Who Created the Affirmative Action Scam?
Rodin
The Congressmen who sponsored the Civil Rights Act of
1964 rejected the notion of racial quotas and preferences.
Nevetheless, Jewish bureaucrats in the federal govt, in clear
violation of the letter and spirit of the act subverted the law
and implemented a system of preferences. The statistical
analysis they used to justify their malfeasance deliberately
(and illegally) avoided identifying the high level of Jewish
over-representation at the top levels of U.S. industry and
professions, and instead focused solely on the "overrepre-
sented" and "privileged" white male.
The following article details the Jewish chicanery involved.
_____________________________________________
Who's to Blame for the Affirmative Action Fiasco?
By Hugh Murray
Searching for employment in the late 19th century, many Irish
immigrants in America encountered the sign, "NINA" (No Irish Need
Apply). Today, their descendants face much the same discrimination.
Of course, now, it is not limited to the Irish-for in America men are
routinely denied jobs, promotions, contracts and scholarships because
they are of Irish, Italian, English, German or general European
heritage. Worse, not only is this discrimination government
sponsored, it is performed in the name of "Equal Opportunity." How
did this come about? Why do the media prefer to ignore it? Who
fostered this discrimination against white men?
In high school a white boy may be denied entrance into special
programs because he is not a preferred minority; or, in some cases,
he may be denied because he is not a girl. There are scholarships
available, but many cannot be awarded to a white male (for example,
Bill Gates of Microsoft was recently lauded by the media for
establishing a billion-dollar scholarship program-one in which
recipients are restricted to blacks only.) When the teen applies to
university, the administration will admit "basically qualified"
minorities, but reject better-qualified whites. When applying for
jobs, the same discrimination occurs. If the teen finds employment,
special, on-the-job training for promotion may be denied him as it is
reserved for minorities, even if they are lesser qualified and have
been on the job a shorter period of time. Once hired, he may be
required to attend "diversity training" sessions, in which he is
supposed to confess his alleged guilt of racism and sexism.
How did this systematic discrimination arise? A century ago liberals
sought to judge a person without regard to his "race, color or
creed." The latter phrase became a mantra of those who struggled for
equal opportunity-it was the common litany in American rhetoric until
the feminist onslaught of the 1960s made it politically incorrect.
Nevertheless, the phrase can still be found, if only
anachronistically, as at an NAACP website. Interestingly, the words
conveyed slightly different meanings during the last century. For
example, "color" was more akin to our use of the word "race"-white,
black, yellow, brown and red. "Race" at that time was more like
today's nationality and ethnicity (the French race, the German race,
the Anglo-Saxon race etc). "Creed" was a combination of religion and
religious background.
When cities and states began to enact "civil rights" legislation mid-
way in the 20th century, many of these laws incorporated the old
phrase into the legislation. Indeed, even the Civil Rights Act of
1964 echoes the old mantra: Most sections of the law forbid
discrimination based upon race, color, sex, national origin and
religion. The main change in the 1964 act from earlier laws was the
criminalization of discrimination based upon sex.
What did it mean to forbid discrimination? From the early days of the
20th century through 1964, most liberals were clear as to what this
meant-show no bias against or preference for a person because of his
race, sex, religion etc. This was the dominant view. But in the
debate over the civil rights bill in 1964 some opponents declared
that if passed, it would lead to, among other things: racial quotas
and racial balance in the workplace, preferences for blacks over
whites in employment, promotion, bank loans etc.
But, in Congress, the debate went otherwise. No senator who favored
the civil rights bill spoke up for quotas, "positive integration,"
racial balance or preferences for minorities above whites. Quite the
contrary. In fact, these were the charges against the proposed
legislation made by its opponents-by senators like Republican Barry
Goldwater and Democrat Sam Ervin.
Still, it is instructive to recall some of the debate in order to
clarify the meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In his special
message on civil rights on February 28, 1963, President John F.
Kennedy declared, "Our constitution is colorblind." Martin Luther
King, in his speech at the March on Washington in August 1963, dreamt
of a day when his children would be judged "by the content of their
character and not by the color of their skin." The Civil Rights Act
of 1964 attempted to enshrine these ideals. In the Congressional
debate liberal Democratic Sen. Hubert Humphrey declared:
[T]here is nothing in it [the bill] that will give any power to the
commission [EEOC, or Equal Employment Opportunity Commission] or to
any court to require hiring, firing or promotion of employees in
order to meet a racial `quota' or to achieve racial balance. In fact,
the very opposite is true. Title VII is designed to encourage hiring
on the basis of ability and qualifications, not race and religion.
Other senators favoring the bill like Joseph Clark (D-Penn.) and
Clifford Case (R-N.J.) defended it in similar language.
To insure against distortion, two major amendments were incorporated
into the bill. Sen. Dirksen amended it so that only "intentional"
discrimination would be prohibited, while Sen. John Tower (R-Texas)
guaranteed that employers could continue to use, or to institute,
professional tests like the General Aptitude Tests, which were
commonly conducted so that businesses could ascertain, hire and
promote more able workers. Only with the amendments included were
many Northern Republicans, like Everett Dirksen, satisfied with the
proposed legislation, and therefore were they willing to break the
filibuster of Southern Democrats and vote on the civil rights
legislation. With Dirksen's Republican support, the bill passed and
became law in July 1964.
How then did a law which promised to end discrimination by outlawing
discrimination against any individual, a law that promised
preferences for no group, which agreed to retain testing to reject
unqualified applicants-how was this law subverted into its opposite?
Here the role of Alfred Blumrosen is crucial. Blumrosen was among the
zealots working for the Equal Opportunity Employment Commission who
did not want the agency to function as created. Though historian Hugh
Graham recognized no "conspiracy" in what occurred, he did consider
the change "not a grand design, but an honest groping." Nevertheless,
Graham himself writes, "The early EEOC thus functioned as quiet co-
conspirators with the agency's critics on the left." Graham writes:
To move radically beyond the complaint model, the definition [of
discrimination] would have to be extended beyond the INTENT standard
of the common law tradition, which was stipulated by Congress in
Title VII, toward the EFFECT standard. This would require a shift in
criteria from invidious intent on the part of discriminators to
harmful impact upon members of the affected class. Such a radical
shift was implicit in the newly current metaphor of "institutional
racism."
Alfred Blumrosen was instrumental in this and other shifts. He was a
professor at Rutgers University who became the EEOC's liaison chief
for federal, state and local agencies, and he admitted that his
"creative" reading of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was "contrary to
the plain meaning." But why worry? By 1965 when the Bank of America
instituted quota hiring under a euphemism, "the standard refrain of
the EEO bureaucracies, [was that] affirmative action [AA] had nothing
to do with racial quotas. That was illegal." Unfortunately, that
deceptive refrain is still heard today.
The goal of Sonia Pressman, another ideologue in the EEOC, was "to
document large disparities in employment patterns, [so] that
discriminatory intent might legally be inferred." This would then
place the burden of proof on the employer to show that he did not
intentionally discriminate. This logic "drove civil rights lawyers
toward a model of proportional representation, yet one that seemed to
require the disguise of euphemism, because it was statutorily
proscribed in the enabling legislation." What Graham means is that
the EEOC sought to impose quotas while not calling them such because
quotas were clearly illegal. The agency sought to break the law.
Graham adds, "The EEOC's own official history records with unusual
candor the commission's fundamental disagreement with its founding
charter, especially Title VII's literal requirement that
discrimination be intentional." Further more, by 1967 the EEOC "was
prepared to defy Title VII's restrictions" in its march toward
imposing quotas.
Blumrosen and Pressman pushed the EEOC to defy the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 by imposing quotas, demanding racial balance in the workplace
and giving preferences to blacks over whites. Essential to the
Blumrosen-Pressman campaign was the collection of statistics to show
"disparate impact," how minorities were underutilized, employed in a
smaller proportion in various occupations to their numbers in the
general population.
The collection of these statistics was essential to implement the
Blumrosen distortion of the law. Blumrosen had developed the theory
that would justify all the discrimination against white men to which
we have become so accustomed. That theory is based upon a
proportional representation model that includes a number of assump-
tions. First, all peoples are equally talented in all fields. Though
individuals may vary in intelligence, athletic prowess and character,
large groups do not. The races and sexes are equally talented in all
fields, equally intelligent, equally athletic, of equal character.
Any deviation from this article of faith is racist and sexist.
If all groups are equally talented, then why are white men so
dominant in business as CEOs, in government and in academia? The
reason must be prejudice, past and present.
Since all peoples are equal, it follows that in a just society, all
peoples, equally talented in all fields, will each have their
proportional share of lawyers, doctors, fire chiefs, criminals.
Clearly, to implement any program based on this theory, Blumrosen and
Pressman required the statistics so they could determine proportions
of races employed here or unemployed there. Disparate impact and
proportionality theory required statistics if it were to become the
basis of action by the EEOC. This is why Blumrosen defied the law and
got the EEOC to send out forms to collect statistics in spring 1966.
The essential omission missed by almost all historians of civil
rights is this-the forms sent out by the EEOC to collect data
originally referred only to race and national origins. Shortly
thereafter, they included sex. But the EEOC never inquired about
religion or religious heritage. However Title VII of the 1964 Civil
Rights Act specifically forbids discrimination based upon race,
color, national origin, sex, AND religion. If the data were essential
to implement the proportional representation theory of
discrimination, the "disparate impact" theory propounded by Blum
rosen, if the proportional test was to be THE test to judge
oppression and discrimination, why was the data-collection process
purposely inadequate? Why were there no questions concerning the
religious heritage of those employed? Why did Blumrosen and Pressman
NOT want to discover the proportion of their fellow co-religionists
working in lucrative occupations? The reason is evident. Such
statistics would reveal that it is not white males who are the most
overrepresented in lucrative posts (and therefore, it is not white
men who are most "oppressive" toward women and minorities). The
statistics would have exposed Jews as the most overrepresented-and
thus Jews as the most oppressive toward other minorities, women and
gentiles. Then, before any attempt to provide preferences for
underrepresented blacks or Hispanics by curtailing "white male
privilege," there would have had to have been consideration of
providing preferences for underrepresented gentiles and the curbing
of Jewish privilege. The theory devised by Blumrosen and Pressman, if
applied fairly across the board to all provisions of the civil rights
act, would clearly restrict Jews to 2 to 3 percent of the legal,
medical, academic, media and other high-paying professions.
Blumrosen was set upon "selectively enforcing" the civil rights act
by using disparate impact theory and proportional representation only
when it affected others. (More accurately, Blumrosen was "selectively
malenforcing" the civil rights law, imposing quotas for
underrepresented blacks, using quotas to curb whites; for women,
against men; but never for gentiles and against Jews.)
Of course, had the EEOC sought to restrict Jews as it has white men,
the storm of protest would have cast "disparate impact" theory into
the dustbin of history. Thus, the role of Blumrosen and his allies in
the media, academia etc., was to create a false target-the
"overrepresented," "privileged" and "oppressive" white male.
According to the EEOC, the statistics proved just that. However, the
statistics proved otherwise. The partial statistics used by Blumrosen
were simply the effort to deflect criticism to another group instead
of the one most overrepresented, privileged and oppressive - his own.
By not asking the religious question on the EEOC questionnaires, the
EEOC created a scapegoat of the white male. Once smeared as
"privileged" and "oppressive," the non-privileged, working-class and
poor whites began to pay the price for the "moral" system of
affirmative action by being legally discriminated against and denied
equal opportunity.
The proportional test, the liberals' test of all tests, when applied
to the religious clause of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, shows Jews
to be the most privileged and oppressive of people in America. The
fav-
orite test of liberals reveals white men to be less privileged than
the Jews. Why does not The New York Times, the EEOC, NBC, CBS or ABC
report that statistic? The media remain silent on the issue of Jewish
privilege while simultaneously exposing every time white men are
somewhat overrepresented. Why the silence regarding Jews? A glance at
the ownership of the media just might have something to do with this
disparity in exposing "privilege." And if any individual in the media
dared to expose some Jewish privilege, there would be a thunderous
assault upon that individual's "bigotry." However, daily, reporters
write of white male privilege, but almost no one denounces this anti-
white bigotry.
Once smeared as privileged, the non-privileged middle-class, working-
class, and poor whites pay for the "moral" system of AA by being
legally discriminated against and denied equal opportunity. But then
the history of America since the 1960s is often the record of wealthy
liberals using the law to curb and oppress blue-collar whites,
because the blue-collar folk are deemed privileged, prejudiced and
provincial. Therefore, such blue-collar whites deserve to be passed
over in scholarships, jobs and promotions; the blue-collar crowd
should be shunted aside, and instead the "pets" of the elite should
be elevated: the children of illegal immigrants, of wealthy
minorities and the daughters of rich liberals. And this is done in
the name of morality, fairness, and justice.
In summary, the great hoax concocted by Blumrosen and his
collaborators in the media, academy, and government is "white male
privilege." Most white men are not privileged. Those who are, often
support AA because it is no loss to them-their children will not
require a scholarship, an entry-level job, a position as policeman or
fireman, or a promotion. It is the poor and middle-class whites who,
denied equal opportunity, must pay with thinning wallets and shrunken
dreams for the "morality of diversity" imposed by the wealthy,
liberal elite.
Even if every CEO in America were a white male, that would be no
reason to discriminate against a poor, white teenage boy seeking a
scholarship and give it to a lesser qualified girl or minority.
"White male privilege" is a social construct created by liberals.
They have used their power in government, media, and academia to deny
equal opportunity to white men, to undermine and stigmatize America's
working class, and to immobilize with guilt the white middle class.
America does not suffer from white male privilege and oppression; it
staggers beneath Jewish privilege and oppression.
Peeter
promoted to Supreme Court judgeship.
Sean_M...@yahoo.com
> I always though it was Clarence Thomas before he was affirmatively
> promoted to Supreme Court judgeship.
What the fuck does that mean, you idiot?
These are the kinds of morons enbolden to get involved in your beloved
democracy.
wby...@ireland.com
wrote:
Speaking of idiots - what the hell does your post mean? Try 'embolden'
next time and use sentences that mean something.
WB Yeats
Meldon Fens
"Rodin" <9xc4pkk52...@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:4e5f9a44-c074-40b5...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Great post! Some references would have made it even better.
Regarding population figures, I have seen large discrepancies in world
population of... a certain group. That coupled with an ever increasing body
of evidence suggesting this particular group may seek world domination by
the overthrow of "white" power structures, makes me suspicious of the
purported population figures. Simply put, those figures are a lie.
--
Help Meldon fight the WAR.