The results of 45 years of good hearted unconstionality and Black Over-repsnation

Startling data on black overeprsenation i found in this brillant Paul Craig Roberts vdare.com article from August 06, 2002 with the slightly alarmist title "Abolishing America (contd.): Do Whites Have Rights?":

"The ink was hardly dry on the 1964 Civil Rights Act before an EEOC bureaucrat, Alfred W. Blumrosen, illegally and unconstitutionally subverted the statutory purpose of the law. Judicial complicity and congressional distraction enabled Blumrosen to redefine discrimination from a purposeful action against an individual to the absence of proportional representation regardless of discriminatory intent.

Thus did Blumrosen originate the system of race and gender privileges known as quotas that are thoroughly institutionalized throughout the government, private industry, and universities.

Racial quotas are so firmly entrenched that quotas prevail even in states where federal district courts have ruled against them and referendums have made them illegal.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced for 37 years. The result is a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women.

Now comes an astonishing report from the U.S. Office of Personnel Management: “Annual Report to Congress, Federal Equal Opportunity Recruitment Program, Fiscal Year 2000,” released in April 2002. [You can read it on Adversity.net, an anti-preference organization that fights for victims of reverse discrimination, with analysis and comment. The original government version may be found here.]

This report to Congress makes brutally clear that despite the “equal opportunity” name of the program, the purpose of the federal program is to make certain there is no equal opportunity for whites in federal employment.

The report uses tables and bar charts to make unmistakably clear that federal discrimination against whites goes far beyond merely achieving proportional representation for blacks. In all 22 independent federal agencies and in 16 of 17 federal executive departments, blacks are massively overrepresented.

In the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (sic) blacks comprise 46.4 percent of the employees. The “affirmative action” or racial quota target for proportional representation (percent in Relevant Civilian Labor Force) for the EEOC is 6.4 percent black employees.

Blacks are thus overrepresented in EEOC employment by 625 percent!

And the EEOC is the federal agency that is supposed to enforce equal employment opportunity.

Blacks are overrepresented in the National Science Foundation by 504.7 %; in the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. by 538.7 %; in the Securities and Exchange Commission by 452.1%; in the Smithsonian Institution by 452.1%, in the Federal Communications Commission by 370.1%; in the Social Security Administration by 263.5%; in the Commodity Futures Trading Commission by 375%; in the Office of Personnel Management by 286.7%; and so on.

In cabinet departments, blacks are overrepresented in Department of Education employment by 464.7%; in Department of Labor by 254%; in HUD by 383%; in Treasury by 176%; in Department of Justice by 106%; in Department of State by 165%; and so on.

The push is now on in the federal government to achieve comparable overrepresentation for Hispanics and females.

If these two “minorities” achieve similar overrepresentation, there will be no room for white males in the federal government.

Did you know that the federal government pays its managers “superbonuses” for hiring, training, and promoting nonwhites? According to a lawsuit filed against the Secretary of Energy by DOE employees, a DOE boss, Anibal Taboas, staffed the Argonne National Laboratory with minorities, while reassigning white males to dead end jobs where they could be terminated under reduction in force polices.

For this achievement, the lawsuit says Mr. Taboas received thousands of dollars in bonuses.

Note that no one in the government intervenes in behalf of white males who suffer discrimination, not President Bush, no congressional committee chairman, certainly not the Justice Department or the EEOC.

Today in the United States white people have no political representation. Whites have to struggle in the courts against government opposition to claim any resemblance to equal rights.

Explicit government policies have made whites second class citizens. Whites are a dispossessed majority in their own country.

Why did the white majority allow themselves to be stripped of the equal protection clause of the Constitution? Why do whites remain loyal to the political parties that took away their rights?"

Another hidden outrage.

The ugly reality of how the unknown civil rights movements has stripped Americans of basic liberity & given America the laws of a Bannana Republic

I'm like a sucker at the momement.

Why?
Well i'll tell but the reason why may shock you and may hopeful demolish some of the largest myths you have.

The reason why is that i've been reading Steve Sailer's brillant writing on Sotomayor and Ricci and "disparate impact" and rapidly i see one after another, the most basic freedoms that are non existent today as a result of that holyiest of holy entitys The Civil Rights Movement. It's nearly as much of a third rail to speak uncoventionally about as the Holacaust is. But i following Orwells adage, will have the integrity to follow reason anywhere no matter how unpopular a place. So out with: The greatest myth in american society today is that of the "holy"Civil Rights Movement that keeps on-a-chugging today not fighting any real discrimination or racism but doing all it can to make America's claim to be a land of colorblind freedome and justice look like a terrible joke.

(don't worry i will get to exsplaining why)

Where i went to school, the civil rights movement was taught a 100 times more than the founding, Kig might as well have been Washington, Malcolm X John Adams.
But oddly they basically just hammered into us again and again the same images and basics-"i have a dream", ruby bridges walking into school, roots the movie, harriet tubman and the underground railroad.

IN the end as me and my piers leave high school i realize how we really were never even taught about the civil rights movement just the fantasty. LBJ was never mentioned, the civil rights bills were not exsplained, busing neither, and certainly not any talk of the curtailed basic liberitys and never any discussion of why people like William f. Buckley and Barry Goldwater opposed unconstuitional civil rights laws, my piers don't even know who either men are nor of any "constuitional issue in regard to civil rights laws". And i know now for ceratian there terrible education on this so called civil rights movement (that for some reason only took rights away) was not a accident. To produce hordes of children with a entireely facile view of the civil rights movement is good for the left and its agenda. They prodice adolcents who know nothing about the civil rights movements laws, nor why many whites were angered by forced and unconstuitional integration and don'tt even know what "busing" is. Rather the see the civil rights movement literally in black and whites, good vs. evil, northern liberal angels and minoritys vs. evil southern republicans (they don't about the dixiecrats).This false version of the civil rights movement is taught like the liberal creation myth, which solifidys the totally rigtousness of the left and the instinstic dark racist motives of the right forver in young impressionable adolcents minds.


For kids to be taught about the actual civil rights movement is something the left must avoid occuring by all means. The 60's fantasy they teach like sunday school t eachers tecahing scripture, covers up the wholly opposite reality of what the civil rights movement was really like.

King is symbolic as the indivdual diety of this deified movement, for those "extremist" facts about his life show his deification to be just as false. I should not here that in saying that King and the movement he was figurehead of are not the dietys we known them both as, i am not then claiming either to be absolutely bad or amoral but human and mixed like most people and things, gray rather than all white or all black. There is the life MLK lead that we all know and were taught endlessly and not very well but his actual life is rather different and his full collection of views drawl a quite different picture than the diety laid before everyday children.
In reality he was not a saint but a plagarist, a adulterer, a supporter of large scale legalized racism, a likely private communist, a non-believer in numerous basic rights and freedoms enshrined by the constuition and a hypocritical preacher who lived as a rabid adulterer after church (the FBI tapped his rooms and recorded his fallandering on the day of his death he beded multiple women and was recording shoutied "i'm f*** for jesus!"). Copious friends of MLK say (most with glee) that he was probably a closet communist and many of his closet friends and partners claim that he confessed to being one in private. The fact that some of his closest associates were Soviet connected communist party USA leaders and that he had apaulling tolitrian (soviet like) views on wealth distrubition, taxes, and other matters suggest that MLK if not a secret pro-communists was pretty close to being so. As for his support of large scale legalized racism: it wouldn't suffice to merely exsplain that he longed for extreme tolytrian racial quoatas without specficying how extreme the quoata's he favored were: he once said that if a city had a 40 percent "negro" population that then "negros" should then rightly hold 40 percent of jobs in companys in that city.

The glaring contrast between the real MLK and the mythical MLK, when the full facts are reviwed, reflects the same contradiction betweem the civil rights movement myth propogated in public schools and the civil rights movement of reality.

Where are the magical fruits of this so called movement for basic rights? where are these new rights?

(Before i answer those 2 questions let me say that the improvement in race relations and the living consditions of african americans has been a unqaulfied good.)

But where are these new civil rights?

The sad answer is that the Civil Rights Movement produced no new rights (unless i missed them) only took away rights.

For 45 years now the 1964 Civil Rights Act has been illegally enforced. Those 45 years of good hearted unconstuitionality has resulted in a massive system of race and gender discrimination against white males in order to achieve proportional representation of racial minorities and women among other causes of white guilt.

Thanks to the Civil Rights Movement:

1. you no longer have the right-as a business owner-to not let romanians (or any minority group or gender) into your store if you don't like romanians (for whatever reason). a rather basic right, me thinks?

2. if your a bank, you no longer can give loans to whom ever you want, you can and will recieve massive discrimination lawsuites if you do not give enough loans to blacks compared to whites

3. you no longer, can treat female and male employees that differently.

4. if you do not hire enough black people you may be also recieve a discrimination lawsuite.

5. the goverment can force your kid to be bused 40 miles away to a inner city school instead of the neigborhood school down the block and parents can do nothing about it.

How strangely Orwellian it is to find that the legacy of the civil rights movement is not more liberity and freedom but the stripping of the most basic rights and freedomes and an a imposition of a new rigourous kind of legalized racism that digs deeper and deeper into places Legalized racism do not belong (not that it belongs anywhere).

Has conventional wisdom been stoned for 50 years? and Bringing Bob Dylan down to size

Once our parents die away,future generations won't get why people thought Bob Dylan or Jackson Pollock or Warhol were "extraordinary", infact they'll think conventional wisdom during the last 50 yrs quite bad, which makes sence cause hardly anyone in that time has been educated or not had there brain mashed by weed. no dis to potheaders but why are u paying so much to essentially go to bed and eat a box of pop tarts?


this was a status i came up with tonight.
i did because i read that Bob Dylan had a new album (one which i'm sure is automaticly being called "great").

Bringing Dylan Down to Size

If there is anyone those damn babyboomers will bow to it's Bob Dylan (and now also probably Obama). He is treated as diety, and has been compared to Zeus many time in fact.


This slavish auto-adoration that americans of a certain age practice, may be one of the few religouns thriving todays. We get to see how this mindlessness everytime Dylan puts out a record.


Look he's written some great stuff. Blood on the tracks, "all over the watch tower","as went out one morning" , "lovesick", "things have changed", "the death of hattie carell", "gates of eden" "you belong to me" are beatiful creations. And in reality Dylan is one of the best solo artists living in american music (which in fact there are very few) .

The bizarre things that one beholds about Dylanmania, once you listen to Blood on the Tracks which is from the 70's and/or "things have changed" (from late 90's), is that his most criticaly renowned and famous songs like "times are a changing", "ballad of a thin man", "hard rain", "like a rolling stone" are not only some of worse material but not very enjoyable to listen at all.


Everyone under 40 i know-when asked- have agreed to this sentiment and profession being as baffled as me at how overated Dylan is.

His famed period-the period that supposed to be his "prime"-from 64 to 1969 is not that good.

I often wonder if people think of that period as his golden era just because 64-69 was his best era of being photographed. AT it's heart the dylan phenmnon is really kind of just about image and coolness and having a cool icon to reflect how right the hippys cause was. He did look cool then and his inwardness and rebellious nature led people to call him a "genius" and a "poet" of the magnitude of Keats.

Warhol irrelvant

The fact that noone can do a "warhol" since Warhol makes some think he must have been great. BUt he isn't. Andy Warhol could easily have just become a intresting and innovative t-shirt designer, putting his silk screen "art" on t-shirts rather than canvas'. He would have been a noteworthy one. But he put his blown up phographs on canvas-large ones too and unfunatly rather than saying correctly that Warhol has "style", people say he's "a master".

There is this odd thing in the artworld (in part cause everyone in it seems to be a corrutaor of some sort) where artworld denizens can call artists "great" or not talk about them.

Anyways, Warhol's stuff are not moving at all, they do not make anyone(not on drugs) want to stare at them for 30 minuetes, they are not beatiful.

These people who go on and on about the symbolism of the cambells soup can are daft as hell. You don't have to have some great symbolism in mind about "the democracy of american consumerism" to have the idea of pianting a soup can.

BUt anyways, what he did took no effort and it shows. His art is heratless, no emotion exspressed. Just gloss, mindless gloss. You look at it and say "huh thats funny he just drew a dollar over and over again" and then you turn away after 3 seconds.

Warhol presonifys the mindless phenoma of getting good press for getting good press, his gallery owner calls him the greatest artist of the 200th century, so someone who lives in greenich village says, and on and on, the mindless conventional wisdom travels like the plague.
As photoshops grows more hispopularity will decline, people will see what a hoax it all was his "genius" that is.

Though he was cool and smart and funny as hell and stylish.