The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection$
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Albemarle Man Archive
Could SCOTUS be About to Restore Freedom of Association—Including for (Ahem) Whites?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • B
Show CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

The Regime Media is upset that the U.S. Supreme Court has accepted a case challenging Affirmative Action in college admissions [The Supreme Court adds affirmative action to its potential hit list, by Nina Totenberg, NPR, January 24, 2022]. And maybe it should be. In the famous case of Marbury v. Madison, Chief Justice John Marshall issued a ruling giving a result desired by the incoming Jefferson administration, namely the disqualification of a Judge appointed at the last minute by the much-loathed outgoing Adams administration. But the ruling also laid down long-term precedent—the right of the Supreme Court to overrule acts of Congress—completely adverse to what Jefferson himself wanted. Perhaps it is time for another Marbury v. Madison decision—this time for civil rights…including whites.

SCOTUS’ actual grant of certiorari consolidates suits against Harvard and UNC—see Steve Sailer’s posts Harvard to Its Asian Rejects: It’s Not You, It’s Your Personality and Black Female Judge Rules U. Of North Carolina Can Continue Violating 14th Amendment As Long As It Makes Even The Most Transparent Effort To Obfuscate What It Is Doing—but if Harvard loses, so does Yale, which is being sued by the same people.

The suits seek to find their undergraduate admissions policies invalid under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 due to the apparent discrimination of such policies against Asians [The Supreme Court will hear two cases that are likely to end affirmative action, by Ian Millhiser, Vox, January 24, 2022]. If the elite universities lose, the result would be stark: the cutoff of all federal funding, including any tuition funding for their students.

What has been little noticed, however, is that this suit poses some significant and uncomfortable problems for the Supreme Court.

On one hand, the Court could follow the lead of the federal First Circuit Court of Appeals and simply say, in effect, that while more blacks are good, more Asians are bad [Appeals court upholds ruling that Harvard admissions process does not discriminate against Asian Americans, by Nick Anderson, Washington Post, November 12, 2020]. Although that undoubtedly represents the thinking of our current elites, such thoughts are uncomfortable when enunciated out loud or in judicial opinions and the resulting backlash, in the first instance from Asians, will be increasingly hard to repress.

On the other hand, if the Court rules the policies discriminatory, it is faced with a monumental procedural task. Namely, what is the appropriate remedy?

In contrast to the admissions policies in their graduate departments, which—aside from ever present Affirmative Action—are relatively meritocratic and transparent, the undergraduate admissions policies of Yale and Harvard, have been for more than a century notoriously opaque. Over time, depending on the year, they have taken into account a bewildering and increasingly (to many) bizarre set of factors. The Wall Street Journal reported almost 20 years ago that Harvard rejected half of the double-800 SAT scorers who applied, while accepting many applicants with lower scores[For Groton Grads, Academics Aren’t Only Keys to Ivy Schools, by Daniel Golden, April 25, 2003]. These acceptances were presumably based, not only on money, but also on whether the applicant did/did not play the flute, grow up on a farm in the Midwest, know how to shoot a rifle, or had unicycled backwards across Afghanistan during the summer after their Junior year in high school.

The lower scoring cohort of course includes the low-scoring blacks—average SAT approximately 580/580, who are explicitly selected on the basis of race (a per-se violation of Title VI?). However it also includes a huge number of (presumably flute-playing) whites, and even Asians, who scored less but had other “factors” in their favor.

It is clear that this mixed bag of perpetually changing criteria has resulted in the admission of fewer Asians than would be admitted solely on the basis of scores received on standardized tests, nationwide mathematics and physics competitions, and the like. But what changes does the Court order in the current grab-bag set of criteria?

Does it force schools to throw out the entire admissions methodology they have used for more than a century? Are all colleges and universities to be reduced to selecting from a sterile test results list, from first to last, of standardized bubble test performers?

What about the poets? Will the schools be forced to ditch athletic programs?

Little noticed in this drama: SCOTUS has an effective exit ramp.

The Court could simply reverse a series of very weakly reasoned prior holdings under Title VI. These relate to the type of funding at risk in these suits that Harvard, Yale etc. actually receive, or are “deemed” to receive, from the Federal government.

Surprisingly, very little federal financing that Harvard and Yale receive go to their undergraduate departments, whose admissions criteria are the ones at issue.

The vast majority of federal funding goes either to their graduate programs—especially in the hard and social sciences—or to University students, in the form of tuition grants and loans.

The text of Title VI as enacted in 1964, together with its copious legislative history, indicated that the cutoff of funds required by that statute would be program-specific. (Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1972 uses similar language, referring to any “program or activity”.) Namely, if a research grant were given to the Harvard graduate school in Physics for a certain type of research, it would be that graduate department—not any other part of the University—that would be required to meet Title VI and IX non-discrimination requirements. In addition, grants to students under tuition aid programs would be viewed as grants to the students, unaffected by the racial policies adopted by the college the student chose to attend.

However, expansive—and arguably unsupported—regulations issued by Alfred Blumrosen of the EEOC shortly after the enactment of Title VI took the opposite position. These regulations, still in effect today, held that money going to only one program would put an entire University system under Title VI requirements, and that tuition money going to just one student attending a University, would result in the application of Title VI restrictions to the entire school.

(These are the regulations that first imposed—in apparent violation of the statute—what is referred to today as “Affirmative Action.”)

It is this, arguably incorrect, interpretation of Title VI that threatens a massive funding cut-off if the elite schools lose the suit, since only on the basis of that expansive interpretation would funds paid to students or to graduate departments be impacted in any way by undergraduate school policies.

But SCOTUS could simply reverse the arguably weak precedent upholding the EEOC interpretation and adopt the arguably more correct, and narrower, view of Title VI.

It could—and I argue it should—simply hold that, although the undergraduate admissions criteria illegally discriminate on the basis of race—both due to its treatment of blacks and of Asians—this failure will require no, or a very limited, cutoff of federal funds to Harvard and Yale. And it should hold that grants to students are to students, irrespective of the policies of the schools they attend; and that grants to graduate programs do not imply any Title VI coverage of the undergraduate departments of these Universities.

In addition, it could give Harvard and other elite schools more, not less, flexibility in designing its admissions requirements by eliminating or reducing the events under which “disparate impact” could trigger Civil Rights claims.

Although this might as a practical matter require some adjustment in graduate admission, those would be relatively small, since, as noted, graduate admissions in the main are basically meritocratic and transparent.

This would be a way for a conservative Court majority to reach the result fervently desired by the Woke Left—college admissions bureaucrats could discriminate in favor of their pet groups all they want–while creating precedent that would massively reduce the scope of the Civil Rights Act in years to come.

The resulting program-by-program limitation, if imposed by the Court, would be far more important than it might at first seem.

For example, if a student today obtains a federally funded scholarship or loan, any college he attends must comply with the full panoply of the Civil Rights Act restrictions and mandates, even if the college does not directly receive a single federal dollar. In order to avoid this, some schools, such as Hillsdale College in Michigan, decided early on to reject students financing their education with federal assistance. But this not only unfairly targets students who may wish to attend “unconventional” colleges, it also puts a college that rejects such students at a huge competitive disadvantage, since either it must completely finance its own scholarship or loan program or simply restrict its intake to the much smaller universe of students who can afford full-freight tuition.

In contrast, if the narrow “program” definition suggested here were adopted, the receipt by a student of federal assistance would not affect in any way the college he chose to attend. This would increase his freedom of choice and would relieve many colleges of the onerous burdens imposed by Act.

Similarly, today, if a research university received federal funding for medical or physics research in its graduate schools, the entire University must meet the almost endless Civil Rights Act tests—irrespective of the fact that no actual discrimination might be going on inside the physics or chemistry department graduate division.

But if a narrow interpretation of “program or activity” were adopted, the undergraduate program’s activities would be completely irrelevant to the compliance by the University with Title VI or IX—only the actions of the relevant graduate department would count.

If a narrow interpretation of “program” were accompanied by a definitive end to “disparate impact” rules, thereby giving colleges more, not less, flexibility to adopt non-academic admittance policies, the Court could let Harvard could “win” its case while at the same time significantly limiting the practical effect of the Civil Rights Act—limiting it back, in other words, to its intended, much smaller, scope.

This would not necessarily result in fewer blacks being admitted to Harvard. It might, in fact, result in more. In fact, everyone in the U.S. in 1963 would have taken for granted that a private college like Harvard could admit as many blacks as it wanted, regardless of academic ability, with no federal interference.

What it would do, however, is get the federal government out of the picture and reintroduce the right to freedom of association.

Yes, for Harvard. But also for the rest of us—including whites, should any college wish to attract such an unfashionable demographic,

A Marbury v. Madison result indeed. And in the area of Civil Rights, perhaps it’s about time.

Email Albemarle Man.

(Republished from VDare by permission of author or representative)
 
Hide 86 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. sally says:

    The answer is one national degree(everyone meets the standards or they clean toliets) with a major in a national college degree issued by the US Department of Education. . Remove college professorships and make the instructors into tutors and private writers of text books. .. hold national examinations. twice a year.. will not then matter what college one attended. or who was one’s tutor, or whether or not the applican passed the biased or unbiased intelligence tests. ..all that would matter would be that the applicat pass the nation examination general section and the speciality examination for a degree with major. in the speciality.. If the course work were free paid for by the same government that injected everybody for free with mRNA.. then there would be no need for student loans.. everyone could work and go to school.. Parents would not have to foot massive bills, and the nation would become better educated.

    Undergrad Colleges can close their doors, and color, race,and age and other discriminatory factors as factors in admission dicisions disappear..

  2. Nancy says:

    After early elementary grades, where basics are firmly learned in a SMALL in-person class, let’s use the Khan Academy model, and those identified as ‘struggling’ would get the needed tutoring. And everyone would learn, follow their interests, etc, proceeding at their own pace. I think there are some school districts using this method, and many universities have already put many of their classes online.

    Plus, let’s see how other countries, etc. are doing it! No need to reinvent the wheel, nor stick to an antiquated, ossified, no-matter-how-‘traditional’ system… especially as it was devised in Prussia to turn out pliant factory workers. See John Gatto’s books (NY teacher-of-the year, etc) But, for primary, what about the babysitting function of 2-parents-working households…. ? Hmmm….

    • Replies: @DracoSentien
    , @say
  3. Perineally, about half of Harvard’s student body are Jews.
    Jews represent 2% of the US population. No one raises the question of over-representation.

    • Replies: @Wizard of Oz
    , @Gugwee
  4. Marcus. says:

    Racism against Whites = GOOD
    Racism against Asians = BAD

    That’s the left in a nutshell.

    • Agree: Bro43rd
    • Replies: @anon
    , @anon
  5. We have FOA in our private homes. You can refuse anyone entrance to your home for any reason. Why not in our private businesses.? That’s where your money is on the line.

    If i want to ban blacks from my store i should be allowed to do so. I want to do it because they steal but i shouldn’t have to give a reason.

    • Replies: @Doc
    , @Mike Tre
  6. @Nancy

    Right, Prussia, which goes back to Hegel vs Schopenhauer :

    “…

    And so, too, with academies and chairs of philosophy. You have a kind of sign-board hung out to show the apparent abode of wisdom: but wisdom is another guest who declines the invitation; she is to be found elsewhere. The chiming of bells, ecclesiastical millinery, attitudes of devotion, insane antics—these are the pretence, the false show of piety. And so on. Everything in the world is like a hollow nut; there is little kernel anywhere, and when it does exist, it is still more rare to find it in the shell. You may look for it elsewhere, and find it, as a rule, only by chance.”

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10715/10715-h/10715-h.htm

    [MORE]

    ” When one sees the number and variety of institutions which exist for the purposes of education, and the vast throng of scholars and masters, one might fancy the human race to be very much concerned about truth and wisdom. But here, too, appearances are deceptive. The masters teach in order to gain money, and strive, not after wisdom, but the outward show and reputation of it; and the scholars learn, not for the sake of knowledge and insight, but to be able to chatter and give themselves airs. Every thirty years a new race comes into the world—a youngster that knows nothing about anything, and after summarily devouring in all haste the results of human knowledge as they have been accumulated for thousands of years, aspires to be thought cleverer than the whole of the past. For this purpose he goes to the University, and takes to reading books—new books, as being of his own age and standing. Everything he reads must be briefly put, must be new! he is new himself. Then he falls to and criticises. And here I am not taking the slightest account of studies pursued for the sole object of making a living.

    Students, and learned persons of all sorts and every age, aim as a rule at acquiring information rather than insight. They pique themselves upon knowing about everything—stones, plants, battles, experiments, and all the books in existence. It never occurs to them that information is only a means of insight, and in itself of little or no value; that it is his way of thinking that makes a man a philosopher. When I hear of these portents of learning and their imposing erudition, I sometimes say to myself: Ah, how little they must have had to think about, to have been able to read so much! And when I actually find it reported of the elder Pliny that he was continually reading or being read to, at table, on a journey, or in his bath, the question forces itself upon my mind, whether the man was so very lacking in thought of his own that he had to have alien thought incessantly instilled into him; as though he were a consumptive patient taking jellies to keep himself alive. And neither his undiscerning credulity nor his inexpressibly repulsive and barely intelligible style—which seems like of a man taking notes, and very economical of paper—is of a kind to give me a high opinion of his power of independent thought.

    We have seen that much reading and learning is prejudicial to thinking for oneself; and, in the same way, through much writing and teaching, a man loses the habit of being quite clear, and therefore thorough, in regard to the things he knows and understands; simply because he has left himself no time to acquire clearness or thoroughness. And so, when clear knowledge fails him in his utterances, he is forced to fill out the gaps with words and phrases. It is this, and not the dryness of the subject-matter, that makes most books such tedious reading. There is a saying that a good cook can make a palatable dish even out of an old shoe; and a good writer can make the dryest things interesting.

    With by far the largest number of learned men, knowledge is a means, not an end. That is why they will never achieve any great work; because, to do that, he who pursues knowledge must pursue it as an end, and treat everything else, even existence itself, as only a means. For everything which a man fails to pursue for its own sake is but half-pursued; and true excellence, no matter in what sphere, can be attained only where the work has been produced for its own sake alone, and not as a means to further ends.

    And so, too, no one will ever succeed in doing anything really great and original in the way of thought, who does not seek to acquire knowledge for himself, and, making this the immediate object of his studies, decline to trouble himself about the knowledge of others. But the average man of learning studies for the purpose of being able to teach and write. His head is like a stomach and intestines which let the food pass through them undigested. That is just why his teaching and writing is of so little use. For it is not upon undigested refuse that people can be nourished, but solely upon the milk which secretes from the very blood itself.

    The wig is the appropriate symbol of the man of learning, pure and simple. It adorns the head with a copious quantity of false hair, in lack of one’s own: just as erudition means endowing it with a great mass of alien thought. This, to be sure, does not clothe the head so well and naturally, nor is it so generally useful, nor so suited for all purposes, nor so firmly rooted; nor when alien thought is used up, can it be immediately replaced by more from the same source, as is the case with that which springs from soil of one’s own. So we find Sterne, in his Tristram Shandy, boldly asserting that an ounce of a man’s own wit is worth a ton of other people’s.

    And in fact the most profound erudition is no more akin to genius than a collection of dried plants in like Nature, with its constant flow of new life, ever fresh, ever young, ever changing. There are no two things more opposed than the childish naïveté of an ancient author and the learning of his commentator.

    Dilettanti, dilettanti! This is the slighting way in which those who pursue any branch of art or learning for the love and enjoyment of the thing,—per il loro diletto, are spoken of by those who have taken it up for the sake of gain, attracted solely by the prospect of money. This contempt of theirs comes from the base belief that no man will seriously devote himself to a subject, unless he is spurred on to it by want, hunger, or else some form of greed. The public is of the same way of thinking; and hence its general respect for professionals and its distrust of dilettanti. But the truth is that the dilettante treats his subject as an end, whereas the professional, pure and simple, treats it merely as a means. He alone will be really in earnest about a matter, who has a direct interest therein, takes to it because he likes it, and pursues it con amore. It is these, and not hirelings, that have always done the greatest work. … ”

    https://www.gutenberg.org/files/10714/10714-h/10714-h.htm#link2H_4_0006

  7. Pre-George-Floyd, the police picked up the most obviously deranged and/or dangerous black suspects. George Floyd was one such figure. Upon his death, the powers-that-be didn’t just make him out to be a sad victim of excessive police force but an angel and saint.

    So, what happened is either cops decided not to arrest the black thug saints or judges let them out easy.

    As a result, people are realizing how many deranged blacks there are. Prior to Floyd, many of them were the first to be picked up and put behind bars. Also, they knew they were watched by the police.

    Now, such thugs not only know cops won’t touch them but feel themselves to be another Floyd.

    “I am Floyd” is “I am Spartacus” for these loons.

    When Jesus died alongside criminals, He judged them.

    Now, the thug-criminal has been put at the center, even higher than Jesus.

    Jewish Power has so much to answer for.

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @CelestiaQuesta
  8. The solution, just as feasible as those previously proposed, is the recolonization of the parties discussed in the article. Send them back, without apology, and, after the mayhem and recrimination, all will be right with the world.

    Who will silence the Jew?

  9. Anon[135] • Disclaimer says:

    Let’s not fool ourselves – the real question is why is a small ethnic subset of whites accepted at 1200% the rate versus other candidates with similar board scores ?

    The Ivies these days are throughly corrupted by ethnic nepotism.

    • Replies: @Realist
  10. Polistra says:

    Author should have consulted with one Ron Unz on this topic. To help with the elephant in the room. It’s also telling that (even without mentioning the elephant) the essay is apparently so subversive that said author finds it necessary to publish anonymously.

    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  11. @sally

    “Muh exams are racist” – dindus

    Your idea would never work, dindus would just say there’s a racial bias, “there culturally not fit to take tests but just as capable” etc

    Anyways, dindus must be accepted to universities to fuck white women and non-blacks will pay for it. In the end it all comes down to sex, men work their asses off to attract a woman and then to provide for their family, not other people’s families, not other people’s kids. But with the current welfare state you are now paying for Tyrone’s kids. And if you give your child an advantage out of your hard work, it’s not fair, you gotta give the dindus “equality of opportunity”(ofc they want more). So you work your ass off so dindus have the opportunity to fuck your daughters and bully your sons because when looked at it at the very root that is what is happening. Welcome to 2022.

  12. gotmituns says:
    @sally

    Sir, that’s racis. Especially your concept of “standards.”

  13. I´m pessimistic; there is no precedent of gubmint ™ relenting on its ability
    to meddle (with the exception of the Nazis relaxing the gun laws imposed by
    the Entente), much less the SCOTUS.
    It´s the Second Law of governance: Like entropy, gubmint ™ sodomy can
    only increase.
    Dissperate Impack is the canonical Gospel recognized by the Communion
    of the Unholy, and if anything the screws are going to be turned on ever tighter
    (“Equity”); the most probable way out is declaring that quota are not only
    constitutional after all but de rigueur (which would at least end the indignities
    and subterfuge).

    A fundamental attack over freedom of association or equal protection would
    render every last Sibbyl Rite unconstitutional – can´t have that of course.

  14. We shall overcome? Call me skeptical regarding the Roberts Court. They like to cut the baby in half. My money is on Thomas to write the dissenting opinion.

  15. Get rid of the Social Sciences and Humanities since they’re just bullshit. Move medicine and anything that really matters into the STEM schools so that they get a bit of common senses along with their pill voodoo.

    The Chinese are winning because they graduate people that actually know something. Handing out degrees in political science, philosophy, art history, etc is telling people they have a valuable knowledge base when all they have is an opinion given to them by their idiot instructors. Cut the bullshit and cut the cost to allow those that want to actually learn something accomplish their goal while keeping the history majors out of school so they can sweep the streets.

    • Agree: Realist, HdC, CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @PhilMuhCrevis
    , @Curle
  16. President Masturbates-In-Oval-Office-Sinks kept “legal” anti-White affirmative garbage in the 90s with the oh-so-clever mantra, “Mend it, don’t end it.”

    In light of any new legal decrees, the ((( powerless lambs ))) who definitely don’t control media, academia and the legal system will keep on doing what they’ve been doing: scrapping standards “too difficult” for its preferred races.

  17. _dude says:

    Given that SCOTUS is still predominantly riddled with globohomo bugs (holding a majority), it seems unlikely that any major change to universalist policies will occur any time soon.

    Prediction: Well before the end of affirmative action, a “transgender” will be appointed to the court.

    • Replies: @Che Guava
  18. Che Guava says:

    I haven’t read all of the article yet, but I have read that Harvard has an immense fortune, in the thousands of millions, mainly invested in vampire capital, from what I have read, it is more a part of vampire çapitalism than a university.

    I would suppose that Yale and the others like it there are the same.

    So, why are normal tax-paying workers forced to pay these places that are now degree mills for morons, anything at all?

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
  19. Che Guava says:

    hard sand social sciences

    I have no idea what that is intended to mean, if the writer of the article can explain, it would be appreciated. Doubt that will happen, so if a fellow poster understands the ‘hard sand’ part, reply would be appreciated.

    • Replies: @CelestiaQuesta
  20. Realist says:

    Could SCOTUS be About to Restore Freedom of Association—Including for (Ahem) Whites?

    Very doubtful.

  21. KenH says:

    I don’t know the details of the upcoming cases but it seems SCOTUS is willing to hear the case because Asians are being discriminated against, so this might give them a chance to virtue signal. I doubt they would be willing to hear the case if brought by whites since whites are the untouchable class who deserve all the bad things they are getting.

    SCOTUS has spoken out of both sides of its mouth in the recent past. Per the letter and spirit of the Civil Rights Act race based criteria is strictly forbidden and SCOTUS has conceded that point yet allowed universities to use race on a narrowly crafted basis. If all race based admissions criteria are gutted as they should be then it means Asians win while whites will be second. Blacks and browns will be the biggest losers which is why the left is so agitated and exercised over affirmative action cases.

    The end of affirmative action means fewer black and brown lawyers and judges and that’s a good thing but it’s also why the Jew led radical left is wringing its hands.

  22. Realist says:
    @Anon

    The Ivies these days are throughly corrupted by ethnic nepotism.

    If true…it is totally the fault of gentiles.

    • Replies: @inspector general
  23. Anonymous[197] • Disclaimer says:

    What will you do with the Negroes if Affirmative Action is done away with, it’s not as if you can send them back to the southern farms to pick cotton, given that most of the farms are mechanized which require very little help?

    • Replies: @gotmituns
    , @CelestiaQuesta
  24. Rich says:

    The 14th Amendment is clear that no State can discriminate based on race. That was the whole basis of the “separate but equal” doctrine that the Court eliminated. The Court has also held that schools that accept federal dollars have to obey various federal regulations and laws. Discriminating against Whites is obviously unconstitutional, more unconstitutional than “separate but equal”. The owners of America have to be smart enough to realize that a country based on affirmative action is bound to crash and burn. Negros aren’t going to riot over less admissions to elite schools and crowding them in with the sons and daughters of the elite doesn’t advance the interests of the country. As bad as things are getting in this new, polyglot experiment, a return to strict meritocracy might stave off our decline. I can’t figure out how bad America’s owners want this country to get or their reasoning. They’ve got a golden goose here, why are they killing it?

    • Replies: @Anonymous Jew
  25. @RoatanBill

    Handing out degrees in political science, philosophy, art history, etc is telling people they have a valuable knowledge base when all they have is an opinion given to them by their idiot instructors.

    Way too much common sense there..

  26. @OldWhiteMan

    You are wrong to say no one mentions the over-representation of Jews. It is odd that you say it in a comment on UR because Ron Unz’s seminal work on the discrimination against Asians made quite a big point of the over-rrpresentaion of Jews whose academic results were no longer justifying it.

  27. I fail to see how this sort of opinion would restore freedom of association for whites…please elaborate..for example, how would this stop the govt from hiring nonwhites preferentially? How would this sort of opinion allow whites to have a whites-only social club?

  28. Doc says:
    @Hang All Text Drivers

    I’d be trolling like “well.. if corporations are people, not letting me have the same rights as a homeowner violates equal protection.”

  29. Organized jewry will never allow freedom of association for whites because murderous whites would perform another holocaust on poor innocent jews.

    So….they will find a way to help Asians and screw whites even harder.

    The SC has been totally jewed for a long time. Roberts is shabbos goy, ACB and BK are globohomo minions as well.

    Ironically, the black guy is the only genuine conservative on the court.

    There isn’t even one control point the nose doesn’t lord over and use to push anti-white nonsense.

  30. anon[256] • Disclaimer says:
    @Marcus.

    yeah its the Asians who are getting away with looting and murdering, and have special affirmative action benefits everywhere, and are shoved in your face all throughout the media right? stupid cuck….I bet you love jews as well.

    • Agree: Bernie
  31. Maddaugh says:

    For those of you who do not personally know any Ivy League graduates, Maddaugh wants assure you that they are not very bright. Their knowledge and ability to think is equivalent to 1% of those abilities in the first pioneers who crossed the continent.

    For those who smoke, drink and bathe once every 3 weeks and dont know any Ivy School elite you just need to look at the geniuses in DC.

    I really dont see what difference it makes whether you admit a dumb Negro or a half intelligent white. They will both graduate equally stupid.

    Like everything else what used to be valuable is now toilet paper and an Ivy League certificate falls on the bottom of the list even in this regard.

    • Thanks: CelestiaQuesta
    • Replies: @HdC
  32. gotmituns says:
    @Anonymous

    Outstanding question. Indeed, what would have to be done with such a parge group of useless people.

    But the “court” will in some way uphold affirmative action or just sidestep the issue with some sort of non-ruling that doesn’t effect the status quo – violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

  33. eah says:

    While I am not familiar with the legal fine points, particularly how this affirmative action case differs from previous ones, on the surface it does appear there is a conflict between the ruling in Gratz v. Bollinger (2003), where the court ruled affirmative action in undergrad admissions was unlawful, and the ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), where the court ruled affirmative action in admissions to professional school was lawful, in large part because the state has a ‘compelling interest’ in achieving diversity — the majority opinion in the latter case was written by midwit justice Sandra Day O’Connor (now retired), who also famously (and dumbly) said affirmative action would only be necessary for another 25 years or so.

    Given the above precedent in Gratz v. Bollinger, it seems plausible the court could find in favor of plaintiffs, since both cases are about undergrad admissions.

    If so, leaving the seemingly incongruous ruling in Grutter v. Bollinger in place would seem even more untenable — yet to void it would be an explicit rebuke of the claim that society has a ‘compelling interest’ in diversity which justifies affirmative action — it’s difficult to see the court taking such a politically controversial stance.

  34. Anon[139] • Disclaimer says: • Website

    Discussion of the Right to Privacy and the Right to Disassociate – –

    Including some cases already decided by SCOTUS – –

    https://www.redstatesrebel.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/7-Right_to_Privacy.pdf

  35. I just assumed our next war would be with China, and then wartime propaganda could successfully prejudice the country against Asians to thereby legitimize discrimination against them in college admissions and employment.

    But no, Russia. What good is a war with a country that hasn’t given you a scapegoat population at home? Now they have to continue their labored and hysterical claims of “foreign influence” in order to persecute people who would otherwise be natural patriots.

    We can’t even produce decent evil masterminds anymore. Even their diabolical plans are short-sighted and self-defeating. Either our leaders are utterly incompetent or they’re actively trying to fail.

  36. I figured this case was about Jews and Asians fighting over who gets to rule America, but what do I know?

    • Replies: @Anon
  37. HdC says:
    @Maddaugh

    Interestingly your summary above reflects my thinking regarding the effects of the Ivy League schools very closely.
    In the first instance a school’s quality/effectiveness is judged by the achievements of its graduates.
    And judging by that criterion, the Ivy League has been terrible.

  38. Anon[336] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paintersforms

    I figured this case was about Jews and Asians fighting over who gets to rule America, but what do I know?

    Don’t forget East Indians.

  39. Exile says:

    Harvard: Roberts, Breyer, Kagan, Gorsuch,
    Yale: Thomas, Alito, Kavanaugh, Sotomoyor

    Barrett’s the sole outlier – Notre Dame.

    If you think 8 law school grads from Yale and Harvard are going to buck that system, you’re a hopium addict.

    And as Painter says above, Whites gain nothing from this – it’s Jews and Asians fighting over who gets the membership slots for the ruling elite, no Whites allowed.

    Proxy sorta-wins on muh principles are not what Whites need but VDARE increasingly appears willing to settle for this.

    • Agree: CelestiaQuesta
  40. Mike Tre says:
    @Hang All Text Drivers

    “Why not in our private businesses.? ”

    Businesses cannot remove loitering negroes from their premises but can refuse entry to someone who refuses to wear a mask.

    The West is eating itself.

  41. Cowboy says:

    Cut off the spigot and watch the chaff burn

  42. Naw how imma suppose ta get uh degree in mafmadics if dey kill AA? Schitt, dat antz rite, imma get real, summinz gonna pay for dis, imma talk’n bout BLM burn loot murder, wow yeah huh huh, imma go gangsta and dats da troof.

    Nothing more despicable than watching AA hires watch porn all day as if they’re writing code. Like white actresses adopting black babies to justify how they’re not racist. Corporate (((BIGS)))) hire AA/diversity to fill mandated racial hire quotas.

    If thats not race discrimination, I don’t know what is.

    • LOL: KenH
  43. @Realist

    Not totally. This is to whitewash the instigators.

    • Replies: @Realist
  44. Admissions at elite Ivy League schools is misunderstood. Admissions is not based on “merit,” merit being described as some objective numeric calculation based on test scores and grades. Admission is based on selection of a “good class” which consists in good classmates who will make great life long friends, be successful, and give back lots of money to build the endowment. The process of putting together an Ivy League class is like casting a blockbuster movie or assembling next years national championship Alabama Football team.

    Reality is that if Harvard and Yale (and the rest of the Ivy League) got rid of “affirmative action” they could still deny admission to as many Asians as they choose.

    The artificial social construct of “merit” may matter in science and engineering programs at land grant state universities who in theory are charged with actively advancing knowledge in those fields. In any other college setting, it is immaterial.

  45. @Anonymous

    Do what they did to Maxine (werz mi weave) Waters, put Magic Negroz in charge of our financial institutions and let them decide where all the money goes. Or better yet, give them the power to run all our cities like they do Detroit, Camden, DC, Minneapolis, Chicago, Memphis, Atlanta, ad neausium.

    Everyone will be singing rap songs, twerking, drive by shootings, smash and grab, raping white bitches and burn loot murder 24/7/365.

    No AA No Peace

    My daily prayer – Pleez Russia, bomb those cities above, kill all the aspiring rapping geniuses for us. We’ve suffered enough.

  46. Be careful what you wish for. They will use the ending of race quotas to discriminate more against whites.

  47. The court may ban racial discrimination but countless other traits can legally be used in the admission process and, no doubt, schools will quickly find proxies identical to race. How about evidence of “overcoming hardship” or working for “one’s community”? The problem is not evil administrators who insist on hurting smart Asians. The problem is the mistaken belief that AA can cool black anger and bring domestic peace. But, it only exacerbates the problems.

    • Agree: Bernie
    • Replies: @ANON
  48. @Che Guava

    As a former beach bum and ex surfer dude, hard sand is wet coastal sand, the kind you can skimboard on. Soft sand is the dry sand that’s hard to walk on and requires extra foot and leg traction. So what this means scientifically is, hard sand sciences will eventually dry at low tide so socially enjoy while it’s wet, and in some places it may turn into quick sand so watch your step.
    I hope that helps explain hard sand sciences.

    • Thanks: Automatic Slim
    • Replies: @Che Guava
    , @Che Guava
  49. @Priss Factor

    We are witnessing a slow death of whites by a protected class of Sybil Rites Negroz let loose on society to burn loot murder and rape with impunity. The thirty or so white murders by black thugs media highlights is just the tip of the iceberg. How many are not reported as black on white killings? Or unsolved murders? Or missing white women buried in a remote shallow graves?
    Jewish controlled media relentlessly covers for hoodrats and gangbanggers, most are career criminals politicians use to justify their useless term of office.

    I’ve collected a database going back ten years on every despicable political, alphabet, LEO rat in America, when SHTF, it will be disbursed around the country to clean up crews and mop up teams.

  50. @Rich

    As bad as things are getting in this new, polyglot experiment, a return to strict meritocracy might stave off our decline.

    If nothing else, it would keep the bridges from falling and the planes from crashing. But, of course, civilization is much more than technology and competent public administration.

  51. @sally

    Some professions have extensive continuing education each year or as required for license renewal.
    Politicians have zero requirements to uphold the laws of the land or oaths they swore to uphold.
    In fact most would be unable to recite the constitution or bill of rights or any parts within. These are the same pos that demand we do what’s right for their pandering causes, not what’s right for we the people.

  52. Bernie says:

    To think I got started in all this by questioning affirmative action in my college classes in the early 90s. Now I consider it a minor issue.

    I hope they get rid of quotas but I don’t trust Barrett or even Kavanaugh. The problem is blacks and white leftists who enable them. Affirmative action is just a symptom.

  53. That picture of the grinning black with his Yale diploma makes me wonder…

    Has anyone looked to see if there’s any data showing that the prestige of an Ivy League diploma has declined of late?

    I mean, obviously a sample of one is pretty meaningless, but forty years ago, that someone had gone to Yale would have impressed me. Now, not so much. Maybe if he were a white or Asian gentile…

  54. “the admissions policies in their graduate departments, which—aside from ever present Affirmative Action—are relatively meritocratic and transparent…”

    Way to talk out of both sides of your mouth!

  55. say says:
    @Nancy

    you’re the only person to mention john gatto besides myself

  56. anon[590] • Disclaimer says:
    @Marcus.

    Racism against Whites = GOOD
    Racism against Asians = BAD

    That’s the left in a nutshell.

    If that were the case, these lawsuits never would’ve been necessary.

    It’s more like:

    Racism against Whites = GOOD
    Racism against Asians = BETTER

    That’s the real left in a nutshell. The reality is, the left simply doesn’t care about Asians. We are the invisible minority. Which is why Amy Wax said for the life of her she couldn’t figure out why Asians support the Democrats and because of that, the US should restrict all Asian immigration. As an Asian, I agree with her. The majority of Asians are sheep, or practical minded sycophants who will obey whoever is in power to get ahead. This is true of both Indians and East Asians.

  57. anon[590] • Disclaimer says:

    My money is on SCOTUS to do something totally cuck/lame, like upholding AA or do as this article suggests they would. The left love to trumpet the new “conservative” SCOTUS but the reality is, the three “conservative” judges appointed by Trump – ACB, Kavanaugh and Gorsuch, are conservative in name only, totally spineless in the mold of John Roberts, nothing like the real conservatives like Clarence Thomas or Samuel Alito. The puppet masters who’ve gained control over John Roberts via Jeffrey Epstein have also infiltrated the Federalist Society and are continuing to fool conservatives into nominating ever more of their fakecon judges.

    As an Asian, I actually hope they will uphold AA. Not because I don’t believe elite colleges discriminate against Asians, but because I hope they continue to, on an even more massive and brazen scale, for the following reasons:
    1) I hold these elite colleges responsible for leading the country down the abyss with the left wing lunacy they’ve been espousing for the past 3 decades.
    2) Asians’ worship of these elite colleges is a major reason why they stay elite. If all smart, high scoring Asians stop applying to these schools en masse, their prestige would drop like a rock.

    Nothing would please me more than to see the demise of the Ivy League. These bastions of left wing elitism and hypocrisy have always been doing more harm to the country than help. They are nothing but a country club that perpetuates inequality and the status quo by propping up their own grads and pulling up the ladder for everyone else, the breeding ground of arrogant, out of touch, hypocritical limousine liberals and champagne socialists.

    Education is NOT a competition. It’s time to free our best and brightest high schoolers from the burden of chasing elitism, from elite colleges to elite careers, and becoming perpetual slaves to the (((puppet masters))) running this country. Instead of wishing for SCOTUS to get rid of AA, conservatives should do the opposite – push for the Ivy League to become 100% black until such time as median black and white wealth reaches parity, make these hypocrites live up to their own hypocrisy and kill themselves off in the process. For America to survive, we must kill off all institutions run by alien-slugs, starting with our elite colleges, which is where all future generations of vampire squids and alien-slugs are culled and trained.

    • Agree: HdC
    • Thanks: mark green
    • LOL: simple mind
    • Replies: @Orville H. Larson
  58. ANON[590] • Disclaimer says:
    @Robert Weissberg

    The problem is the mistaken belief that AA can cool black anger and bring domestic peace. But, it only exacerbates the problems.

    Exactly right. AA results in academic mismatch which means whichever college blacks get admitted to, they’ll always be at the bottom quartile academically, unable to compete with much better qualified Asians and whites so they overwhelmingly end up in soft majors like ethnic/regional/gender studies. If instead of Harvard, top scoring blacks enroll at UMass-Amherst or Cal State-Fresno, they’d be at the top quartile and graduate as engineers, computer programmers etc. Instead, we get a ton of ethnic/grievance studies majors from Harvard to regional state colleges who do nothing but bitch about racial discrimination on campus. And where would a Harvard grad with a useless African-American studies degree go? You can’t well let him go unemployed or make minimum wage working for the government. So off they go to that new corporate gravy train – VP/director of DIE, and then more bitching, etc.

    A few months back, the VP of DIE at Google, a black woman, resigned because she was “frustrated” that Google wouldn’t hire CS grads from the “prestigious” HBCU Howard U. She claimed they were just as good and qualified as CS grads from other schools, presumably from Stanford, UCB, MIT or Caltech. Turns out most either couldn’t pass Google’s notoriously difficult interview process with lots of mind benders/brain teasers, or weren’t invited back after an internship. How long before blacks or their Jew masters launch a lawsuit against tech firms seeking to ban them from asking tough problem solving questions at interviews because these questions are “racist”? They already made it illegal for companies to test employees which was what led to the overwhelming reliance on college diploma.

    Got to keep that gravy train going.

    • Replies: @RedpilledAF
  59. Realist says:
    @inspector general

    Not totally. This is to whitewash the instigators.

    That was not my intent. I concede the instigators hold some culpability.

  60. Ron Unz says:

    If anyone’s interested, we recently updated our College Demographics database with the latest 2020 figures, so it’s easy to get the historical trajectories for all of the thousands of American colleges.

    For example, I just checked and Harvard’s black enrollment took another very big jump upwards in 2020, and has now grown by 75% since just 2015:

    https://www.unz.com/enrollments/?r&ID=166027&Institution=Harvard+University

    Meanwhile, whites are now down to just 34%, probably meaning that Gentile whites are probably around 10%, despite representing 60% of both the American population and the highest performing high school graduates:

    https://www.unz.com/runz/american-pravda-racial-discrimination-at-harvard/

  61. Anonymous[423] • Disclaimer says:

    Why are we wasting our time criticizing irreversibly corrupt courts who’re now imposing political status over rights-based, constitutional contract, as if America was some primitive society? It’s time for war, not talk. The reason we’ve recently had our asses kicked is that the Republicans, those poofters who’ve never conserved one thing over the past seventy-five years, are still getting billions from their American- and Christian-hating Jewish billionaire owners. Seriously, is there still any question about this? Legacy America needs to wake up and recognize that the Republican leadership are pink poodles like McConnell and Graham in the Senate and, in the House, the Christian-hating homosexual Jew, Frank Luntz’s roommate, Kevin McCarthy.

    What kind of voyeur lets his children face the front of battle so he need not and pretends that more talk is the answer? The sort of voyeur who measures his manhood by his devotion to the white-hating Jews and their plantation niggers of the NFL. This is probably terminal. Anyway, the Republicans, as a one-to-one function of Jewish billionaire’s money, function to neutralize native leadership in America from arising. What could be more obvious than the Republican leadership’s using Old Glory to wipe off their chins after emerging from behind closed doors with their Jewish masters, such as Marcus, Singer—possibly the most evil man on the planet—, and that other Christian-hating Jew, Charles Koch.

    • Replies: @mark green
  62. Gugwee says:
    @OldWhiteMan

    I don’t mean to be a spelling Nazi, but the word you want is “perennially”. “Perineal” refers to the “down-there” areas of the human body.

  63. @ANON

    “If instead of Harvard, top scoring blacks enroll at UMass-Amherst or Cal State-Fresno, they’d be at the top quartile and graduate as engineers, computer programmers etc. ”

    You are being very generous. Even at lower level/mediocre state schools they do bad. They even fail, often enough, at the community college level.

    • Agree: Pierre de Craon
  64. Jim123 says:

    When racism in United States is properly understood as existing in a framework, precisely, as in a power equation: individual versus an institution, for example, a rational discussion of Harvard University’s Pyrrhic victory contra Asian Americans can be understood.

    It is in this realm actual racism exist.

    Institutional racism.

    That is to say, racism emanates from the power center, for example, Harvard; and the institution’s action directly and concretely impact the individual, who is discriminated against.

    Though it may not be obvious, neither Harvard nor judges hearing this case dispute any of this.

    US Supreme Court, now sitting on this case precisely because lower courts obfuscated this essential, key, social fact.

    Theoretically, no school is eligible for federal dollars who put their finger on the scale, as it were, to direct an outcome that would not otherwise have occurred.

    This is at heart of the Asian Americans complaint against Harvard.

    ?Another reason, I suspect, Supreme Court is stepping in is obvious.

    The social and political dimension being also obfuscated as — as scholarship — as educational imperative [that, alas, bear no relation to rational discourse]. For example, Amherst College President Biddy Martin hailed federal court decision upholding ‘race-conscious’ admission policy at Harvard University; she was not alone!

    The decision by a federal district court judge in Boston upholding Harvard University’s “race-conscious” admissions policy was applauded all over academia — at the institutional level.

    US District Court Judge Allison D. Burroughs’ decision said that although Harvard’s policy is not perfect, they have done the right thing by refining their policy on an ongoing basis, for the stated goal of creating a diverse student body.

    “Amherst [College] welcomes and applauds the decision in the Harvard University admissions lawsuit, which affirms the importance and constitutionality of race-conscious admissions as part of a holistic review of applicants to our colleges and universities,” Martin said in a statement posted on the school’s website.

    On Amherst’s Facebook page, she added: “Our society depends for its well being on the identification and development of talent wherever it exists. It exists in every community and group.”

    Burroughs’ 130 page opinion is mostly a review of the myriad evidence presented, including statistical data analyses.

    Her three-page conclusion refers to the late Toni Morrisson.

    “The wise and esteemed author Toni Morrison observed, ‘Race is the least reliable information you can have about someone. It’s real information, but it tells you next to nothing,’” Burroughs’ decision states.

    Morrison was the Robert F. Goheen Chair in the Humanities at Princeton University until her retirement in 2006 — along with being a novelist whose works included “Tar Baby,” “God Help the Child,” and “The Bluest Eye,” she was an essayist and editor.

    “The students who are admitted to Harvard and choose to attend will live and learn surrounded by all sorts of people, with all sorts of experiences, beliefs and talents. They will have the opportunity to know and understand one another beyond race, as whole individuals with unique histories and experiences,” the judge wrote, adding that this type of diversity “at Harvard and elsewhere that will move us, one day, to the point where we see that race is a fact, but not the defining fact and not the fact that tells us what is important, but we are not there yet. Until we are, race conscious admissions programs that survive strict scrutiny will have an important place in society and help ensure that colleges and universities can offer a diverse atmosphere that fosters learning.”

    The lawsuit, filed in 2014 by Students for Fair Admission, Inc., alleged in their complaint that: “Today it is used to hide intentional discrimination against Asian Americans.”

    The plaintiffs also alleged in their complaint that Harvard’s admissions policy, at one time in the past, “was created for the specific purpose of discriminating against Jewish applicants.”

    To the question: [[[Does it force schools to throw out the entire admissions methodology they have used for more than a century?]]]

    This statement assumes there has been a clear and rational methodology, which this essay elsewhere suggests has not been the case and is part of the problem.

    The obviously obvious answer is US colleges and university must not discriminate, otherwise they are barred from our tax dollars. There is nothing complicated about this.

    The program and activity at issue is the admissions programs themselves, and the discriminatory activity by human beings employed at the institution, to perpetuate institutional racism, period.

    Social engineering activities by the institution itself, to obfuscate its institutional racism has been a great success. Whether or not the Supreme Court will see fit to correct errors of lower courts, that merrily legitimize this obfuscation, remain to be seen.
    -30-

  65. @Polistra

    … the essay is apparently so subversive that said author finds it necessary to publish anonymously.

    Just so. Sad to say, it is the aim of virtually every article originating at VDARE to draw the reader’s attention away from (((the elephant in the room))).

    There was a time when I thought that this strategy made sense, but I came to understand that it works to the Jews’ benefit, not to ours. Truth must out.

  66. @anon

    The majority of Asians are sheep, or practical minded sycophants who will obey whoever is in power to get ahead.

    George Takei, one of the last living victims of fascism, is a Democrat today. That’s like a Gypsy voting NSDAP, or an Armenian or Kurd voting for Erdoğan.

    • Replies: @Robert Dolan
  67. Mike-SMO says:

    As with most issues, selective enrollment will be Handled at the “margins”, probably by irrelevant criteria.

    In olden days, the university/department got a “cut” off every grant, so the entire organization would be involved in any action & penalty.

    If a penalty was to be restricted only to that portion of the organization involved, a penalty might involve the exclusion of federal support for tuition or for the support of “teaching assistants”, housing, etc. by making the offending organizations exempt from such benefits.

    University admission criteria were always idiosyncratic. I recall a period when “geographical distribution” (in the U S) and parental occupation(s) were of concern. Those were mostly irrelevant to national politics. Adding “race” as a criteria is a dangerous move considering current politics. That addition means that admissions is no longer a private matter. This will get messy and painful.

  68. d dan says:
    @anon

    “The majority of Asians are sheep, or practical minded sycophants who will obey whoever is in power to get ahead. This is true of both Indians and East Asians.”

    LOL. This is exactly the same accusation I heard from the opposite side. A Chinese democrat accuses those Asians who support republican as bootlicker for the majority white and the powerful. If I remember correctly, he uses the word “sycophant” too to describe those Asians. LOL.

    Personally, I regard both parties as evil, and will NOT support either one in my life time. However, if someone pointed a gun at my head and ask me to choose one, I would probably choose democrat than republican. For democrat, the worse is that your son loses admission to Harvard or you lose your job promotion to a gay colleague, but for republican, you could be accused of spread virus, or locked up for spying for China.

    And the fact that Asians are so sharply divided with strong view proves that they are not “sheep”, but strongly individualist and independently minded. You feel otherwise because “your side” loses among Asians.

  69. @Reg Cæsar

    George Takei has had his anus pounded so much that his teeth rattled and his brains spilled out onto the street eons ago.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
  70. @Anonymous

    [A]nd that other Christian-hating Jew, Charles Koch.

    Neither Charles Koch or his late brother, David, seem to have any Jewish ancestry; nor have they ever claimed any. The Koch brothers were born in Kansas. Their grandfather was a minister of some sort. Both are/were Libertarian in philosophical outlook. Charles Koch received advance degrees from MIT. The Koch brothers are/were very smart and very hard-working. David died a few years ago but Charles is still worth an estimated 61 billion dollars.

    The Koch brothers’ various companies employed tens of thousands of Americans. Both Koch brothers opposed the (pro-Zionist) US wars on Iraq and Libya. Like Ron Paul, they are reliably non-interventionists in their political philosophy. There’s no evidence (that I’ve come across) that either David or Charles Koch ever showed any antipathy towards Christianity.

    • Agree: Pierre de Craon
    • Replies: @Pierre de Craon
  71. @Robert Dolan

    Maybe he was “turned” by one of the New Dealers running the camp.

  72. @anon

    That’s the real left in a nutshell. The reality is, the left simply doesn’t care about Asians. We are the invisible minority.

    I think this is largely because unlike some, Asians by and large do very well in first world nations where intelligence and good work ethic will usually keep them afloat. For nearly all of them, who’s running the show doesn’t make much difference, which explains the political indifference. When we’re talking about the “some” that are without a doubt the dumbest of the dumb and display lazy as a badge of honor, these people are the fuel that keeps liberals in business. It’s as simple as bribery, and with the influx of more refugees that couldn’t make in their previous digs they’ll lap the gibs up like mothers milk as well. Without the dregs of society in the US the left would never win another election from DC to school board seats. In my opinion in less than a decade or two the GOP will be a memory and the election process will end up somewhat like elections in Saddam run Iraq. Yeah there will be elections, but the outcomes won’t be a surprise for anyone.

  73. Access to white people is not a human right.

    • Replies: @MrE3001
  74. @mark green

    There’s no evidence … that either David or Charles Koch ever showed any antipathy towards Christianity.

    Quite true. On the other hand, there’s also no evidence known to me that either Koch ever showed sympathy or support for it. (I’m aware that this is not something you necessarily consider a failing.)

    Otherwise I fully agree with your comment, with especial regard to their not being Jews or selling out to the Jews.

  75. MrE3001 says:
    @Scott Schroeder

    Which is why it’s denied to White people.

  76. Che Guava says:
    @CelestiaQuesta

    Thanks, and I understand, but the ‘hard sand’ you and I may have known does not match the reference by the original
    commentor, as for your reply, I have experienced a step and fall into quicksand, interesting and scary, but no connection with ‘hard sand’.

  77. Che Guava says:
    @CelestiaQuesta

    Thanks, and I understand, but the ‘hard sand’ you and I may have known does not match the reference by the original
    commentor. I think of it as wet or dry sand. When surfing, the shore is always wet sand, by nature. so I think you have not captured the O.P.’s thoughts.

    As for a more interesting thing , I have experienced a step and fall into quicksand, interesting and scary, but no connection with ‘hard sand’. However, I don’t think quicksand ‘ponds’ I suppose is the best way to say it, are very common. Perhaps I am wrong on that, but have only encountered one once. If I think hard, perhaps another once or twice I have avoided places that looked like they may be quicksand, but in estuaries, the real quicksand on coasts seems to be very rare. but sure, I know from experience that such places exist.

  78. anon[237] • Disclaimer says:

    I is Floyd.

  79. @anon

    ” . . . They are nothing but a country club that perpetuates inequality and the status quo by propping up their own grads and pulling up the ladder for everyone else, the breeding ground of arrogant, out of touch, hypocritical limousine liberals and champagne socialists.”

    Agreed. They think that a Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Dartmouth, etc. diploma confers unique wisdom on them. They feel entitled to lord it over Joe Sixpack. (Remember the old saying, “You can always tell a Harvard man, but you can’t tell him much!”)

    The U.S. Supreme Shysters are nothing but nine unelected, unaccountable, ethics-free megalomaniacs. 330 million Americans have to live under these judicial dictators.

    (Speaking of our black-robed rulers, you know that Stephen Breyer has decided to pack it in after–what is it, 28 years?! I heard some speculation that V. P. Kamala Harris is among those being considered for the nomination! Biden intends to nominate a black woman.)

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
  80. @Sollipsist

    Sollipsist says: “I just assumed our next war would be with China, and then wartime propaganda could successfully prejudice the country against Asians to thereby legitimize discrimination against them in college admissions and employment.

    But no, Russia. What good is a war with a country that hasn’t given you a scapegoat population at home?”

    Are you blind? In the case of a war with Russia, the scapegoat population at home is white people.

    Whites in America are no longer playing in the inter-ethnic intramurals; thanks to unrelenting diversity, whites are now playing in the racial varsities, and whites are not the home team.

    • Replies: @Sollipsist
  81. @Orville H. Larson

    Harris is primarily Indian and white, so she is not “a black woman.” She’s a lying, bullying, corrupt, overrated, authoritarian scumbag, but not a black woman.

    • Agree: Orville H. Larson
  82. Curle says:
    @RoatanBill

    “ Handing out degrees in . . . philosophy . . . is telling people they have a valuable knowledge base when all they have is an opinion given to them by their idiot instructors.”

    In fairness that is the exact opposite of the traditionally stated purpose behind an philosophy degree.

  83. Curle says:

    Albermarle Man neglects to inform us whether the relief he recommends is requested by the plaintiffs. If not, I presume the question is not part of an active case or controversy.

  84. @The Germ Theory of Disease

    That was kinda the point of the very next line after the quote — the “natural patriots” I was referring to are we “deplorables” who they’re targeting, using “Russian influence” as a desperate argument any time there’s criticism (or a rare victory) against the warmongering establishment.

Current Commenter
says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
$
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Commenting Disabled While in Translation Mode
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Albemarle Man Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The Shaping Event of Our Modern World
The Surprising Elements of Talmudic Judaism
Shouldn't they recuse themselves when dealing with the Middle East?