Some VNN Posts


Subject: Affirmative Action (7/1/2003)

Someone wrote:

Recently on CNBC they had a "Power Poll" in which they asked the question, "Is Diversity good or bad for Corporate America?" and OY! Shockingly, 80% said it is BAD for corporate America!
Unfortunately, the twenty percent of respondents who believe that affirmative-action programs benefit corporate America are closer to the truth than the eighty percent who believe that they don't.

Affirmative action is indeed bad for White Americans who work for corporations, or who would like to work for corporations, but that's different from saying that it hurts corporate America itself.

Quota programs, with clear numerical targets for hiring and promotion, help immunize corporations from costly discrimination claims, which always threaten major employers. Strong AA programs are in effect safety mechanisms, and provided that the price of hiring and promoting untalented minorities is carried by all corporations, no single corporation loses any significant competitive advantage. All are, more or less, burdened equally. That's why corporations rarely complain about AA programs and sometimes even demand greater freedom in constructing unambiguous quotas directed against Whites. They function as an insurance policy whose premiums are paid by everyone.

If every corporation whose name begins with a vowel were legally compelled to practice AA, and every corporation whose name begins with a consonant were freed from it, then the former would start loudly complaining about the unbearable price of "managing diversity" and the latter would start celebrating their new competitive advantage. Companies forced to hire and promote low-IQ Blacks would then genuinely suffer and their competitors would profit.

But since in fact only White employees and prospective White employees suffer from AA, corporate America is (at best) indifferent. Racial and even national loyalty are immaterial to the modern corporation.

Defenders of AA sometimes cite eager corporate compliance as proof that even hard-headed businessmen now recognize the irreplaceable value of "diversity." But that (like most public ideas about race) is of course nonsense.


Subject: Weir the Weak of Mind (7/28/2003)

Bob Weir to Eduardo:

Every bigot I've ever met will invariably resort to some obscure research by another bigot in an attempt to provide evidence and justification for their hate-filled existence.
Conservatives always feel virtuous whenever they can get angry at someone else's "racism." They know that they're often the targets of the label, and they enjoy directing it elsewhere.

Weir is likely lying, which is an occupational hazard for conservatives. If you write on racial subjects and if you want to retain mainstream respectability, you have to do a fair amount of lying.

Weir can reasonably say that he does, of course, know that most psychometricians believe that measured racial differences in IQ reflect innate group differences in intelligence, but that he -- for whatever reason -- doesn't think that they are correct. That would be a legitimate perspective on a contentious subject, even though it would be wrong.

What he can't honestly say is that only "bigots" and "haters" believe that there are innate racial differences in intelligence, since the majority of academics who study the subject say that the differences are indeed real. They may, perhaps, be wrong, but the objective data they base their informed opinions on have nothing to do with hate. And Weir knows it.

Anyone who has read the literature critical of affirmative action must know how incredibly difficult it is to construct proficiency tests in which Black and White results are equal or close to equal. Whites beat Blacks by a wide margin even on tests written in Ebonics. In other words, tests contemptibly constructed to help Blacks succeed by making Whites fail nevertheless confirm the results of conventional IQ testing.

Blacks are, on average, significantly less intelligent than Whites, and therefore Black and White incomes can only be equalized through a massive program of social engineering at our expense.

The Bell Curve (478ff) tells us that: (a) "if cognitive ability is taken into account, the underrepresentation of blacks in professional and technical jobs was gone by 1964, prior to the Civil Rights Act"; (b) Blacks are currently substantially overrepresented in clerical, professional, and technical jobs, given the IQ range from which those jobs are normally filled; (c) "a large literature ... demonstrates beyond much doubt that IQ is as predictive of job performance for blacks as for whites."

In short, "the reason for attaining such high levels of black representation, particularly in occupations that most strongly correlate with IQ, includes the impact of affirmative action policies. To that extent, if these affirmative action policies were changed, black employment in these occupations would fall."

The growing Black middle class the media gets so excited about is thus largely a function of affirmative action, and according to the meritocratic principles that most Euro-Americans hold dear, Blacks had already received all the social advancement they merited prior to the passage of the Civil Rights Act almost forty years ago. Most of their relative advancement since then has been indirectly paid for by Whites through lost income, lost promotions, lost college placements, etc.

Anyone who tries, like Weir, to fight AA without mentioning IQ differences and White racial interests is doomed to failure. The best he can hope for is that the power of his principled, race-neutral arguments will convince racially preferred minorities to voluntarily give up their preferences in order to be "fair" to Whites. Of course they won't, and secretly most conservatives know it.

Most Whites oppose AA because it hurts us; most Blacks and Chicanos favor it because it helps them. Racial interests are the real issue behind all the debates about racial preferences, and no amount of principled talk of race neutrality from the mainstream Right will change that. Minorities just ignore all of it, because they clearly understand what the debates are really about. Conservatives like Bob Weir either don't understand or -- much more likely -- pretend that they don't.


Subject: UCLA Law School (3/28/2005)

Your VNNForum thread on UCLA's Jews is one of the most informative I've seen on the board.

UCLA Law School Faculty


But there is an important point that no one has yet commented on, perhaps because it seems too obvious.

About fifty percent of the UCLA Law faculty are Jews, a figure far in excess of their proportion of the population. If the various racial groups in California were equally represented at UCLA, only two or three percent of UCLA's law professors would be Jewish. Instead what we see is a staggering number of Jews, most of them involved in various schemes of anti-White legal activism.

Critical Race Studies at UCLA

Among the nation's leading law schools, UCLA School of Law is the youngest. Since its founding 55 years ago, the school has embraced its youth by not being tied to tradition and, instead, becoming a pioneer in American legal education. Our programs -- ranging from our business specialization and clinical program to our critical race studies concentration and the Williams Project on Sexual Orientation -- are revolutionizing the field of legal education.


And, for those who are interested in the ways in which race and ethnicity are both shaped by and shape the legal system, UCLA offers the only program in the nation in critical race studies. Our scholars, who are the leading figures in the nation in this burgeoning field, offer a course of study that is at once intellectually rigorous and tied to the real world.

Michael Schill
Current UCLA Dean

Leaving aside some White feminists, there are few Whites on the UCLA law faculty. But -- and here is the important point -- in terms of an affirmative-action analysis of the School's hiring practices, there are far too many Whites. UCLA, if it wants to mirror California's racial "diversity," needs to hire fewer Whites and more racial minorities, principally Blacks and Chicanos. This apparent paradox -- a shortage of Whites can equal an overabundance of Whites -- is an obvious but crucial fact to keep in mind about affirmative action, especially as it operates in elite institutions. Jews count as White for the purposes of affirmative action, so it would be theoretically possible for a university department to employ not a single White Gentile and still have too many Whites according to an AA calculation of its racial composition. UCLA has evidently come close to achieving that statistically improbable result: loads of Jews, few Whites, but nevertheless a racial composition that requires, according to multiculturalism's rule of proportional representation in employment, more racial "diversity," i.e. more anti-White discrimination and the hiring of more non-Whites.

And that's what Susan Westerberg Prager, former UCLA Law dean, is proposing. I would ask any non-racialist White reading this to take a look at VNNForum's UCLA thread and examine the brief bios of UCLA's Jews that Chain has assembled. If you have an open mind, you will acknowledge that the UCLA Law School is a center of Jewish power, a Jewish power unmistakably directed against Euro-American interests. Concentrate in particular on Prof. Prager's remarks about the shameful shortage of non-Whites in California's legal profession. As a former dean of her law school, she cannot possibly be unaware of the massive overrepresentation of Jews in her faculty. She doesn't need to count Semitic noses. She knows these Jews as friends, she meets them at Jewish religious observances, she wishes them a safe flight when they head off to Israel to visit relatives, etc. Yet she argues that, for the sake of greater "diversity," UCLA must take aggressive steps to include more non-Whites in the legal profession, which would of course entail excluding more of us.

If she were genuinely concerned about "diversity," she would propose a low ceiling -- say two percent -- on Jewish entry into law schools or on the hiring of Jews at UCLA. She doesn't propose a reduction in Jewish numbers, and instead proposes a further reduction in Euro-American numbers, because she doesn't really believe in the "diversity" she chatters on about. Her comments are an illuminating example of Jewish political language, which often cloaks Jewish self-interest in the guise of humanitarian concern for the racially downtrodden. If you belong to a power-seeking minority, you must lie about your objectives. In this case professed Jewish concern for racial minorities masks racial hostility toward Whites.

"Diversity," for Prof. Prager and her fellow UCLA Jews, means fewer Euro-Americans, more Jews, and more non-White minorities. From a Jewish perspective, that is what affirmative action is for in prestige occupations like law. Its purpose is to reduce our numbers and thereby increase their strength. Jews can control the character of an institution by ensuring that we are underrepresented within it. At UCLA's Law School they appear to form an actual numerical majority; elsewhere they can achieve the same objective by dominating a racially balkanized faculty. The trick is to employ as few Whites as possible. Hence Jewish support for affirmative action and Third World immigration, the latter supplying an increase in AA's raw material. Hence also the vocal opposition of UCLA's Jews to any restriction on their ability to discriminate against Whites.

As a group we are seriously underrepresented at UCLA's Law School, but until Jews are disaggregated from the demographic category white, any mainstream analysis of UCLA's hiring practices will make it appear as though we unfairly dominate. In other words, to fight affirmative action, or even to accurately describe its effects, Whites must first distinguish ourselves from Jews.

A good Buchanan essay on this subject:

Critical Race Studies, a specialty of the UCLA Law School:



Return to Main Index

Return to Racialist Texts