herrnstein.¹² Well then, why are Jews so successful? Silbiger conntends it is Jewish culture and values that are so superior they propel Jews to aim for, work for, and generally succeed at gaining wealth, power and fame. In his book, Silbiger goes beyond most academics in exposing just how successful Jews in the United States really are. Thus, Jews, a mere 2 to 3 percent of the American population, compose 33 percent of America’s multimillionaires. Some 20 percent of the professors at our leading universities are Jewish. Some 40 percent of partners in the leading law firms in New York and Washington are Jewish. And 45 percent of the top 40 of the Forbes 400 richest Americans are Jewish. If one posits the average American income as 100 units, then that of native blacks is 62, that of West Indians is 94, that of Jews in America is 172.¹³ The economic gap between Jew and gentile is greater that that between male and female, and it is greater than that between white and black. Would you have any awareness of these facts from the media or attending sociology classes? Instead, the academedia complex targets white males as the privileged group. Why? Who runs the academedia complex? Why do they assiduously avoid writing and speaking about the most privileged group in America—the Jews? The EEOC, using affirmative-action proportionalism, for decades has demanded that blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Amerindians and women (a majority group) be represented in employment, in university, in law schools, so that their percentage reflects their numbers of the general population. According to the EEOC, if those groups are underrepresented, they are the victims of discrimination. Alfred Blumrosen of the EEOC created this policy in the mid-1960s, and Nixon established it as national policy while president. The usual discussion of this is that since white males are overrepresented, they are the privileged, the exploiters, the oppressors. But the analysis of the liberals is a fraud. Like Clinton’s Cabinet that ‘‘looked like America,” it did not. White male gentiles were underrepresented in that cabinet. White male gentiles are underrepresented at Harvard and Yale. White male gentiles are underrepresented among the wealthy. So why do the media, the government and academia target white males as the villains? White male gentiles have become the scapegoat for those who are really privileged. White male gentiles are the targets when government requires curtailment of equal economic and educational opportunities. The elite have made white male gentiles the target.

To demonstrate the academedia bias, review the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It forbade discrimination based upon race, ethnic heritage, sex and religion. Blumrosen and his successors equated underrepre-sentation as proof of discrimination, and overrepre-sentation of white men as reason to curb them through preferences for blacks, women et al. Why did he not seek to enforce the religious provision of the law in the same manner? Because gentiles are usually underrepresented in powerful and lucrative professions, and his group, Jews, are greatly overrepresented. To enforce that provision of the law, Blumrosen would have had to curtail his own group’s power. Therefore it was never enforced. Surely this was no oversight. Similarly, in the early 1970s when white ethnics began to demand quotas to protect their rights to jobs etc, the academeedia complex and the EEOC gave no real support. Aside from a few colleges in the New York area that guaranteed about 15 per cent admissions to Italian-Americans, white ethnics were denied the protection of quotas granted to the elite’s pet minorities and to women. Quotas to protect white ethnics were rightly judged to be a threat to Jewish overrepresentation, and thus nothing came of the demands for such quotas.

If Sandra Day O’Connor and the majority of the Supreme Court are correct that oppressed minorities require racial preferences in order to have a “critical mass” in higher education, then surely white male gentiles are deserving of such preferences. Today [2004], Jews are 29 percent of the freshman class at Yale and 25 percent of the Ivy League and other elite universities. When their number fell to 10 percent at Princeton, the Jews protested discrimination. They were over three times their proportion of the national population, and deemed that too low. The Jews thus developed a new definition of the word “chutzpah.”¹⁴ If diversity is such a positive good, if it is in the na-tional interest to require a critical mass of under-represented minorities and majorities [women], then there ought to be affirmative action goals and timetables [quotas] and preferences to boost the numbers of gentiles entering medical schools, for example, until gentiles compose 97 percent of practitioners of medicine. Gentiles are some 97 percent of the American population. Gentiles are not 97 percent of the doctors. We are underrepresented and oppressed. If any groups are to receive preferences, surely gentiles should also receive them until the critical mass, 97 percent, is achieved.

And not only in medicine. Gentiles are an underrepresented, oppressed group (similar to another majority group, women) if they do not com-pose 97 percent of university professors. Of news-paper editors. Of television network executives. Of professionals in Hollywood. Indeed, how different would American culture be?

Why not have affirmative action until gentiles compose 97 percent of the law schools? The law profession? And most crucially—of the U.S. Supreme Court?

For it is on the Supreme Court that the despicable hypocrisy of the most privileged group in America is played out. Jews, 22 percent of the Supreme Court, are the most determined to retain affirmative action procedures for others, so long as their own most-privileged group remains exempt from the penalties it exacts from poor and middle-class whites. However, we can be fairly certain that neither Jus-tices Ginzberg nor Breyer would approve affirmative action procedures at a Michigan university, or anywhere else, that would promote downtrodden gentiles.

Gentile underrepresentation goes unmentioned in the pages of major newspapers. It goes unreported in Ivy League departments of sociology, political science and history. If “diversity,” “disparate impact,” “critical mass” and underrepresentation were truly so important, gentile underrepresentation should be a prominent theme. But there are no movies and TV specials reflecting compassion for the underrepresented gentiles. No academic confer-ences on how to increase gentile—black or white—admissions and promotions. How strange. Yet, it should be no surprise that an affirmative action program to help gentiles was never constructed in the EEOC, because such a program would have an adverse impact upon the group most responsible for the creation and retention of affirmative action—the group to which Blumrosen, Edelsberg and Pressman of the EEOC and Ginzberg and Breyer of the Supreme Court all belong.

Some 40 percent of the votes to retain affirmative action were cast by Jews on the court. Hypocrisy is alive and well in Washington. Jews on the court cast the deciding votes to continue a policy incredibly detrimental to middle-class and poor whites. If gentiles were not so underrepresented on the court, the horrors of affirmative action would long ago have ended. Indeed, had Jews not been so overrepre-sented in the halls of power, it is unlikely that affirmative action would have ever begun.

Another point must be raised. If black culture is often hostile to intellectual pursuits, will that culture really metamorphose in the next 25 years so that, presumably, blacks will no longer require the racial preferences now institutionalized through affirmative action? Permitting large numbers of lesser qualified blacks to attend universities where most other students are intellectually superior to them, may well reinforce the stereotypes on both sides. Ever more whites will assume that all blacks are invariably less intelligent, while ever more blacks will associate intellectual activities with “acting white” and be ever more contemptuous of such pursuits. If this occurs, surely to obtain a “critical mass” (a proportionate number) of blacks and Hispanics decades hence, continued use of racial preferences will be required by universities not only in 2028, but in 2050 and in the year 3000.

Moreover, what if the differences between blacks and whites and Hispanics on various tests have less to do with culture than with innate differences between the races? What if The Bell Curve is correct? The average IQ of blacks is then significantly lower, and for Hispanics, somewhat lower, than the average for whites. If this be true, then certainly race preferences will always be required to achieve a proportional number of admissions at university for blacks and Hispanics. The Bell Curve assembled considerable evidence demonstrating differences between the races in intelligence. The liberal response has been not to refute the evidence, or the conclusions based on the evidence, but to denounce the social scientists as “racists,” shout them down, and demand that their studies be banned from university courses, from libraries, from popular media, from general and polite discussion.

The liberal approach is like that of religious fanatics. Racial equality of all groups in every field of activity is placed as an unquestioned and unquestionable article of faith. To challenge this is to be deemed heretic, racist and shunned as a pariah. To question the faith of the liberals invokes far greater threat of punishment in the U.S. today than any form of traditional religious heresy. But the heresy on race and intelligence just might more accurately describe reality than the faith underlying liberal ideology.¹⁵ If the races are unequal in intelli-gence, as groups, then race preferences must be-come permanent to ensure proportional represen-tation of all groups at university and in lucrative employment areas.

This is why it is important to peruse a concurring opinion rendered by Justice Ruth Bader Ginzberg in the Michigan Law School case, an opinion in which she was joined by her fellow Justice Steven Breyer, who is also Jewish. They agreed with the majority opinion of Sandra Day O’Connor, but they went further. Ginzberg invokes a treaty signed and ratified by the United States under President Clinton, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.¹⁶ She invokes this treaty, not to demand an end to affirmative action and race discrimination by American universities against whites and Asians, but to argue against any closure of affirmative action. Because “conscious and unconscious race bias” and discrimination “remain alive in our land,” and when minorities reside in areas with poor schools, they fail to obtain equal educational opportunities. Presumably, that means that blacks will be unable to compete for university position:

Therefore, Ginzberg and Breyer conclude there should be no sunset clause regarding racial preference—affirmative action should continue indefinitely, if not forever. They base their conclusion, not upon the American Constitution, but upon an international treaty.

So men like Blumrosen created affirmative action. They ensured that the religious facet of the civil rights law went unenforced in a similar manner so no level playing field was provided for underrepresented gentiles. Blumrosen and company selectively en-forced the law, to the benefit of his group and the detriment of whites. Later, Jews prevented affirma-tive action from being extended to white ethnic Americans. The Jewish media generally justified each of the policies forged by Blumrosen and the EEOC. Finally, 40 percent of the Supreme Court’s narrow vote upholding race preferential affirmative action came from Jews. In addition, the Jews on the court were the only ones to go beyond the majority decision and invoke international treaty to demand no sunset clause on race preferences.

I do not assert that all Jews are among the elite, or that all of the elite are Jewish. However, when 2 percent to 3 percent of the population compose 33 percent of the nation’s multimillionaires, it is clear that Jewish influence among the elite is greater than that of most groups. It is also clear which is the most privileged group in America. Similarly, I do not assert that all Jews favor affirmative action, or that all who favor affirmative action are Jews. Some, like Prof. Carl Cohen of the University of Michigan, were instrumental in obtaining university admissions data through use of the Freedom of Information Act; Cohen then exposed the university’s anti-white policy. Similarly, the first famous affirmative action case was that of Alan Bakke, who sued the University of California, Davis, when he was denied admission because of the medical school’s anti-white quota. Bakke was Jewish. Also, various Jewish publications whose primary readers were other Jews, like Commentary, have expressed opposition to affirmative action. But the weight of the Jewish elite was to create and defend a system of proportion-alism, affirmative action, so long as Jews were exempt. Moreover, this process permitted the creation of a scapegoat, the white male. The Jewish-led media and academics proclaimed that all [non-Jewish] white men were privileged and deserving of discrimination. Thus, the poor white should be passed over to give preference to the pets of the elite, the newly arrived Mexican or Jamaican. Meanwhile, no one would notice the kosher multimillionaire.

Kevin McDonald, in his The Culture of Critique, stresses how Jews have used universally sounding humanitarian movements as a disguise to further their own narrow interests. In his paperback edition, he includes a 70-page preface exposing the Jewish overrepresentation in the American media.¹⁷ McDon-ald, in his text proper, delineates how Jews have used radical politics, psychoanalysis, Boazian anthropology, Frankfurt School sociology, open immigration, etc. to advance their interests at the expense of other groups. Though affirmative action is not analyzed in McDonald’s book, clearly it is a major illustration of his thesis. Jews have championed “civil rights,” “equal opportunity,” “diversity,” “multiculturalism,” ‘‘leveling the playing field” and “providing a leg up for the disadvantaged,” to expand their own power and cripple their opponents. The result has been the denial of equal rights and equal opportunity to poor and middle-class whites, while Jews in the elite grow ever richer and more powerful. Concurrent with the affirmative-action assault on white America, the elite “reformed” other laws to aid our competitors. Consequently, anti-white crime has risen, and poor whites struggle economically as if in the Great Depression. Our language disappears from whole neighborhoods, and we may be required to learn a second language to qualify for a low-paying job. Our past is deemed oppressive, and newcomers replace our culture as they displace us. The elite, and especially a tribe among them, have cast themselves as our enemies.

² Chronicle of Higher Education [hereafter CHE], July 4, 2003, included a special section concerning the Supreme Court’s decision on the University of Michigan’s affirmative action cases. All the justices’ opinions were printed. The quotes in this paragraph appear in that paper’s special section, 11s-12s.

¹⁰ Hugh Davis Graham, The Civil Rights Era: Origins and Development of National Policy, 1960-1972 (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 197. Graham even titled one of his subchapters, “The EEOC as a subversive bureaucracy.” 190. [See Murray’s review of this book here.—A.F.]

¹¹ Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray, The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life (New York: the Free Press, 1994).

¹² Steven Silbiger, The Jewish Phenomenon: Seven Keys to the Enduring Wealth of a People (Atlanta, Ga.: Longstreet Press, 2000).

¹⁴ CHE, May 7 and 14, 1999. For another illustration of this arrogance, see Barbara Bergmann’s In Defense of Affirmative Action (New York: A New Republic Book, Basic Books, 1996). The pampered professor contends that all white men are privileged. When she dines out, Prof. Bergmann notes that most waiters at the posh restaurants are white males, 63-65. So she writes complaining that those who serve her are privileged! Prof. Bergmann has created another excellent example of chutzpah. Further-more, Ms. Bergmann ignores some evidence as to why certain groups might not be hired. For example, Jesse Jackson, as a youth was himself a waiter in a fancy restaurant. Years later, Jackson revealed that he used to spit in the food of the people whom he served. When his words aroused surprise and criticism, Rev. Jackson then retracted the statement.