Government monopolizes racism

[cryosteel]

Our academics and politicians state that there is no substantial difference between populations of people. Taking this view, "cultural bias" in IQ testing would have no substantial effect on anyone. However, racism is defined by the belief that a certain ethnicity is at a disadvantage (read: they are inferior) when expected to live up to the standards of a different culture. Our academics and politicians state that some minorities, having an ethnic, cultural or racial disadvantage, have special needs where government must create assistance programs and laws to help them become "equal".

State sponsored contradictions:
1) There are no substantial differences between peoples; all are equal from birth
2) Minorities are different and require special assistance; need lifelong help to become equal
3) Racism is an "evil" the state stands against by creating laws and institutions to combat racism
4) Asserting that some races are "equal" and others, being "inferior", require lifelong assistance to achieve equality is racism

Reality:
1) the State has created for itself a monopoly on racism, uses laws to eliminate competitors
2) the State enforces a condition of doublethink on everyone, where two contradictory ideas are to be accepted by everyone as true

 

[speed]

Our academics and politicians state that there is no substantial difference between populations of people. Taking this view, "cultural bias" in IQ testing would have no substantial effect on anyone. However, racism is defined by the belief that a certain ethnicity is at a disadvantage (read: they are inferior) when expected to live up to the standards of a different culture. Our academics and politicians state that some minorities, having an ethnic, cultural or racial disadvantage, have special needs where government must create assistance programs and laws to help them become "equal".

State sponsored contradictions:
1) There are no substantial differences between peoples; all are equal from birth
2) Minorities are different and require special assistance; need lifelong help to become equal
3) Racism is an "evil" the state stands against by creating laws and institutions to combat racism
4) Asserting that some races are "equal" and others, being "inferior", require lifelong assistance to achieve equality is racism

Reality:
1) the State has created for itself a monopoly on racism, uses laws to eliminate competitors
2) the State enforces a condition of doublethink on everyone, where two contradictory ideas are to be accepted by everyone as true

IVe been party--well I was a few years ago when I'd have such arguments in college--to a number of such arguments over this hypocrisy, and this unresolved duality; in which, after said supporter of such policies realized the untenable nature of their argument, I was immediately branded a racist, nazi, fill in the blank--my point being, supporting these policies affirmative action etc, has become dogma for part of the population.

But there are a number of other flaws in all of this reasoning. First, the belief that all are equal. Second, the underlying implication that white culture is the best, and minority culture's are inferior. One could really go on and on with the flaws in these arguments.

What I find interesting, is your contention that the State in essence, supports racism. In regards to African Americans, how much does guilt and pity, factor into all of this?

 

[cryosteel]

It may be that this condition of forced doublethink is an effect (one of many) of Judeo-Christian morality, which according to many historians and theological scholars, is the foundational basis of the Western/Occidental hemisphere. Contradictions exist in the Torah/Bible. Given enough generations of men and women raised with Torah/Biblical contradictory thinking, contradictory rules to live by, dual reality belief systems (Earth/Afterlife), binary opinion (good/evil, rich/poor, democrat/republican), that such defects will manifest in civilization as output because they are built into the core design. In other words, doublethink is not a conscious, planned conspiracy, it is a design defect at the root of our civilization.

 

[hibernal_dream]

The first of your contradictions doesn't have to be one. One could legitimately say that most governments don't believe races to be equal at all. A belief that all races are equal can equate to letting slip (in law) the fact that we're not. So while in fact (reality) races are not necessarily equal, they arguably should be under law so as to eliminate any natural racial disadvantage. I don't see any contradiction in this. And since your contradictions #2, #3 and #4 presuppose #1, they are negated when framed in this way. Note that I don't necessarily subscribe to this view.

Speed's last point is a good one - can we say a government is racist simply because we can constructively attribute some (inevitable) racist effects to some of its policies? As cryosteel mentioned, racism is a belief and whether or not governments can truly have beliefs, most affirmative action policies arose from a desire of society to eliminate discrimination, not to create it.

 

[A Dying Breed]

Our academics and politicians state that some minorities, having an ethnic, cultural or racial disadvantage, have special needs where government must create assistance programs and laws to help them become "equal".

You've completely misconstrued the argument. Affirmative action and other such policies aren't intended to address a racial or biological inferiority, but rather a socio-economic disadvantage rooted in history.

 

[cryosteel]

You've completely misconstrued the argument. Affirmative action and other such policies aren't intended to address a racial or biological inferiority, but rather a socio-economic disadvantage rooted in history.

Where is the documented timetable for completion of these socio-economic disadvantage correction policies? The US has had federal race equality as Constitutional Law for eighty years, specifically the 14th and 15th Amendments. At what point in the future does every single citizen achieve this fantasy ideology of sameness where socio-economic disadvantage disappears? I call fraud.

 

[OldScratch]

Where is the documented timetable for completion of these socio-economic disadvantage correction policies? The US has had federal race equality as Constitutional Law for eighty years, specifically the 14th and 15th Amendments. At what point in the future does every single citizen achieve this fantasy ideology of sameness where socio-economic disadvantage disappears? I call fraud.

This is the essense of the ingeniously sick egalitarian fantasy as propounded (and enforced) by government, clergy, activist and the perpetual "victim" classes themselves alike. There will be no completion of the 'correction' policies and to even suggest that such a timetable be implemented is dismissed as so much MORE "racism." Thus, what may or may not have been an effort to address past discrimination is now nothing more than an enormous clanking Leviathan that feeds off the very "racism" it is supposed to combat - and the beast has no plans of starving itself any time soon. The whole of the so-called Civil Rights machinery will never allow the spigot to be turned off.

 

[cryosteel]

The socio-economic disadvantage argument is an ad misericordium fallacy. Furthermore, why must anyone pay anything solely for pity's sake? The idea is un-metal, a violation of Hessian culture itself. Christ however would certainly approve.

 

[Norsemaiden]

The idea of affirmative action being applied in areas where incompetence costs lives is truly frightening. When doctors and surgeons are employed because of their race, and have much lower test results than white applicants, this is surely a scandalous thing whatever one attributes their low results to.
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=3425

The GPA of those admitted in 1973 under regular standards was 3.49, while that of the special admits was 2.88. The regulars scored an average science GPA of 3.51 while the special admits turned in 2.62. On the Medical College Admissions Test (MCAT), the regulars scored an average of 81 and the specials 46. On the quantitative section the regulars scored 76, the special admits 24. In science the regulars logged 83 and the specials 35. And in the category of general information the regulars scored 69 to the specials’ 33.

There are some scary cases of medical incompetence mentioned in the above article.

 

[OldScratch]

This very complaint/concern has been raised in the airline industry, law enforcement, the Military and indeed healthcare just to name a few. It ocurred to me long ago that we would rather perish amidst social chaos, than admit the great equality/diversity/multiculturalism scheme is a lie and a fraud...and a deadly one at that.

 

[Norsemaiden]

This very complaint/concern has been raised in the airline industry, law enforcement, the Military and indeed healthcare just to name a few. It ocurred to me long ago that we would rather perish amidst social chaos, than admit the great equality/diversity/multiculturalism scheme is a lie and a fraud...and a deadly one at that.

Agreed, only I am not sure if "we" really get a say in this. This issue has never been open to democratic approval - and, like immigration, is contrary to the wishes of the majority. Democracy gives the impression of public approval to a government policy that few would ever have voted for.

 

[Horus]

Abotu Affirmitive Action, I've been against it ever since I first actually thought the idea through. At first, when I heard about it, I said to myself "That's a good thing, it gives minorities more of a chance of succeeding in life." Then, I actually thought it through, and I considered the fact that not all minorities are unsuccessful. And THEN, I considered the fact that if Affirmitive Action puts a Minority in a hospital to perform an operation that he/she doesn't know anything about, then Affirmitive Action is to blame for the fact that this doctor has killed so many patients in failed attempts at performing this kind of operation. Affirmitive Action pretty much puts unqualified people in jobs that require more skill than those people probably have.
But then there's also the argument that I'm assuming that all minorities are unqualified for jobs, and the way I was going on and on in the last paragraph, that pretty much was the condition I was thinking of. But then there's the scenario of two equally quallified people of different races trying to score the same job. Which one will you choose? The Minority, because he/she is a minority, and either way, both people are equally qualified at the job, so what's to lose if you choose the minority? That argument still stands, but it doesn't really help me get to where I'm trying to go with this.
My biggest problem with Affirmitive Action goes along with my first paragraph, and can pretty much be summed up by saying that with Affirmitive Action, the idea of someone getting a job because they meet the qualifications doesn't stand as strong as it should.

 

[hibernal_dream]

If that's your only problem with affirmative action, then you should be supporting it. However, I do agree that in the US and other countries it's been extended way too far. I also agree that the idea of any socioeconomic disadvantage rooted in history is problematic, but you've got to admit there are racist employers out there. The whole point of the policy is (or should be) to eliminate discrimination of minorities, and demanding employment based on qualifications rather than race. Hiring a black doctor who scored lower medical entrance test scores simply because he's black just doesn't fit within the policy. It's not affirmative action. Yes, there's a huge problem of implementation, but no-one's presented a decent argument here criticising its idea.

 

[Horus]

You missed my point. Affirmitive Action is fine in the scenario of 2 people of equal qualifications, but it's when a less qualified person gets the job because they're a minority that it shoudn't work.

 

[OldScratch]

If that's your only problem with affirmative action, then you should be supporting it. However, I do agree that in the US and other countries it's been extended way too far. I also agree that the idea of any socioeconomic disadvantage rooted in history is problematic, but you've got to admit there are racist employers out there. The whole point of the policy is (or should be) to eliminate discrimination of minorities, and demanding employment based on qualifications rather than race. Hiring a black doctor who scored lower medical entrance test scores simply because he's black just doesn't fit within the policy. It's not affirmative action. Yes, there's a huge problem of implementation, but no-one's presented a decent argument here criticising its idea.

Nonsense. Discrimination is natural and in most cases sensible - and in many cases, this will invariably fall along racial/ethnic lines. If an employer discriminates believing that is best for their business, by what cosmic authority should this be deemed "wrong?" Governments should have no say in whom a private business hires or terminates.(note - the govt. is notorious for not applying their own quota/AA standards within their own ranks(the non-elected positions, etc)...how convenient)
This whole Affirmative Action scheme is nothing more than government artificially manipulating society for THEIR prescribed outcome. One must buy into the false dogma of universal "equality"(racial or otherwise) to support this in the first place. This is not natural - this is nothing more than the illusion of equality by government writ and bayonet point.
We constantly discriminate in everyday life - it is both natural and fully rational. I personally do not desire this "multicultural" utopia as propounded by the Govt. Church, Mass-media etc. It falls afoul of reason to intentionally manufacture a society destined to create more strife than anything else.

"I call an animal, a species, an individual depraved when it loses its instincts, when it chooses, when it prefers what is harmful to it." F. Nietzsche

 

[borninblood]

Positive Discrimination holds everyone back.

If you are one minority in a group of 100 white christian male people, you are not going to even attempt to do well is the field of work you are in uses positive discrimination to look good on paper, you will never excel yourself.

Racism is only a problem because people take things far too seriously - if I apply for a job and don't get it, I don't think its because of my skin colour or religion or anything else, maybe I wasn't right for the job, maybe the employer just didn't like me, I don't care, and I have no real right to say - HEY you didn't give me this job for this, this and this reason, you are a biggot wah wah wah. So why should a minority do that?

Another point I would like to raise is that there is no schemes like this in countries were white is the minority, people moving over there get nothing handed to them because of the colour of their skin.

 

[derek]

This very complaint/concern has been raised in the airline industry, law enforcement, the Military and indeed healthcare just to name a few. It ocurred to me long ago that we would rather perish amidst social chaos, than admit the great equality/diversity/multiculturalism scheme is a lie and a fraud...and a deadly one at that.

Great post.

Ability should be the prime factor. It's a sad reflection of our world that less able human beings ascend to positions of power based on their colour or creed, than any real ability.

In my humble opinion, the most able should always be the first choice. However, unlike some folks here, I believe that person can be of any race, nationality, religion or sexuality. In saying that I am declaring my feelings that multiculturalism is not a failed endeavour, quite yet.

 

[speed]

Great post.

Ability should be the prime factor. It's a sad reflection of our world that less able human beings ascend to positions of power based on their colour or creed, than any real ability.

In my humble opinion, the most able should always be the first choice. However, unlike some folks here, I believe that person can be of any race, nationality, religion or sexuality. In saying that I am declaring my feelings that multiculturalism is not a failed endeavour, quite yet.

In a perfect world, ability would be the prime factor. However, that's never been true, now has it? Even in our ultra competitive and efficient form of western capitalism, those in power are not always those with the most ability.

 

[derek]

Even in ages past power was often restricted to those from Aristocratic families. It's a shame that money dictates the new aristocracies of our world.

 

[speed]

Even in ages past power was often restricted to those from Aristocratic families. It's a shame that money dictates the new aristocracies of our world.

And instead of laziness, perversion, gluttony, interbreeding, and haughty behavior coupled with a bizarre love of culture the arts and even sometimes science, we get greedy, materialistic, self-serving individuals who care only about money and power. Weird change. Well, at least one doesnt have to be born into such a elite anymore.