Posts Tagged ‘discrimination’

Sailer vs. Preferential Loans to Minorities

March 25, 2010

Steve Sailer takes on preferences for minorities, this time preferential small business loans for South Asians, again here:

“In 1982, South Asian immigrant businessmen persuaded the Reagan Administration to reclassify Asian Indians from Caucasian to Asian so that they would be eligible for minority business development low-interest loans from the Small Business Administration and for breaks on federal contracting. (Hasidic Jews were given special privileges in 1982, as well.) According to a 2005 report by the Office of the Inspector General of the SBA: “In 1982, SBA designated “Asian Indian Americans” as a socially disadvantaged group.” “

Jews?…getting preferential treatment?…in this country?…Why never in a million years would I have imagined!  Indian immigrants and Jews started getting preferential treatment in 1982…must be that “conservative” Reagan Administration I’m always hearing about.  Apparently they weren’t content with this…as they managed to top themselves by granting amnesty to illegal immigrants a few years later. 

“The 2010 Census will likely reveal that of the 15 specified racial groups on the Census form, “Asian Indians” have the highest average incomes.”

How freaking “socially disadvantaged” can you be if you have the highest average income in the country?  Supporters of these loans say that they are necessary to help overcome “disadvantages” faced by certain groups.  Isn’t having the highest income of any group proof that they face absolutely no disadvantages at all.  You would think that even a slightly competent lawyer could argue for similar loans on behalf of a white client, citing this fact as evidence that these loans are nothing more than unjustified freebies for minorities.  Conservative institutions/lawyers/foundations?…Hello?…Never mind…I’m sure they have more important things on their plates…They’re probably too busy working on appeals for Jonathan Pollard or something.


Justice in “The Mistake by the Lake!”

March 19, 2010

Cleveland that is!  From, by way of James Edwards at The Political Cesspool:

“CLEVELAND, Ohio — A former Bedford Heights city employee who claimed she was discriminated against by Mayor Fletcher Berger and others because of her race and disability was awarded $1.83 million in pay and damages by a federal jury on Monday.”…

In the 20 months after Berger took office, 38 of the 41 workers the city hired in its community life department, which includes the recreation center, were African-American, Hinners said.”

Wow…a jury agreed to that?   I wonder where the actual trial was held.  I know there’s no way in hell they found one of those inherently evil “all white jury” ‘s in a rat-hole like Cleveland.  I know there are some misguided whites out there who still think that it’s “dishonorable” for them to file discrimination lawsuits…I used to be one of them myself.  But it’s not about “being better” than minorities, it’s about competing with them for survival in a system rigged to ensure your displacement.  Yes, there is something inherently dishonorable about bringing brass knuckles to a fair boxing match with an impartial referee, and a well-intentioned and unarmed opponent.  But there is absolutely nothing wrong with bringing a baseball bat to a ring in an empty arena where your opponent has a baseball bat, and the ref wants you dead, even if they still call it a “boxing match.”  You’re not “cheating” by filing reverse discrimination lawsuits because it’s not a fair contest to begin with.  Bringing a knife to a gunfight doesn’t make you brave…just stupid.  James Edwards’ thoughts:  “Better cash in while you can, white folks.” 

My thoughts:

“File a complaint…what do you have to lose?…pride?…you think being on unemployment won’t take that away from you anyway?  Perhaps the main complaint is that men don’t want to feel like “whiners” by saying they were discriminated against, but just remember, minorities and women do this all the time.  Not doing the same thing in return doesn’t make you better than them when the result is losing your livelihood.  Somebody who willingly agrees to bring only a knife to a gunfight isn’t brave…they’re stupid.  Even if you can’t prove that you were chosen to be laid-off because you are white and/or male…who cares…file anyway.  Clog the system with so many complaints that it overloads!  Even if your claim is found to be unsupported, the 5 seconds that it takes under-qualified and over-paid EEOC government employee Shaniqua to sigh in disgust, crumble it up, and throw it away, is 5 seconds that she now won’t have available to harass an honest white employer facing a bogus discrimination lawsuit.  File! Baby! File!”

$1.83 million…looks like Cleveland won’t be getting that new “Hate Crimes Unit” for its Police Department or “Museum of Tolerance” after all.  Who am I kidding…they’ll still get them.  It’s just that now, whites in Kansas and Montana will pay for them in the form of a federal grant. 

“38 of the 41 workers the city hired in its community life department, which includes the recreation center, were African-American”…If you eliminated every government job, every job in “Human Resources,” and every job with the words “community” or “diversity” in the title, the unemployment rate for black women would be like 98%.

Africa Got Served!!!

March 4, 2010

Apparently blacks can’t even win a “stepping” competition without affirmative action.  The Council of Conservative Citizens brings us the story:

“A white sorority from Arkansas beat a number of black sororities in a dance competition in Atlanta. The competition was sponsored by Sprite of the Coca-Cola company and the winners were to receive $100k worth of scholarships.

Immediately after the competition black columnists screamed “racism.” Black internet users have posted thousands of messages on YouTube and other websites complaining that whites had won the mostly black competition. Many complained that a white team was even allowed to compete, and demanded that future competitions be “black only.”

Well, screaming and complaining about made up slights pays off apparently. To appease the black community Coca-Cola has retroactively named the second place team as a “co 1st place winner.” The black sorority that came in second had their prize scholarships upgraded to equal the amount given to the white sorority from Arkansas.”

From an Associated Press article in The Washington Post:

“Now a white Arkansas team’s win in an Atlanta step competition has started a fiery debate over the African-inspired tradition and whether the integration of a once-ethnically exclusive activity constitutes a form of cultural theft.”

Wouldn’t a form of…culture…need to be stolen in order to constitute “cultural theft.”  Clapping and stomping your feet to a set rhythm is the underlying concept of most “Barney” DVD’s.  I guess you could compare a purple dinosaur to ancient Greek Philosophy.

“”What has happened is black youth culture, what people would call hip hop, sort of made black culture accessible and appealing to all kinds of people,” said Walter Kimbrough, president of historically black Philander Smith College in Little Rock, Ark., and an expert on black Greek life. “It really now has become an American experience.” “

“An expert on black Greek life?!?!”  They have those?  Has the American quest for knowledge reached such a pinnacle of greatness that we now, after having mastered such basic concepts as addition, and such advanced subjects as quantam physics, have enough time on our hands to devote our studies to the social theories behind the intricate workings of black fraternities and sororities.  Shouldn’t we try to become experts on Chemical Engineering or Pharmaceutical Research instead?

“A YouTube video of their performance, inspired by the movie “The Matrix,” generated hundreds of comments….”Good Job but let the Black folks have their own thing for once!!!” wrote one commenter posting under the name “titetowers” who said the Zeta Tau Alpha [the white sorority]team did well but should not have won.”

I couldn’t agree more “titetowers.”  Why don’t you guys leave fields like, oh…Medicine, Science, and the Law to us…and you can have “stepping” all to yourselves.

“On Thursday, sponsor Coca-Cola announced “scoring discrepancies” and said the runner-up – the Alpha Kappa Alpha [black]team from Indiana University, whose members are black – would share first place and receive the same $100,000 in scholarships that the Zeta Tau Alphas won.

It was unclear what the discrepancies were and Coca-Cola would not elaborate. The tournament began in September with a series of regional qualifying rounds around the country.”

Maybe giving out 5 points for having every member of the “team” stomp their right foot at the same time had a “disparate impact” on the black teams.

“Zeta Tau Alpha national spokeswoman Christy Barber said the University of Arkansas chapter started stepping 16 years ago and participants were originally mentored by the school’s Alpha Kappa Alpha chapter.”

“Mentored?!?!”  When I was a young child…like 8 years old…I showed my friend how to skip rocks across the water.  “Mentored” isn’t quite the word I would have used.  It calls to mind Richard Hoste’s observation that “banal, everyday acts that are performed by whites become tinged with romanticism in the media when done by blacks.”

So, Coca-Cola sponsors a competition that should be a “gimmee” for blacks…corporate “reparations by another name” you might call it…black teams lose to a white team, suddenly Coca-Cola noticed a scoring “discrepency,” and now a black team is a co-first place winner, and receives the same award.  Would the white team have had their reward increased if they had come in second place?  Of course not.  But hey, Corporate America is a hard-charging bastion of competition, efficiency, and the profit motive.  If Hannity ’12 would only become a reality…then we could let the magic of the market do its thing…[insert Mitt Romney quote consisting of: a noun, a verb, and “innovation”].

Doesn’t Coca-Cola have some kind of responsibility to its shareholders?  Isn’t the money it spends supposed to create value for them?  Is the $200,000+ spent on the “competition” really the best use of their investment.  In theory, sponsoring stupid events like this is supposed to make people want to go out and buy Coke.  “They pay for themselves.”  I’m pretty sure $200,000 spent on advertising or sales promotions probably would have generated a lot more revenue than this did.  Even paying out this money in dividends would have been more ethical than this.

Remember “The First Rule of Diversity in Corporate America”:  “given a choice between diversity (and accompanying bankruptcy) and efficiency, Corporate America will choose bankruptcy every time.”  Keep this in mind as you’re slaving away at your desk in the basement of some large corporation, taking pride in your work ethic.  Your employer wants to displace you just as badly as the Black Panthers do.  This is why we need to start forming our own economic institutions.  At least that way, the fruits of our labor won’t go to support our disposession.  Alex Kurtagic recommends a sort of “white nationalist certification” marking for all products made by the like-minded, similar to the concept of kosher-approval.  I’m not really sure how effective/plausible that would be…do you really think Wal-Mart will stock those products…but it’s better than nothing.  In my humble opinion, a more reasonable start would be some form of drop-shipping internet retailer.  Whites who make different products, like jewelry or childrens toys, can all sell their products on the same site, and one order can be placed for multiple items for convenience.  Then, the site administrator places individual orders with the makers of each requested product, and those “artisans” ship their respective items directly to the customer.  Hey…it’s a start.  Just remember this, as of right now, every dollar that you send up the corporate ladder comes right back down at you with a vengeance in the form of affirmative action, donations to minority organizations, or…well…”stepping” scholarships for blacks.  This disconnect between our elites and the interests of the rest of us reminds me of a recent Steve Sailer post:

It discusses a recent David Brooks article relating the fall of the old Protestant Establishment, and the rise of our new multicultural overlords (read Jews), to the lack of concern that our elites now show for the commoners.  Quote Sailer:

“The unspoken implication of Brooks’ analyses is that American Jews should start thinking of themselves less as oppressed outcasts who need to go for whatever they can get while the getting is good, and start thinking of themselves more realistically as the core of the New American Establishment. Thus, American Jews should realize that, like the Protestant Establishment of yore, their privileged position as a de facto leadership caste bestows upon them corresponding duties to conserve the long-term well-being of the overall nation rather than to indulge in personal and ethnic profit and power maximization.”

I guess that’s one way of looking at it.  Or it could just be an attempt to attribute the hostility that the Jewish elite feels toward its white-gentile subjects to such benign concerns as short-term performance goals.  Maybe Sailer’s (who has definitely done some great work for our side) strategy for combatting Jewish power is that if he just writes enough praising columns about David Brooks, he can finally nudge him and his co-ethnics into actually slightly caring about our well being.  Hey…it beats the approach of some philo-semite “conservatives” who are aware of Jewish power.  This pet-gentile/house-goy approach seems to consist of trying to convince the organized Jewish community that their interests will be better served by an America not entirely void of White influence.  “A White-led U.S. military would do a better job of crushing Israel’s enemies than one led by quota-hires”…”Look at how much cotton I pick massah…Derbyshire do good!” 

Given a choice between:

a) The Sailer approach:  Hope our Jewish elites will take pity on me and use some of the bailout money they received from my taxes to hire me at minimum wage to delete Nigerian General e-mails from the Inbox, and

b) The Derbyshire approach:  Accept my place in the American caste system as one of Zionism’s international enforcers,

I choose:

c) Divorce myself as much as possible from American institutions, which actively seek to displace me, so that I no longer have an interest in whether or not they collapse.

Half a Cheer for Bob McDonnell

February 25, 2010

Via HBD Books:

Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell (R) recently signed an executive order dealing with “discrimination” in state employment.

Here’s another article:

“McDonnell (R) on Feb. 5 signed an executive order that prohibits discrimination “on the basis of race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, political affiliation, or against otherwise qualified persons with disabilities,” as well as veterans.

It rescinds the order that Gov. Tim Kaine signed Jan. 14, 2006 as one of his first actions. After promising a “fair and inclusive” administration in his inaugural address, Kaine (D) added veterans to the non-discrimination policy – and sexual orientation.”

By continuing to ban discrimination based on race, sex, color, national origin, religion, age, and disabilities, McDonnell isn’t really giving anything away, as these practices are already banned by federal law.  McDonnell does take a positive step though in removing “sexual orientation” from the list of protected classes.  Don’t get too excited though…he’s backing McCain (or McQuota as I prefer to call him) for re-election.  I always say this is the last time I’ll vote for the lesser of two evils.  I always end up doing it at least one more time.  Oh well, at least I can honestly say that I’ve never sold out enough to actually vote for McCain.

Arbitration Clauses: Protection for White Employers?

February 24, 2010

Arbitration Clauses:  Protection for White Employers?

I was recently reading through Fundamentals of Business Law:  Summarized Cases, 7th Edition by Roger LeRoy Miller and Gaylord A. Jentz.  The subject of arbitration in employment disputes came up.  Arbitration is where, rather than one party formally suing another in court, the two parties take their issue to a neutral and private, jointly agreed upon, 3rd party who hears both sides, and renders a legally binding (in most cases) decision. One option that employers have at their disposal is to include arbitration clauses in employment contracts.  For the most part, these are agreements that if either the employer or the employee have a non-criminal legal dispute arise between the two, they will have it settled by a private arbiter rather than a court of law.  So if an arbitration clause exists in a contract, yet one party still tries to sue in court, will the courts refuse to hear the case?  Obviously exceptions exist, such as if the clause appears to be too one sided (“unconscionable”), but by in large, the answer appears to be Yes.  But what about “discrimination” lawsuits, those legal magic bullets that seem to turn the Constitution and hundreds of years of accepted principles of jurisprudence on their heads. Wikipedia reports that “the Federal Arbitration Act requires that where the parties have agreed to arbitrate, they must do so in lieu of going to court, provided that the proceeding is fundamentally fair — that is, equivalent in fairness to the public courts.”  Fundamentals of Business Law seems to concur.  The book even lists a case, Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Adams, where an employee with an arbitration clause tried to sue his employer for discrimination in state court, and the Supreme Court found that the arbitration clause was valid, and that the suit should not be heard.  One acknowledged exception to arbitration clauses is to contracts involving interstate transportation workers.  According to the book, “arbitration is normally simpler, speedier, and less costly than litigation.”  I checked the website of Grand Valley State University, which tracks some employment arbitration cases.  Of their non-union arbitration cases listed, dealing with the topic of various types of employment discrimination, the arbiters seemed to side overwhelmingly with the employers.  Although some arbiters found that the employer did not have just cause to terminate an employee, with the question of whether or not discrimination occurred, the results seemed to go something like 16 to 1 in favor of the employer.  I’ll admit that I don’t know how representative this sample is, but it doesn’t seem entirely implausible that it mirrors national results.  In contrast, when such suits are brought into court, depending on the race of the judge, a ratio of only about between 1 to 1  and 4 to 1 cases ended in favor of the employer.  So arbitration clauses seem to be generally enforceable, and are more likely to result in quicker, less expensive, more favorable outcomes for employers accused of discrimination.  My suggestion to white employers:  Obviously, consult a lawyer first…but if they see no problem with it, make all employees sign employment contracts, and include arbitration clauses in them that require all discrimination disputes to be brought before a private arbiter.  This seems like a fairly effective way to minimize exposure to the Reverend Al and his bunch, so at first I was surprised that not more employers choose to take this route.  Then I remembered…almost all hiring/employment considerations at large institutions fall under the control of the “human resources”-diversity-industrial complex these days.  The black woman in charge of HR at your company doesn’t want to minimize the organization’s exposure to legal liability.  She just wants to help wage her little piece of the race war.  Not including arbitration clauses in employment contracts is a good way of sandbagging her enemy’s defenses.  Not that her superiors really care.  Remember the first law of workplace diversity in Corporate America…given a choice between diversity (and accompanying bankruptcy) and efficiency, Corporate America will choose bankruptcy every time.

Ricci Redux?

February 23, 2010

Steve Sailer (no surprise there) writing at (again, not surprising) is all over another entrance exam for firefighters challenged as being “discriminatory.”  This one is in Chicago.  Apparently Chicago gave an entrance exam for prospective firefighters. 

“Anyone who scored 64 or below was deemed not qualified. But the city set a second cutoff score of 89 points. Officials told applicants who scored below 89 but above 64 that although they passed the test, they likely would not be hired because of the large number of people who scored 89 or above. The majority of those in the top-scoring group were white; only 11 percent were black.”

Well, blacks do appear to make up about 34% of Chicago residents, but what was their proportion of the test-takers…you know…the percentage that would actually show how different the actual results were from the results that would be expected assuming no group differences in ability. 

The Supreme Court isn’t determining whether or not illegal discrimination actually took place, but whether or not the black applicants can still sue.  Apparently under law, “people are supposed to sue within 300 days after an employment action they seek to challenge.”  However, “the first lawsuit in the case was filed on March 31, 1997, 430 days after the city announced the results.”

Every possible effort is made to hand the world to blacks on a silver platter.  All they have to do is just show up to the hand-out line within 300! days, and they still can’t even manage that.  Again, the Richard Hoste joke…nay…soon to be proven prophecy…that pretty soon we’re going to have to start “paying state workers to put dollar bills under the pillows of blacks while they’re sleeping.”

The black applicants’ argument seems to be that every time a white firefighter was hired instead of a black, between 1996 and 2001, “a new act of discrimination” occurred, and the 300 day limitation started over again.  The article states that “the court is expected to make a decision before fall.”  It sounds like they’re going to fold.  The article also stated that “the Supreme Court on Monday seemed willing to let a group of African Americans sue Chicago.”

No surprise here, but Sonia Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg are both quoted as favoring the black applicants.  The AP article also had this little passage:

“Deputy Solicitor General Neal Katyal argued that if the court allows the city of Chicago to hire using its flawed method, that will tell employers they can get away with a discriminatory test if they manage to avoid a lawsuit within the 300-day limit .”

I’ll give them credit, the Obama Administration sure is active in supporting quotas.  Do you really think a McCain administration would have been as active…or active in any way…in opposing them?  I checked on Neal Katyal.  Apparently this guy is a young minority legal “wunderkid,” “who successfully [defended] Salim Hamdan, Osama bin Laden’s chaffeur, before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2006.”  He was also a Georgetown Law professor at age 27.  So basically, this guy could punch his own ticket anywhere in the legal profession, and probably make millions of dollars.  Why take a second-string civil service position?  Probably for the ability to work on anti-white cases like this.  Call it a labor of love.  According to the Department of Justice’s website, “the Office of the Solicitor General is tasked to conduct all litigation on behalf of the United States in the Supreme Court, and to supervise the handling of litigation in the federal appellate courts.”  So why was the Solicitor General’s office getting involved in this anyway?…The U.S. Government wasn’t being sued?  Probably because the Solicitor General is Elena Kagan.  Again, former Dean of Harvard Law, tons of accolades, she could definitely do better than this position in terms of wealth, glory, or prestige.  Why take it if not to harm whites?

Sailer asks:

“Will anybody nationally come to the defense of the Chicago firemen most qualified to save lives?”

Yeah…I’m sure National Review’s working on a cover story for this right now!  Actually, I don’t know…this Katyal guy defended Bin Laden’s driver…and “terrorism” seems to be the sole concern of the modern “conservative” movement…maybe we could use that.  You really think help is on the way?

Sotomayor, Bader Ginsburg, Katyal, Kagan…the best legal minds of the non-White-gentile world take pay cuts to advance their hatred of us.  The best and the brightest of the White-gentile legal world stay awake at night dreaming up legal justifications for torturing Israel’s enemies.  Yep…”the future’s so bright I gotta wear shades.” (Timbuk3)

Who would’ve thought?

February 13, 2010

Via AmRen:
Apparently a study was conducted examining the outcome of discrimination lawsuits and the demographic profile of the presiding judge. Unsurprisingly, when the trial was handled by a minority judge (with the exception of Hispanics), the plaintiff was less likely to lose than when the trial was handled by a white judge.

Likewise, “a second study, looked at 556 federal appellate cases involving allegations of sexual harassment or sex discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The finding: plaintiffs were at least twice as likely to win if a female judge was on the appellate panel.”

Does this actually come as a surprise to anyone? If an all-white jury is grounds for an appeal for a convicted minority, then, with results like this, shouldn’t a minority or female judge be grounds for an appeal for a white male defendant being sued for racial or gender discrimination.

Link to article:

Link to original study on racial discrimination cases:

Link to original study on gender discrimination cases: