95 Theses Against Affirmative Action: Part II
Submitted by Neo-Luther
Martin Luther nailed his 95 Theses to a church door in Wittenberg, Germany 500 years ago this month (October 2017). His 1517 broadside ignited the Reformation and triggered cultural upheavals whose effects endure to this day. In commemoration of Luther’s landmark action, AltRight.com is publishing in three parts a new 95 Theses attacking one of liberalism’s holiest of holies. These 95 Theses Against Affirmative Action are timely, not only because of Luther’s 500th but also because of the Trump administration’s ongoing investigation into affirmative action at universities and because of Michelle Obama’s recent anti-white-male comments at a women’s conference. Let the reformation begin.
This second part of 95 Theses:
- Paradoxically, white males created affirmative action. White males (starting with LBJ in 1965) created the practice that discriminates against themselves, their sons and grandsons.
- As a small opening onto a large subject, Noah Feldman’s New York Times op-ed, “The Triumphant Decline of the WASP,” 27 June 2010, praises the (self-defeating) idealism and generosity of the nation’s founding and inheriting white Anglo-Saxon Protestant males. Feldman’s omission of affirmative action as one of their noble gifts stands out.
- For these 95 theses, religion is a category of no interest. Affirmative action does not privilege religion; it privileges sex (female) and race (as disclosed in thesis 31). It serves estrogen and narrowly defined melanin, vaginas and specific kinds of dark skin. Affirmative action rejects white males, regardless of religion.
- The arc of the moral universe is long and bends toward indeterminacy.
- History records pivotal moments when white males generously, idealistically, and self-defeatingly ceded power and standing to women and minorities.
- In 1868, a U.S. Congress of white males and white male legislatures across America granted citizenship regardless of race in a constitutional amendment.
- In 1870, a U.S. Congress of white males and white male legislatures across America granted the right to vote regardless of race in a constitutional amendment.
- In 1920, a U.S. Congress of white males and white male legislatures across America awarded the vote to women in a constitutional amendment.
- In 1965, LBJ authorized affirmative action—the preferment of women and minorities over white males for society’s resources—by executive action.
- In 1969, white male administrations at America’s Ivy League universities, as one class of America’s top universities, began admitting women.
- At each of these pivotal moments in history, white males were not forced to cede society’s resources. They were not forced to award stature and power to women and “people of color.” They gave these assets away voluntarily. They did so generously, idealistically, self-defeatingly.
- White Anglo-Saxon males founded the United States between 1776-1789. Some 150 white Founding Fathers and 250,000 white male Revolutionary War soldiers fought for and established the United States as a new nation for themselves, their friends and peers, their families. They did not found the nation to deprive and dispossess themselves, their sons and grandsons. Exactly the opposite. They did not found the nation to despise themselves for being male and white or to deny themselves and their descendant’s society’s resources. They did not found the nation to cede it to women and “people of color” in affirmative action.
- Affirmative action and its dogma are now the primary day-to-day weapons in a contemporary culture war against white males. The objective is to strip white males of society’s resources. Make no mistake as a white male, be clear-eyed and world-wise. It is social war. It is serious. It is consequential. You are the target. The stakes are fundamental.
- Affirmative action and its dogma are also the primary day-to-day weapons of identity politics—in this case, the personal politics of asserted female and minority victimization and compensatory entitlement.
- When affirmative action practitioners throughout the nation meet in private conference behind closed campus and workplace doors, they make confidential, illegal decisions based on sex and race about whom to admit and whom to employ. How is it otherwise possible that women and minorities increasingly predominate on campus and in the workplace? How is it otherwise possible that affirmative action’s acolytes continue to increase estrogen and melanin in student bodies and workforces? Superior authentic qualifications? Of course. The superior qualifications are always clearly evident.
- Affirmative action is fundamentally sexist and racist in philosophy and practice. Its practitioners condemn sexism and racism in principle only to practice sexism and racism to their liking. They condemn “discrimination” in admissions and hiring only to discriminate with abandon. Affirmative action’s practitioners are self-serving sexists and racists. Recognize and attack their chicanery.
- Every attack on affirmative action is necessarily sexist and racist. Affirmative action traffics in sexism and racism. Sexism and racism are its stock-in-trade. It can be engaged and rejected only in and on its own terms.
- “Equal opportunity” is a clever euphemism for discriminating against white males, for favoring estrogen and melanin over testosterone and lack of melanin, for preferring vaginas and dark skin over penises and white skin.
- As ardent practitioners of affirmative action, many academics like to say biological race doesn’t exist, that race is a “social construct.” They want to conflate “race” and “species” and persuade people that the two concepts are the same, which they are not. People understand what race is, and they recognize its physical characteristics. So do academics, who race to enact race-based affirmative action while claiming there’s no such thing as race in their anti-white-male agenda. If there’s no such thing as race, there is, of course, no such thing as “white” or “Caucasian” for affirmative activists in higher education to discriminate against. Academics are certainly the fanciest of duplicitous double-dealers.
- Another favorite affirmative action concept, especially in higher education, is “implicit bias” or “unconscious bias.” There is no need to clarify this additional attempt to dupe people into accepting affirmative action. White males and their allies should make sexual and racial bias explicit and overt, as affirmative action does. Admit and employ white males knowingly and aggressively.
- Affirmative action practitioners, its women, and favored minorities, will gladly displace white males on campus and at work, then want even more (e.g., dominant power on campus and in the workplace, latitude to strengthen and expand affirmative action, authority to silence objections, fixed majorities in all branches and levels of government). They don’t want parity, they want control.
- Higher education increasingly mandates estrogen and melanin as admissions and job requirements. Estrogen- and melanin-free applications are routinely discarded as unqualified (thesis 50). White males with better authentic qualifications are rejected for being male and white, that is, not female and not brown (eligible pigmentation aside, thesis 31).
- As self-serving practitioners of affirmative action, women already dominate America’s college/university student bodies and higher education workforces with clear majorities (inform yourselves), but they will continue to insist they’re oppressed, underrepresented, and disempowered until they fully dominate and control campuses, until they successfully dispossess and displace not only white males, but males generally. Recognize this strategy and defeat it.
- Women do not care that they already dominate university campuses, both as students and workers, at the expense of men. They want to displace men, control America’s higher education system, and continue to serve themselves and their favored minorities from secure positions of power.
- Every woman and favored minority with a top university seat and a good job should check their affirmative action privilege: How much more for society and the profession could a better-qualified, more talented white male have done with your position?
- Women and minorities should, of course, gain college admission and employment. Opportunity is beyond question. They should not, however, gain admission and employment because they are women and minorities. They should not receive preference because of their estrogen and melanin credentials, because of their vaginas and dark skin. Authentic and proper qualifications should decide the antagonistic competition.
Part three of 95 Theses Against Affirmative Action enumerates ways to defeat the insidious practice. Stay tuned for theses 63-95.
Founded on January 16, 2017, AltRight.com brings together the best writers and analysts from Alt Right, in North America, Europe, and around the world.
- PO Box 320482, Alexandria VA 22320
- info [a] altright.com