Some context: Throughout 1993 and 1994, the Department was besieged by the proponents of "Affirmative Action." It seemed not a day went by without some missive or speaker coming our way on the need to fight sexually inappropriate behavior, how to avoid giving offense to minorities, and on the need to hire more women and minorities. I had taken a stand which was that this was destructive bunk that introduced conflict and division into the ranks. I also had asked to be shown the numbers. The progressives running these racial/gender programs never wanted to provide numbers. How many women and minorities were enough? Who was getting hired and how? Some of my superiors had taken offense to my noting that AA programs were largely benefitting white middle and upper class women; very few blacks were getting hired. It was a major "no-no" to point that out. By the time I wrote the cable below, I was thoroughly fed up with the non-answers to my questions. My irritation shows through, as does my belief that that the Department's leaders were creating strife which would only get worse (See here for what I was worried about).
The proximate cause of the cable was an article in State Magazine, the in-house journal of the Department, in which the Legal Advisor, who was black, walked into different offices and stated that the personnel did not look like him. I asked, as you will see, whether a criterion for employment at State was to look like the Legal Advisor.
The flurry that this cable set off, subsequently, had me declare myself a black woman and defy the Department, using its own rules, to deny that. It was hilarious. It also left me with a huge cloud over my head. Torrential rains were only prevented by my good relations with Helms' office. The words "Senator Helms" made even the most senior Department officials quiver.
Let me just add that I knew people were out to get me, especially in the DG's office, so I made it my policy never to meet women employees in my office with the door closed or without a trusted witness. Progressive "healing" has that sort of effect.
Anyhow, there's lots more but for now this will do. Enjoy the cable that nearly ended my career . . . well, there were other things, too, but this is enough, now--you can look up some of those other things under my name (often misspelled with 'n' replacing 'm' as is the case in the Congressional Record piece below) and the word "Guatemala." Some day I will write about that stuff, but not today--my stomach is not up for all that recollection.
The proximate cause of the cable was an article in State Magazine, the in-house journal of the Department, in which the Legal Advisor, who was black, walked into different offices and stated that the personnel did not look like him. I asked, as you will see, whether a criterion for employment at State was to look like the Legal Advisor.
The flurry that this cable set off, subsequently, had me declare myself a black woman and defy the Department, using its own rules, to deny that. It was hilarious. It also left me with a huge cloud over my head. Torrential rains were only prevented by my good relations with Helms' office. The words "Senator Helms" made even the most senior Department officials quiver.
Let me just add that I knew people were out to get me, especially in the DG's office, so I made it my policy never to meet women employees in my office with the door closed or without a trusted witness. Progressive "healing" has that sort of effect.
Anyhow, there's lots more but for now this will do. Enjoy the cable that nearly ended my career . . . well, there were other things, too, but this is enough, now--you can look up some of those other things under my name (often misspelled with 'n' replacing 'm' as is the case in the Congressional Record piece below) and the word "Guatemala." Some day I will write about that stuff, but not today--my stomach is not up for all that recollection.
Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 128 (Wednesday, September 14, 1994)
STATE DEPARTMENT'S QUOTAS
Mr. HELMS: Mr. President, we are left to suppose, in horror, that the
Serbs are ``ethnically cleansing'' the former Yugoslavia of both
Moslems and Croats. In Rwanda, Hutus and Tutsis are slaughtering each
other. The world has always been polarized but it now has become
violently so.
Meanwhile, the State Department is drumming up a new brand of
polarization called diversity. Foggy Bottom would rather fulfill ethnic
quotas, thereby creating divisions and resentment, than choose the best
qualified people to tend U.S. interests abroad.
The State Department's problem is that the American people reject
ethnic and gender quotas. It is an absurd policy and it is unfair. It
is an insult to basic American precepts and principles.
I hope Senators will take note of a cable written by Lewis Anselem,
the political counselor at the United States Embassy in Bolivia. This
cable, highly critical of the State Department's quota policy, was
published in the July edition of Washingtonian magazine. Mr. Anselem
raises a number of significant questions about the Clinton
administration's pursuit of ethnic quotas at the State Department.
Mr. Anselem deserves forthright answers to his questions but I
recommend that nobody hold his or her breath until answers are
forthcoming from the State Department.
I recall Hubert Humphrey's asking the Senate 30 years ago, ``Do you
want a society that is nothing but an endless power struggle among
organized groups? Do you want a society where there is no place for the
individual?'' If Hubert were still around he would instantly recognize
that this administration has made clear that it values special interest
groups over independent individuals. And Hubert would discover that the
``politically correct'' crowd in charge today is making the ground
fertile for polarization.
Mr. President, the State Department should reject its misguided
efforts to enact quotas. I ask unanimous consent that W. Lewis
Anselem's cable, published by Washingtonian magazine, be printed in the
Record at the conclusion of my remarks.
[From the Washingtonian, July 1994]
Undiplomatically Yours
(A cable from W. Lewis Anselem, political counselor in the
United States embassy in La Paz, Bolivia, on diversity within
the State Department has been making the rounds in Foggy
Bottom. Here is the text of the cable.)
1. I am taking advantage of your call for a full exchange
of views of personnel issues to send you this message on
``diversity.'' I probably should use the ``dissent channel''
but given my prior experience with that channel on a
different issue (i.e., eight months to get a reply), I have
chosen to address you directly. A previous cable I sent the
Director General (93 La Paz 15382) on diversity issues was
replied to six weeks later by the acting DIRGEN (State
384875) in a ``form letter'' which ignored the bulk of the
issues I raised. A follow-up cable (La Paz 734) was ignored.
2. I realize senior Department officers cannot provide
personal answers to all cables they receive; I certainly
don't expect that. But given repeated calls by those
officials for a full and frank exchange in diversity and
other personnel issues, those officials should be ready and
willing to address such issues in a full and frank manner
somewhere and somehow. That has not happened. What statements
these officials have made on diversity reveal a lack of
understanding of basic issues, are contradictory, deceptive,
condescending in the extreme, insulting, and, above all,
confusing. It is that sort of behavior, I think, which led
the Department to be the target of prior lawsuits and creates
an unease in the ranks today that could result in new ones
tomorrow. Current AFSA leadership seems to be management's
pet puppy on diversity, eager to please its master (I urge
everyone I know to stop paying AFSA dues).
3. I won't repeat what I stated in previous cables on
diversity. I want to discuss two articles in the February and
March issues of ``State Magazine.'' Those articles contain
statements by the Director General and the Legal Advisor that
need clarification; anything you can do would be
appreciated. I apologize for this cable's length, but the
topic has many facets.
Role of Exams
4. In the February ``State Magazine'' report on the January
11 ``townhall meeting'' the Director General (pg. 2) is cited
as stating on the issue of FS [Foreign Service] employees who
enter without taking the exam, that ``while some `assume that
we want to give a free pass to people who couldn't pass the
exam' it is rather the opposite, she said, explaining there
are persons who are so highly sought after that State could
never hope to recruit them if it had to wait for the lengthy
exam process.''
5. Is this an accurate characterization of the Director
General's position on the exam issue? If so, is that an
accurate reflection of Department policy? Who are these
persons ``who are so highly sought after"? What special
skills do they bring to the promoting of American overseas
interests? Does the Department consider those who took the
exam and put up with the lengthy exam process as second-class
citizens? Why have exams if they only draw second-raters such
as myself? Will a warning label be placed on the exam so that
potential test-takers know they are not "highly sought
after"?' Perhaps something similar to what we have on tobacco
goods: Warning: The Director General has determined that if
you take this test you are second-rate.
6. Will the same attitude of disregard for the exam extend
to the EER [employee evaluation report]? Can we anticipate
that certain persons will be promoted outside of the EER
process (because they are so ``valuable'') while only we non-
valuable ones need worry about EER ratings?
The Evils of Merit
7. In the same issue of ``State,'' the Department's Legal
Advisor (identified as black although no one else's race is
mentioned, a matter which should be taken up with the editor)
is portrayed as claiming the following (pg. 3): ```We must
get rid of the notion that merit has been such a success that
we don't have a problem . . . It just doesn't do to walk into
a bureau and to see no one or only one person who looks like
me.' The fact is, he added, that white males are
overrepresented in the Department . . . He continued:
`We shouldn't assume that because a woman or minority winds
up as a DAS [deputy assistant secretary], that this was
reserved for a woman or a minority. What we should assume is
that the person was qualified for the job.'''
8. Is this an accurate characterization of the Legal
Advisor's position? Can we conclude that, under this
administration, merit is no longer the basis for employment
and advancement in the Department? If, indeed, merit is no
longer the basis of assignment, advancement, etc., why should
we assume a person holding a particular job is qualified for
the job? Why shouldn't women and minorities feel stigmatized,
as the Director General rightly worries they are? How can the
Legal Advisor's statements be reconciled with repeated
assertions (including in that same article, pg. 2) by the
Director General and others that no dichotomy exists between
diversity and merit?
9. Is it Department policy that white males are
``overrepresented?'' What others does the Department consider
``overrepresented?'' Are there too many Jews in the
Department? How will the Department solve the ``Jewish
problem?'' Too many Catholics? Too many Baptists? Too many
Asians? Too many Mormons? Too many left-handed Protestants?
What else is there too many of? Is the Legal Advisor out to
cull the herd? What is the Legal Advisor's position on the
Chicago Bulls? That organization doesn't have too many people
who look like me, but as a team based on merit, not
diversity, they play great ball. Should we lower the net
and shorten the court so short, fat, cigar-smoking white
guys can play? What about the engineering school at UCLA?
Not many folks who look like me there, either, but they
sure are good engineers. From the charts provided in the
Director General's article in the March ``State'' it seems
minorities are ``over-represented'' in the government
workforce in general (see chart on pg. 20). Will the
Advisor propose minorities in other agencies be fired to
bring down their representation to the ``proper'' level?
Or is it only OK to insult and degrade white males?
10. The Legal Advisor is also quoted as saying (pg. 3) that
litigation is ``a blunt instrument but one that gets our
attention.'' I predict that if the Department adopts the
attitude apparently held by the Legal Advisor, a lot more
``blunt instruments'' will get your attention.
On Definitions and the Plastic Medium of Statistics
11. In the March issue of ``State'' (pp. 18-25), the
Director General presents a number of statistics on the
Department workforce. Most of these are partial and
misleading. I note, however, that the second chart on pg. 21
clearly makes the point that there is ``gender bending''
going on in promotions. Since 1989 female officers are
consistently more likely to be promoted than are their male
colleagues. The 1993 figures are very telling. In that chart
alone, I suspect there is enough for a lawsuit. What that
chart doesn't show (but previous stats laboriously squeezed
out of the Department do) is that women are much more likely
to cross the FS-1 to senior officer threshold than are men.
In addition, they are much more likely to get DCM [deputy
chief of mission] or P.O. [principal officer] jobs in
desirable postings than are men (a glance through the ``Key
Officers'' book shows that). And, please, despite what the
Director General claims, we all know some positions are held
as long as possible for applicants of the ``right'' sex,
race, or ethnicity; it's one of the worst kept secrets in the
Department.
12. Nowhere in the article does the Director General
provide a definition of ``minority.'' This is a critical
failing I have noticed throughout the discussions of the
diversity issue. What is a minority in a country of
minorities? From what I can tell if you don't file a lawsuit,
you ain't a minority.
13. The issue of defining ``minority'' is a critical one.
When we join the Foreign Service we have to auto-declare
ourselves Hispanic, black, white, Native American, etc. Is
this the only means we have? Surely this is not very
accurate. Many Americans (myself included) are of mixed
background. How do we know who is ``truly'' white, black, or
Hispanic? How many white ancestors must you have before you
are no longer another race? What if you have one black great-
grandmother? Would a person with one European-origin parent
and one African-origin parent be white or black? What about
one with an Asian and an African parent? How does the
Department know it is not being conned by unscrupulous race
and ethnic jumpers? What if you are currently a man but
``feel'' you are really a woman? Can those of us who listed
ourselves as in one group get reclassified?
14. If you are serious about racial labels, then Department
medical services should be brought in to determine degrees of
racial ``purity.'' You can hire phrenologists and other
experts on racial traits. There are lots of those people now
unemployed in South Africa or under false names in Paraguay
(better move on this last group fast, they're getting old).
Ah, Yes . . . One More Definition
15. In the whole debate on diversity, including in the two
articles I mention, I have yet to see a definition of
``diversity.'' I just can't believe personnel officers would
launch a policy without knowing what it is. Please provide a
definition of ``diversity.'' How will we know when we have
it? What are the exact quotas established? Once those are
reached, will the Department have a ``diversity maintenance''
program to ensure old devil merit doesn't upset the correct
mix?
16. Will only race and gender be considered? What about
regional diversity? Are there too many Californians? Too many
Alaskans? What about elderly Americans? What about those of
Albanian descent? I have an Albanian-American friend from
Chicago; I would like him to know what his quota is. Would
Albanian-Americans from Philadelphia have a different quota
than those from Chicago (my friend has a brother in
Philadelphia)? What's the point system?
Oh Yes, I Want my Country to be Just like Yugosalvia
17. I find diversity's obsession with race and gender
repugnant and potentially dangerous. Despite what the
Director General claims, it is not those who object to
diversity who corrode efficiency and morale in the service,
it is those who promote diversity who do so. I might add, the
Director General takes a cheap shot in her March article (pg.
18) by implying that those opposing diversity so do either
out of fear of change or resentment over diminished promotion
possibilities.
18. There are many legitimate and idealistic reasons to
oppose diversity. Not the least is that qualified women and
minority officers are being stigmatized by diversity and the
obvious ``white man's burden'' mentality behind it. The
assumption is that women and minorities (however defined)
can't compete unless the Great White Father designs a
``special program'' for them (what would the Bulls say about
that?). Diversity is causing serious, perhaps permanent
damage to a service already battered by years of abuse as a
playground for unqualified political appointees (not always:
I've served under some very fine political appointees). Can
you imagine a used car salesman commanding a nuclear aircraft
carrier? No? How about one as ambassador of the world's most
important country?
19. My parents did not immigrate to America so their kids
could face quotas. They came to get away from prejudice. The
social engineers in the Department and its AFSA sidekick have
forgotten that the idea of America is to let people be their
best and in that way we all benefit. If engineering schools
have an ``overrepresentation'' of Asian-origin students, it
doesn't bother me. If for whatever reasons one group or
another has a greater tendency to go into one sort of
business rather than another, that doesn't bother me at all.
Diversity zealots are toying with explosive issues; no matter
how ``civilized'' we think we are, eventually, as we have
seen in Yugoslavia and only God knows how many other places,
we all will come out to defend our ethnicity, race, religion,
etc.--and at times violently. Call it tribalism or whatever
you want, but it's there under the surface. Let it stay
there; don't stir it up with misguided polices.
20. Thank you for this opportunity to express my views.
____________________
What a stem-winder that was!
ReplyDeleteI am in utter awe at your ability to continue in your position after a broadside like that. I've only been fired once for telling the truth, and it took much less than that to get me my walking papers. I guess it helps to have a powerful Senator on your side!
Great article, I'm keeping this one!
That's a keeper Lewis. You served the people well when you were at State.
ReplyDeleteBwahaha, You must require a support ball-bra, bro. I was in academia during this time period and the diversity push was insidious. Many professors instituted the open door policy. We were taught about white and gender privilege in inane workshops that, embarrassingly, featured role-playing games etc. For instance 'glaring' can constitute harassment. One must avert their eyes, I'm guessing. The grinding cracked several molars. A ridiculous black Dean instituted these programs. Eventually one older professor began to insert the word 'niggardly' into his comments at faculty meetings. A la "I believe the administration is being niggardly with resources for the..." I think Clinton saved us on the sexual stuff; after his escapades became known a lot of that crap fell by the wayside. Maybe his greatest accomplishment.
ReplyDeleteIt's not just in the world of politics. I was for 30 years an obstetrician-gynecologist. By common understanding, most of my patients would be spending a portion of their time with me relatively "unclothed". That's why, after all, they came to see me.
ReplyDeleteBoth the patients and I closely guarded the privacy and confidentiality of that relationship, which dealt with some of their most intimate issues. It was me and the patient, and everyone understood that.
But by 1994, that clearly was not sufficient. Driven by the progressive opinion that this was a "situation of unequal power" (not that that ever bothered Bill Clinton), I was now required to hire an additional staff person who would sit in on every situation described above. Ostensibly this was to protect the dignity of the woman, but in fact it had everything to do with protecting me from unsubstantiated charges of misbehaviour.
And immediately the majority of the patients began to express their displeasure at having a third party present during their visit.
But the Progressives had won, everyone was "protected", and the value of the encounter markedly decreased. Success!
GFL
When I was in Bangkok, I think I saw something of what you were talking about, Dip, although the timing wasn't exactly the same.
ReplyDeleteI knew one man who had been brought in outside the examination system, but chiefly because he was Cambodian-born, well-educated, and the Dept. had very few Khmer-speakers at a time when we had lots of Cambodian DP's to process.
I also remember one fine morning when working the visa line and the CG comes in and comments on how uncomfortable the Thais might feel seeing three big white guys on the visa line and nobody who looked like them. My own guess, kept to myself, was that the Thais pretty much expected Big White Guys in an American office, whether the Embassy or the local branch of a multinational corporation, and cared as much about our "diversity" issues as the average American cared about the Thais' own issues over who was Sino-Thai, who was Northeastern, who was Southern Muslim, who was a Hill Tribe, who was Northern Khmer, who was of a noble family, etc. My guess is that the CG, whiter than I and Episcopalian, was trying to cover his 屁股 with the right EmCeePeeCee credentials.
While in Guangzhou, I couldn't help but notice how the locals, raised on Communist propaganda about the evil, evil, oppressive white American treatment of blacks called our our African-American officers "Black devils" (Cantonese and Mandarin are not that far apart on this score)--and don't even mention what the man in the street thought about African students. Further, I am positive that in their own closed circles, the Chinese government thinks America contemptible for having a black (rather than an utter nincompoop) in the Oval Office. Then again, I also noticed how my wife got preferential treatment in stores wherever there was a clerk or manager who spoke her native dialect; and the paternalism mixed with utter disdain for "national minorities" on the part of so many Han Chinese would have warmed the cockles of any of the people Leopold II sent out to govern his Congolese holdings.
Further, when in Guangzhou, a Chinese-American colleague asked for my editorial advice (something that was actually a rather arcane point of English style, and which many fine English writers, including my colleague, might miss). I made my correction and asked, "C'mon, now, didn't you pass the Foreign Service Exam?" To which he replied, "I was exempted from the writing part because of my ethnicity." That shocked me, because he was a 4th generation American to my 3d, learned every word of Chinese he knew in the Foreign Service Institute; and he was speaking to a white guy who had two US-born parents who grew up hearing a non-English language at home. There were also scads of other white officers I knew only one, two, or three generations removed from "der pipple mid der foony ex-sents"--yet they weren't exempted from proving their mastery of English grammar.
Then again, even in the A-100, I recall our black female rep from the diversity office lecturing us about white privilege. Yet I knew a couple of guys from Rustbelt Polishtowns, Little Italies, and the worn-out coal-mining regions of the Ohio Valley.
But I will also say that the bulk of "minority" officers I met in my short and inglorious diplomatic career were good, competent people of whom I still think highly.
Also, in my present job as a teacher, I insist on having the door open when I am tutoring after school; and I tell students that having a small group may be better than one-on-one. This is true whether the students are male or female. I freely admit that I do this (nod to our OBS/GYN commenter) to protect my own tokhas.
Folks, we're at the end of a Gramscian "March throught the INstitutions", and as a former FSO and presently a professional swindler of the young (oops, teacher), the institutions are much the worse for it.
At least you didn't have a tail hook scandal. That pretty well cleaned our Navy aviation of competent people. I'm sure new ones came along and are good but many of the generation who should be admirals now got wiped out. One example. The Bob Stumpf story.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.newtotalitarians.com/index_files/TheBobStumpfAffair.htm
any nostalgia that i held for life as an fso largely went out the window after reading your article. in the same vein, i recall shortly before i retired in 2011 an aldac from then secstate clinton about only using govt email for official communications... kepha's comment above reminds of my first brush with the diversity game as a "little 3" college undergrad in new england in the mid 70s. i was in the national guard almost every weekend and worked a second, weeknight campus job to keep solvent, while the "disadvantaged" students seemed to spend many a weekend in boston or nyc. im glad to be at a place in my life where i can avoid such nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThe only truly surprising thing about this article is that you had the stones to write an honest account of what was and still is wrong with the PC-infected workplace. I take my hat off to you, Dip.
ReplyDeleteI have stated this in comments here before, so please forgive me for repeating myself. My great goal and dilemma is that I want to raise my son in the same country that I grew up in. I am afraid that it no longer exists because of the toxic Marxist thinking that has poisoned our homeland.
Matt, I know exactly how you feel. I left several years ago, primarily because I wanted a better place to raise my son. Looking back, I would say it was the second smartest thing I have ever done (marrying my wife was the first :) ). I remember telling one of my doctors about our plans, and he replied "Your going to like it. It's like California was fifty years ago." That pretty much got rid of any doubts I had. Sometimes it feels like things are going in the wrong direction everywhere in the world (but at least we are far behind the United States in that regard :) ).
DeleteTom in the far abroad
I left my job at the first company I worked for after college when it became clear that I was the wrong color and sex to get promoted. It worked out great for me and events in the 30 years since I left have convinced me that it was the better move as my former employer suffered many tumultuous years (due to technology changes, not diversity stupidity) and is in the process of splitting up.
ReplyDeleteYou made it very clear: do we want to be Yugoslavia (you spelled it Yugosalvia) or the USA?
Yes, I didn't mess with the spellings and punctuation; I reproduced it as it was in the Congressional Record.
DeleteHP? I know exactly how you feel...I'm about to do the same.
DeleteThey must have thrown a nice retirement party for you when you left. I'd pawn the gold watch, if you can find a sucker.
ReplyDeleteRoughly twenty years ago today
ReplyDeleteLewis Amselem taught the band to play
They've been going in and out of style
But they're guaranteed to raise a smile
So may I introduce to you
The one and only Jesse Helms
And Lewis Amselem's Lonely Hearts Club Band.
SEN-AA-TORR No etc etc.
DeleteDearieme, cruel, cruel, but very funny . . .
DeleteAnonymous @ 10:17: You didn't say where you went. I think you owe us that bit of information. I want to pass it on as a recommendation to my kids!
ReplyDeleteCongrats on winning Paul Revere award. As a fellow winner I was wondering if you'd be interested in a blog roll exchange?
ReplyDeletehttp://www.thelasttradition.com/
What a great post and an excellent cable.
ReplyDeleteIt makes me wonder whether affirmative action explains how Obama views Muslims and Muslim countries. Obama seems to view Muslims the way he views blacks -- that both have been mistreated and misunderstood, so they deserve special treatment. His attitude toward Muslims is, in effect, a form of affirmative action that (as Thomas Sowell says) compensates for past discrimination, persecution or exploitation by the ruling class of a culture.
If so, this is the result of the policies you tried to stop.
I especially admire your ability to anticipate the advent of people who adopt a different race or gender. Well done.
ReplyDeleteAnother memory: A couple of older FSO training us incomers were talking together thinking it ridiculous how the Dept., in its ineffable wisdom, thought sending black officers to Africa was such a wonderful idea.
ReplyDeleteBut I've also thought of another questionable matter. Sure, Gary Locke was a political appointee rather than professional Foreign Service, but I think it says a lot that the official Chinese media contemptuously referred to him as a "banana". I strongly suspect that in many countries suffering from exaggerated forms of nationalism, a US diplomat of that ethnicity might be handicapped because the local government [and controlled media?] would probably foster the expectation that the US diplomat would do the bidding of his parents' or grandparents' country, and there'd be problems if the US diplomat was, well a US [stress on US] diplomat.
Well, you were doing fine until the end and then you blew it.
ReplyDelete>
18. There are many legitimate and idealistic reasons to
oppose diversity.
>
Not really, evolution is not about idealism but essentialism. It protects the Genetic Algorithms of given populations by providing a pre-DNA awareness of difference through appearance and behavior differences that indicate the .5 percent genetic differences among populations (15 million base pairs from 3 billion) are not present and thus would not enhance the survivability of any children within the _existing social group_ which expects from them 'certain skills'.
>
Not the least is that qualified women and minority officers are being stigmatized by diversity and the obvious ``white man's burden'' mentality behind it. The assumption is that women and minorities (however defined) can't compete unless the Great White Father designs a ``special program'' for them (what would the Bulls say about that?).
>
Nobody gives a flying fuck about that. They care when the system they _expect_ to give preferential treatment to them, does not. And so they engage in Cultural Islanding (us among a sea of them) and Bowling Alone (never act for a communal good which doesn't come back to you, personally).
Privilege is the NATURAL AND RIGHT thing to have happen when a cultural group hits the jackpot which lets them accrue wealth and serves to protect the GA survival strategy which enabled it.]
Blacks have an average IQ in America, after 20% inbreeding with whites, of 87. In Africa they are at 70. Baseline for college entry is 115-120. If you push a black up without proof of merit, not only are you displacing yourself but you are also creating a THIRD OFFSET of competition with the baseline 104-106 Northeast Asians and 112-115 Jews who ALREADY dominate those fields.
If you are not there to keep things white, for whites with the other MINORITIES a guest population among us, you will not get support from whites who find nothing useful in doing so.
And the entire white monoblock cultural edifice collapses. Not because it is wrong but because it no longer supports white interests and in fact seeks to destroy our society with incompetence and deliberate sabotage.
>
Diversity is causing serious, perhaps permanent damage to a service already battered by years of abuse as a playground for unqualified political appointees (not always: I've served under some very fine political appointees). Can you imagine a used car salesman commanding a nuclear aircraft carrier? No? How about one as ambassador of the world's most important country?
>
Again, it doesn't matter what you label someone, if Merit is the basis of their commitment to gain power, they will either show the ability to commander or act with suitable diplomatic deftness or they won't. What is destroying America as a cultural body reflective of the genetics which created it is that it is in fact no longer representative of our genetic interests as indeed EVERY OTHER NATION ON THIS EARTH, including the top five 'donators' to our society, retain as ethnic and racial identity in the interests of retaining plurality among co-breeding groups.
Divide up the economic pie and what happens is that you get into slice wars with portions of the common weal which will never be given back because we do not like each other, at all, and whites in particular will RUN from 'enrichment' by high TFR, low intellect, populations who cannot or will not understand that what they are getting doesn't mean a thing if they don't sustain it on their own but expect whites to continually replenish it while ourselves having sub-replacement level (1.83 vs. 2.14) birth rates on 33 not 19 year, reproductive cycles.
>>
ReplyDelete19. My parents did not immigrate to America so their kids could face quotas. They came to get away from prejudice.
>>
Rubbish. You sound like a moronic idealist. Your parents came here to get rich and live the good life and if they were white in the pre-Hart/Celler act years, then they knew that if they worked hard, and struggled to fit in, learning as much WASP tradition as possible, sooner or later, their kids or their grandkids would hit the genetic jackpot of white brains, white drive or white beauty, boostrapping them out of the class restrictions that exist solely as minor league training academies with which to prepare them for entry into a larger community where the economic pie did not get forever divided into smaller chunks but literall ANYONE with the same GA could make it.
Blacks and Hispanics (average IQ on entry = 83, in twenty years rising to 95, where it stabilizes with similar high criminality and lack of social competence) do not have that GA. They grew up from an evolutionary environmental condition which emphasized HG and high TFRs, both of which require huge testosterone inputs to accelerate puberty and thus limit the prolonged acquisition of high G loaded, fluid, IQ, instead crystallizing to 'knowing what they know' which is that of social communalism and gross interdependence which, with large birth rates, inevitably stagnates cultural growth into entropic conditions of absent will and ability.
Here is what you need to think about sir-
Ayn Rand, The Moral Value Of Self Esteem
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoAKer8lfds
The Disenfranchisement Of White America Can Be Laid At One Group's Feet-
http://www.vanguardnewsnetwork.com/v1/2005/Staff031305MaliciousDuo.htm
>>
ReplyDeleteThe social engineers in the Department and its AFSA sidekick have forgotten that the idea of America is to let people be their best and in that way we all benefit. If engineering schools have an ``overrepresentation'' of Asian-origin students, it doesn't bother me. If for whatever reasons one group or another has a greater tendency to go into one sort of business rather than another, that doesn't bother me at all. Diversity zealots are toying with explosive issues; no matter how ``civilized'' we think we are, eventually, as we have seen in Yugoslavia and only God knows how many other places, we all will come out to defend our ethnicity, race, religion, etc.--and at times violently. ***Call it tribalism or whatever you want, but it's there under the surface. Let it stay there; don't stir it up with misguided polices.***
>>
Racial Bigotry as protectionist psychology wouldn't be successful as a generationally inherited Selection vector (even as a rider with other traits) if it was not useful. Hate him or not, Hitler was right when he said that we live in world where races are at war with each other and by identifying who the endogamous group is, you limit your vestment of resources in exogamous groups. Not because they are inferior but because they optimized on a different evolutionary pathway which is hostile to your own.
Jews have more IQ in general than whites, though their high conceptuals are less. Yet they live as utter hypocrites, demanding the U.S. white populations wreck themselves after our grandfathers came to Europe to save them from the gas.
And they use their _social networking_ to get agents of their agenda high up in all our legal, media, medical, educational and other institutions to cause this, while themselves living, often illegally with dual citizenship, as the dependents of an ethnostate whose policies are just short of Hitlerian in their ghetto like expurgation of the indigene cultures whose lands they stole in 1948.
Yet they are -successful- because they they do what they do for their own interests and no one else. And this is why racial, ethnic and even (because of our crashing population numbers) gender prejudice is part and parcel fo a functional society created by a Genetic Algorithm optimized to and reflective of the survival methods those genes evoke.
Go for pathological altruism and watch your society collapse as competing genetic populations take over, demographically, and then find that they cannot sustain what you have built because their GAs are not optimized to the same level. WATCH THIS HAPPEN and realize that if you don't save your own Kindred, if you don't set limits to whom you will extend privilege expecting it back and whom you will give empathy, expecting them to live peaceably within your benevolence, society will collapse and NO ONE will have the benefits of 'privilege'.
Which is something we are all hardwired to seek and should not be shamed for doing so, simply because also rans are jealous of the in-group protections we give only to ourselves.