Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Anti-White Discrimination: America’s Ongoing Trend Tears Apart the Very Fabric of Society

  1. #1
    Funding Member
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    Nachtengel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Last Online
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    759 Posts

    Anti-White Discrimination: America’s Ongoing Trend Tears Apart the Very Fabric of Society

    Since the 1960s, America has spent more than $2.5 trillion in an effort to upgrade African-Americans
    --the late William Buckley's syndicated column, Jan. 5. 1993

    Throughout the past several decades, discrimination against White people has progressed to unprecedented lengths. When a few White citizens initially began voicing their concerns over some of the controversial legislation that the government was implementing, most people just laughed it off. At the time, it was naught more than a joke; the majority of the people thought that it would all quickly end or that the people who told them about the new laws were merely exaggerating the facts. Eventually, however, they learned that the people who mentioned these unfair hiring and promoting practices were telling the truth. The gears were in motion.
    Quickly, new laws were enacted, covering every city in every state. The same people, who were laughing before, were now trying to compete, with the unfair hiring practices hanging over their heads; they were not laughing any more. Quotas developed. Tests for jobs became obsolete; or, in some cases where testing was still used, the tests actually gave “bonus points,” called banding (another type of quota), for being a member of a race that was a minority in America's racial constituency. Other hiring methods were implemented with two lists: a list of the minorities who scored highest, compared to other racial minorities; and a list of Whites, compared to other members of their racial majority. The people at the top of the minority list were, oftentimes, given preference over some of the people at the top of the majority list; that was done despite the fact that many of the people near the bottom of the majority's list would out-score the people at the top of the minority's list. Other ideas were instituted to keep the numbers of minorities at a company statistically equivalent to their number of people in the community, even if grossly under-qualified, lest a lawsuit develop.
    The politicians did not care. They knew that their White constituents would vote for them, regardless of how they acted. Both political parties decided to prey on the minorities' desires, hoping to curry their favor and, therefore, their vote. (Granted, there were--and still are--some politicians who are against the favoritism given, but not very many of them.) It soon became politically correct to justify legislation that would discriminate against Whites, especially White males.
    The Whites who were poor detested the new laws which adversely effected them, feeling that the laws were an outrage; their richer counterparts did not care, for the quota laws had little effect, if any, on them. The wealthy Whites still had their bank accounts. They could still send their children to the better schools--far away from the integration that they seemingly supported. The Anti-White Discrimination (AWD, pronounced “odd”) laws had virtually no effect on richer Whites, yet they were the very same ones who felt it best to discriminate against their unfortunate, White counterparts.

    Vouchsafed, not all of the richer Whites felt that way; but the ones who did not were probably too fearful of being branded with a derogatory sobriquet--perhaps, “racist,” “bigot,” “sexist,” “elitist,” “redneck,” “white supremacist,” or the multitude of other words and phrases that became an insult, designed to stifle the debate and quickly put the person in his place--to openly discuss their concerns.1 Middle class Whites could move to the suburbs--something that occurred so often that it even developed its own name: “White flight.” However, the move to the suburbs did little good for many Whites. To the tune of buses and other programs, ideas to integrate non-Whites to the suburbs (at a great expense to the White taxpayers) were quickly developed.2
    Laws that allowed minorities to sue Whites for not allowing minorities to rent an apartment were made, which created problems. One problem was that if two Whites--who smelled bad, were unkempt, on drugs, and wore dirty clothes--attempted to rent an apartment and the landlord refused, there was no problem for the landlord to refuse them; the Whites had to look elsewhere. However, if there were two Blacks who had the same undesirable attributes as the Whites and attempted to rent the same apartment, the Blacks could sue and often won thousands of dollars if a White landlord refused to rent. (Black landlords did not encounter that problem, of course.) Eventually, the government was allowed to dictate to whom a landlord will rent an apartment.
    Like most of the other solutions given by the government, the government's solution (which abrogated the rights of its White constituents) for White landlords was flawed. If the landlord is a racist, he will certainly lose money from not renting to Blacks and will, in the long run, suffer financially from that. But, it is the landlord's property to do with what he wants, not the government's. Further, what Black in his right mind would want to rent an apartment from a racist, knowing that the racist would financially benefit from the ordeal? The only reason, it seems, for these laws was so that some shysters could make a lot of gold coins at the expense of everyone else.
    Today, although the problems have grown increasingly worse, many Whites still seem to be afraid to voice their opinion against the onslaught of AWD laws. They still fear that if they do, they will be labeled with some type of name that is considered to be derogatory in today's politically correct world. The few Whites who do voice their opinion--even though their opinion may reflect that of the majority of Whites--are hopelessly outnumbered in the ensuing debate because of the fear that prevents many other Whites from joining in the debate and speaking against the laws that discriminate against them. Further, in today's racially divided politics, very few politicians are afraid to speak against the politics of preferential treatment because of their fear of losing non-White votes.
    Frederick Lynch, a sociologist and senior research associate at the Salvatori Center, wrote a book about the problems encountered by Whites when they have to compete in jobs against minorities who receive an unfair hiring advantage. Lynch's book, called Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action, deals extensively with anti-White discrimination. In his book, he says there is a fear that prevents many Whites from speaking against the outrage of so-called "affirmative action." He called this fear, which prevents Whites from speaking against the discrimination that they face, the “New McCarthyism.” The reason he calls it such is because of the “taboos” that are associated with it: If a White person does not accept and wholeheartedly approve of the anti-White discrimination laws, the person is, says Lynch, “threatened with being labeled a `racist.'”3 As a result of being labeled a racist, notes Lynch, the person could face possible repercussions, such as losing a job.
    Cities across the U.S. began to pass all types of AWD laws--oftentimes under a euphemism to hide the true intent of the laws being enacted. “Civil rights” is one of the more common euphemisms used, implying that there are inherent rights for all civilians; yet these same “rights,” supposedly created for all to use, seemed only available to minorities. For example, the “right” to receive bonus points on tests is not available to Whites. Another euphemism to disguise the AWD law was “affirmative action”--a contradiction in terms if there ever was one--which is often used to make is sound like candy. Affirmative action is an oxymoron because the “action” taken, where Whites are routinely discriminated against for the minorities' benefit, is definitely not an “affirmative” social policy. “Reverse discrimination” is also an incorrect term, although many people use it, because it implies that the converse usually occurs, which is far from the case when you consider the millions of Whites who have been discriminated against when they applied for government jobs. Many other names have been created to hide the true nature of the AWD laws: social justice, fair share, banding, quotas, equal opportunity, et cetera, ad nauseam.
    White people--except those from wealthy families (e.g., the Kennedys)--tend not to accept the infringement of their rights. Understandably, the AWD laws, compounded with other things in America, have led to bitter feelings among Whites. The tension among Whites is getting to the breaking point. One White man, describing his feelings about the problems in America, said he was thinking about buying a gun. “But one of my ambitions, honest to God, is to get through life without killing anybody.”4
    Unfortunately, there have been a few White men who were not able to tolerate the anti-White laws any more, and did end up shooting people. Ben Smith grew tired of the anti-White laws and shot several people in an unprovoked shooting spree. He did this because Matt Hale was denied his law license because of his racist views, though his views should be protected by both Free Speech and Freedom of Religion. Hale had passed college and the Bar, but was not given his law license because the powers-that-be said you can't be a racist and have a license. It didn't matter that this nation's past leaders--Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, Jackson, Lincoln, T. Roosevelt, et cetera, ad nauseam--were racist. It didn't matter that Supreme Court Justices Bushrod Washington and John Marshall would be considered "racist" in today's society. It didn't matter that Justice Hugo Black was a former member of the KKK when F.D.R. appointed him. It didn't matter that Clarence Thomas, a Black Supreme Court Justice, didn't have any problem getting his law license and getting accepted to the Supreme Court although he was not as qualified as other candidates and was once a Black Panther who expressed a fondness of both Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan's Nation of Islam.
    A White firefighter in Miami stated that he is fed up with the AWD laws. He suggested that Whites are being pushed in a corner with nowhere to go but straight ahead. The firefighter was just another byproduct of AWD. He described his feelings and the AWD that he endured, which made his hard work and test scores useless:

    “[Non-Whites] stole my pay; they stole my promotion. . . . If you're black and belong to a black group, you're an activist. If you're white and you belong to a white group, you're an asshole. Nobody supports the KKK-I don't. But there's nothing for a white guy to join. A few years ago, I was a walking keg of dynamite. . . .”5

    Some tests for job candidates have become purposeless. In order to make applicants score the same in New York City, the test for the Sanitation Department became extremely easy. It was made so easy, in fact, that 23,078 job candidates out of 24,000 did real good on their tests; in other words, 96 percent of all applicants scored perfectly.6 By making the test that simple, the city could then justify hiring all the minorities it wanted, whether qualified or not. By having the test that simple, however, the city could not tell which of the minorities hired were more qualified than the other minorities. Some bright Blacks, who would have even scored above some Whites if the test accurately measured their skills, may have been overlooked since they scored the same as other Blacks, who on a normal test would have scored poorly. Obviously, the best person for the job was not applicable in this case.
    If Blacks cannot meet qualifications at a company, the company may take it upon itself to ensure that Blacks can. It does not matter that the company could just hire the more qualified Whites who can meet the qualifications. For instance, Prudential Insurance had job candidates take a test that required the candidates to have a minimal standard in math and reading. 8,000 Blacks who applied for the jobs were not accepted because they could not meet the minimal standards. Although most of the Black applicants had graduated from high school, their average score was a 3 on a scale that went to 9, with 9 being the best. In order to remedy this, Prudential paid approximately $3 million to educate the Blacks who were rejected with 260 hours of classroom time. Upon completion of the course, 600 Blacks were offered full-time jobs.7
    New York City wanted a test that was “culturally unbiased” because minorities were not scoring as well as Whites on tests for city jobs. To ensure that the test would be “culturally unbiased,” the city spent about $100,000 for one to be developed. However, the test turned out to be just as “biased” as its predecessor. Or, perhaps, it was not biased, and the majority of Blacks who took that particular test could simply not perform as well as Whites. Whatever the reasoning, the city decided to abandon that and turn to “banding.”8 Banding is simply another form of quotas-no matter how you look at it. It gives minorities a significant amount of “bonus points” on tests for simply being minorities.

  2. #2
    Proffessional Hickerbilly
    „Friend of Germanics”
    Funding Membership Inactive
    SpearBrave's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Last Online
    Saturday, March 12th, 2022 @ 07:33 AM
    American of German decent
    Other Other
    Kentucky Kentucky
    Zodiac Sign
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    Thanked in
    721 Posts
    All of this is very true here in the U.S. and I have been a victim of AWD laws.

Similar Threads

  1. Stunning Study on Anti-White Racism in America
    By Verðandi in forum The United States
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, March 12th, 2012, 09:10 PM
  2. A Third of All British Whites Claim Anti-White Discrimination
    By Nachtengel in forum The United Kingdom
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Friday, April 10th, 2009, 03:41 AM
  3. Discrimination and Anti-Discrimination Laws
    By Nachtengel in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: Monday, February 2nd, 2009, 10:16 AM
  4. 'Anti-Discrimination' Laws
    By Rassenpapst in forum Law, Ethics, & Morals
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: Tuesday, July 15th, 2008, 02:55 PM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Friday, May 14th, 2004, 01:00 AM


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts