From The Council of Conservative Citizens:
One of the most important aspects of 20th century politics has been
the almost complete surrender by people of European background of
their economic position and social status within their traditional
living spaces of Europe and North America. As an example, during the
so called "civil rights" movement era, the ability of people of
European background to decide who they want to associate with was
taken away by all three branches of the federal government in less
than 10 years. The Supreme Court Case Brown vs. Board of Education
forced white people to send their children to black areas with
increased levels of crime as of 1964 outlawed the ability of people of
European background to express any preference for members of their
group in hiring decisions. With the exception of whites in the South,
there was relatively little resistance by most white Americans to the
liberal agenda.
The lack of resistance by white Americans to their decline in social
status and economic position has many complicated causes. It can
partly be attributed to the flawed nature of our own social heritage.
Christianity and liberalism both claim to be universal ideologies.
They both claim that all human beings are of equal moral worth and
that the ideal for politics is a cosmopolitan political community, in
which everyone is a full and equal citizen regardless of their racial
or cultural background. These ideologies undermine the ability of
people of European background to develop for themselves the belief
that it is a legitimate act for whites to favor members of their own
group.
The lack of resistance by white Americans to the decline of their
social status and economic position within their traditional homelands
can also be attributed to the Cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt
School. These people as well forced white people to accept blacks
moving into their neighborhoods. By treating Western Culture as an
ideology whose only purpose is to justify the oppression and
exploitation of non-whites, the Cultural Marxists have been able to
undermine any sense of exceptionalism that people of European
background have about themselves. This is why there is nothing more
hateful than a white liberal. These people hate themselves and their
own civilization.
Since people of European background have no sense of exceptionalism
and no sense that it is a legitimate act for them to prefer members of
their own social group, the "concept of "white privilege" dominates
the political discourse on race in the United States and every other
Western nation. This is largely due to the fact that liberals dominate
the opinion forming institutions of Western societies such as the
universities and the media. Liberals are able to impose an
interpretation of public policy issues and political conflicts on
society that reflects their values and their assumptions about the
social world. This has allowed modern liberalism to attain the status
of a hegemonic ideology within the West. Central to modern
liberalism's worldview is a radical egalitarian ideology that claims
that all human beings are mechanically equal. Liberals want to pretend
that it is only environmental factors that influence people's
behavior. Therefore, liberals claim that all of the accomplishments of
white Americans are illegitimate because they are due to some unfair
advantage such as slavery or segregation. This allows liberals to
claim without any opposition that any disparity in achievement between
whites and other groups must be due to "structural racism." Since
liberals monopolize the opinion forming institutions of society, they
do not have to entertain other explanations for why there is a
disparity in accomplishments between whites and others such as a
hereditary component to cognitive mental ability. They can claim that
the only acceptable opinion requires compensatory education and other
redistributionist social policies until equality of outcome is
achieved. The fact that this involves discrimination against white
people is barely addressed in our media.
Although the so called "civil rights" movement was able to
successfully take away white people's freedom of association, liberals
were not satisfied with the damage that they had done to the United
States. In a short period of time liberals began to change their
focus. Liberals began to support racial classifications as long as the
racial classification worked against white people. Like the pigs in
Orwell's animal farm claiming that all animals are equal but some are
more equal than others, liberals began to claim that in order to treat
everyone equally, blacks must be given preferential treatment. Then
liberals wanted to use the coercive apparatus of the welfare state to
undermine the social status and economic position of white Americans
even further. One of the policies that liberals used to accomplish
this goal was affirmative action. Liberals began to develop policies
that favored blacks in employment and educational opportunities at the
expense of more qualified white people almost as soon as the 1964
Civil Rights Bill was passed. Presidents Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson
issued executive orders requiring quotas in hiring minorities in order
for private contractors to get government contracts. The Supreme Court
in a variety of cases has interpreted the Constitution and the Civil
Rights Act of 1964 in a manner that allows the government to
discriminate against white people and use affirmative action as an
entitlement program. However, because liberals still control the
opinion forming institutions of society, even when they are
discriminating against white people, liberals are still able to create
an interpretation of the social world that prevents people from seeing
their real agenda.
The 1971 Supreme Court case, Griggs Vs Duke Power Company, is an
example of how liberals rig the system to make it easy for minorities
to sue for discrimination. In this case, the Supreme Court
reinterpreted Title VII of the Civil Rights act to mean that anytime
that there are disparities in outcome between blacks and whites, it
must be evidence of discrimination against black people. In this case
a power company set certain standards for being employed at the
nuclear power plant such as requiring janitors to have a high school
education. However, the Supreme Court ruled that this violated Title
VII of the Civil Rights act of 1964 because requiring a high school
diploma for janitors had an adverse impact on blacks being hired
within the power plant. This is the legal doctrine of disparate
impact. It assigns responsibility on the employer to prove that they
are not guilty of discrimination, if there is a disparity in outcomes
between different racial groups in society. To infer evidence of
discrimination from unequal group outcomes, the EEOC uses employment
data showing the distribution of minorities in the overall workforce.
A business or local government must compare its utilization of
minorities for a particular job with their availability in the work
force. If there is a disparity, then the business or local government
is guilty of discrimination, even if there is no intent to
discriminate. To avoid a lawsuit, the company must establish a set of
goals for hiring and promoting minorities. The company must set a plan
for reaching these goals and demonstrate to the EEOC that the company
is making progress towards reaching these goals. By interpreting the
1964 "Civil Rights Act" in this way, liberals are able to use the
legal system to harass and intimidate businesses into developing
affirmative action policies in order to be on the safe side of the
law.
The Supreme Court case, Weber vs United Steel Workers of America is an
example of how our legal system sanctions discrimination against white
people. In this case, a white person named Brian Weber who had more
seniority than most of the black employees at the same steel mill was
denied the opportunity to enroll in a craft training program. The
criteria for being accepted into the skilled craftsman program was
seniority. However, Brian Weber was denied admission into the program,
because the company had an affirmative action policy which stipulated
that every white person who was accepted into the craft training
program would have to be matched by a black person also being accepted
into the program. The steel mill and the labor union had come to an
arrangement that this quota policy would be in place until the amount
of blacks working as skilled craftsmen at the steel mill was 39%. This
was proportional to the population of the area surrounding the steel
mill.
The 1964 Civil Rights Act clearly outlaws treating people differently
regarding hiring, promotion, and job retraining policies based on
race. The language of Title VII is as clear as it can be: "It shall be
unlawful employment practice for an employer to fail or refuse to hire
or discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any
individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or
privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color,
religion, sex, or national origin; or to limit, segregate, or classify
his employees or applicants for employment in any way which would
deprive any individual of employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect his status as an employee, because of such
individual's race, color, sex, or national origin." One portion of
Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act deals explicitly with worker
training programs. That portion--subsection (d) of Sec. 703, clearly
states, "It shall be unlawful employment practice for any employer,
labor organization, or joint labor management committee controlling
apprenticeship or other training or retraining, including on the job
training programs, to discriminate against any individual because of
his race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admission to, or
employment in, any program established to provide apprenticeship or
other training."
However, this did not matter to Supreme Court justice William Brennan.
In writing the decision for the majority in this case, Brennan claimed
that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not outlaw discrimination
against white people because the intention of the legislative branch
was to enhance the social status and economic position of blacks in
the United States. Justice Brennan in his decision claimed that the
racial classification used by the steel mill was therefore compatible
with the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because it
would give preferential treatment to minorities in order to improve
their employment prospects. William Brennan's decision overturned both
the lower district court and the federal appeals court decisions. It
is important to remember that none of the black employees had been
discriminated against by the steel mill. Weber's seniority is not a
product of past discrimination such as slavery. He just worked at the
steel mill for a longer period of time than the black employees who
worked at the steel mill. Therefore, the quota system was not an
instrument for the redress of specific acts of discrimination against
blacks.
It also important to remember that during the debate regarding the
1964 Civil Rights Act, liberals repeatedly claimed that the bill would
never be used to discriminate against white people. As an example,
Senator Hubert Humphry stated on the floor of the Senate in response
to many southern senators who claimed that the bill would be used to
favor blacks, "that bugaboo has been brought up a dozen times; but it
is non-existent. In fact the very opposite is true. Title VII
prohibits discrimination. In effect, it says that race, religion, and
national origin are not to be used as the basis for hiring and firing.
Title VII is designed to encourage hiring on the basis of ability and
qualifications, not race or religion." Another example where liberals
claim that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 will not be used to
discriminate against white people is where Humphrey also stated, "Any
attempt to maintain a racial balance, whatever such a balance may be,
would involve a violation of Title VII because maintaining such a
balance would require an employer to hire or to refuse to hire on the
basis of race. It must be emphasized that discrimination is prohibited
as to any individual." In this case the Supreme Court is just ignoring
the actual wording of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and acting as a
super legislator. They are just reading their own view on race
relations that any disparity between the accomplishments of whites and
blacks must be due to environmental causes. This is a blatant act of
judicial authoritarianism. It also shows how liberals manipulate the
morality of Westerners in order to achieve their agenda. During the
passage of the so- called Civil Rights Act, liberals claimed that the
ideal for politics is a "color blind society." They claimed that the
Civil Rights Act of 1964 was just an attempt at fulfilling that idea.
Liberals speak in this moral language because they know that it is a
highly institutionalized norm in our political culture to view it as
an illegitimate act for people of European background to favor members
of their own group. Once they get into a position of power, then
liberals just want to use affirmative action as an entitlement program
for the non-white underclass that is their political base.
In the 1979 Supreme Court case, Fullilove Vs. Klutznick, the Supreme
Court refused to rule that Congress acted unconstitutionally when it
created a quota that 10% government contracts must be set aside for
minority owned businesses as part of Congress passing a public works
employment legislation. The court ruled that it was bound to defer to
Congress because the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause is
Congress's responsibility to enforce. The Court ruled that this part
of the 14th Amendment gave Congress the power to favor blacks in
public policy. This Supreme Court ruling set a precedent for state and
local governments to begin favoring blacks in the dispensing of
government contracts and employment. Many of the following cases are a
direct result of the Supreme Court's ruling in Fullilove Vs.
Klutznick. As an example, in the case Wygant et. al. Vs. Jackson Board
of Education, Wendy Wygant was a white woman who was laid off from her
job as a result of budget cuts even though she had higher level of
seniority than the blacks that the school district chose to keep
employed. Normally when budget cuts require teachers to be laid off,
the standard for who gets laid off is seniority. The longer a teacher
has been employed by the school district the less likely the teacher
is to be laid off. However, in this case the Board of Education of
Jackson, Michigan had an affirmative action program. They wanted the
number of black teachers working in the school district to be
proportional to the percentage of the number of blacks living in the
state of Michigan. This was a quota of 10%. In order to achieve that
quota, the school district laid off Wendy Wygant even though she had a
higher level of seniority than most of the black teachers that the
school decided to retain. Another example of where affirmative action
discriminates against white people in employment is the case of Sharon
Taxman. She was a business education teacher in a Piscataway high
school that also had to be laid off due to budget cuts. Invoking the
state of NJ's affirmative action plan, the Board of Education decided
that of the 10 business education teachers employed by the high
school, Sharon Taxman should be the one laid off because she is white
and does not contribute to diversity. The liberal support of
affirmative action has shifted in the past 30 years from compensation
for slavery to "Diversity is a Strength" because they can then use
affirmative action to justify discriminating against white people in
perpetuity.
In another case, a white person named Daniel O'Connor working in the
Memphis, Tennessee police department wanted to apply for the position
of Sargent. The Memphis police department had an affirmative action
program in which they required that every third position for sergeant
be filled by a black person. Daniel O'Connor initially scored well
enough on tests in order to gain a promotion as Sargent. However, due
to the city's affirmative action program, 19 blacks were able to gain
promotion as Sargent even though their performance on tests was much
lower than Daniel O'Connor's. He was dropped from 56th on the list to
lower than 75th on the list. The next year Daniel O'Connor again
applied for promotion to Sargent. However, he was again denied because
of the city of Memphis' affirmative action program for police officers
had quotas for hiring. He scored much higher on tests than the 18
blacks that were promoted to the rank of Sargent at his expense.
The 1994 appellate court case of Cheryl Hopwood vs University of Texas
Law School is another example where affirmative action causes less
qualified blacks people to get accepted in educational opportunities
at the expense of more qualified white people. In this case, Cheryl
Hopwood, a white woman applied for admissions to The University of
Texas Law School. Cheryl Hopwood had LSAT scores and GPA scores much
higher than the black students who were admitted into the law school.
However, she was denied admissions because the University of Texas
kept open 15% of the 500 open seats in their law school exclusively
for blacks. The University of Texas' Law school created a separate
admissions committee to evaluate the applications of black and
Hispanics who applied into the program. This admissions committee set
the standard for admission into the law school that was much lower
than the standard that was set for white students. The school admitted
84 blacks who had LSAT scores that were lower than Hopwood's scores.
These students would not have been admitted into the University of
Texas' law school if the standards were the same for all students.
Affirmative action policies causing less qualified minorities to get
government contracting opportunities at the expense of more qualified
white people can be seen in the Supreme Court case, Ararand
Constructors vs Pena, Secretary of Transportation. The federal
government as part of its affirmative action policies sets aside a
portion of federal contract funds for businesses owned by minorities.
Federal law requires that 10% of contracts given by the Department of
Transportation must be given to minority owned businesses. It does not
matter whether the minority owned business offered the lowest bid. In
this case, the owner of Ararand Construction Inc. was a white person.
He presented a bid on a federal highway construction project that was
much lower than the bid presented by the owner of Gonzales
Construction Company. However, the bid went to Gonzales Construction
Company because the company was owned by a Hispanic.
The federal government also requires private contractors to meet
certain quotas for hiring minorities and quotas for hiring
subcontractors in order to qualify for government contracts. Often the
federal government will compensate federal contractors for
subcontracting to minority owned firms by paying them a percentage of
the overall value of the contract. This means that affirmative action
not only discriminates against individual white people, it also causes
our government to have to spend more money than it normally would in
order to provide us with public investments like road and bridges. The
government pays more because instead of focusing on who could do the
job better and for the lowest cost, they are concerned with giving
business to minority owned companies. This contributes to our public
sector being run in an inefficient manner. If "carrots" do not work,
the federal government can also use the threat of taking away the
private company's contract with the federal government. The federal
government just needs to show that if the number of minorities being
utilized by the company is not in proportion to their availability,
the company must then develop goals for hiring and promoting
minorities. Failure to comply with affirmative action mandates means
that the private company loses its contract with the federal
government.
White nationalists can use affirmative action along with other public
policy issues such as how multiculturalism undermines social trust,
and even the role that the Israeli lobby plays influencing US foreign
policy in the Middle East, to build a social movement that raises the
racial consciousness of our fellow whites. By developing its own media
centered on discussing these public policy issues, white nationalists
can create a social movement that accentuates the differences and
needs amongst people of European background and other groups. The
purpose of this type of social movement would be to serve as a vehicle
to create for people of European background a collective social
identity centered on the awareness that they have created a unique
civilization and have special interests in competition with other
groups of people. This type of social movement can be used by white
nationalists to effectively challenge the worldview that underlies
multiculturalism and modern liberalism's radical egalitarian ideology.
This type of social movement should be viewed as the first stage in
creating the proper intellectual context for a future white
nationalist state in the Pacific Northwest.
www.tomatobubble.com www.ihr.org http://nationalvanguard.org
http://national-socialist-worldview.blogspot.com