The Ideology of the Professionals
By • 6/6/07 |
Police escort schoolbuses in Boston. |
In “Why the ‘Whites As Cancer’ Myth?,” I used the early political career of John Kerry to demonstrate why anti-white slanders have proven so popular to a large segment of the American public. Kerry used unsubstantiated tales of atrocities committed by American soldiers in Vietnam to slander not only his fellow soldiers, but also his country and his race. Nevertheless, his activism made him a hero to many Americans and was the beginning of a successful political career.
I argued that anti-white slanders were attractive because they were a demonstration that the slanderer had overcome ethnocentric bias. What better way for whites to demonstrate they were free of the pre-fascist inclinations of the masses than to constantly harp on the evils America had committed, real or imaginary? Besides, the critical spirit that enabled them to realize the evils of their own people made them smarter and more sophisticated than others. Consequently, Kerry’s campaign of fraud made him courageous, heroic, intellectual, sensitive, and “hip” in the eyes of many.
The principle applies much more widely than just to Kerry’s career. Rather, the anti-ethnocentric snobbery he displayed was typical of his time. It was particularly common among American professionals and young people who aspired to become professionals, as Kerry, a future lawyer, did.
Professionals work in labor categories that require specialist educational credentials; some examples are lawyers, doctors, professors, journalists, teachers, and engineers. Due to the need for specialized skills in the emerging “knowledge economy,” the professional class was expanding rapidly both in numbers and influence in the 1960s and 70s. In 1960, only five percent of political interest organizations represented professionals; in 1980, 15 percent did.1
Classes naturally seek power, and one of their primary means of doing so is the production of myths. The sociological term for a myth that advances class interests is “ideology,” so that is the term that I will use here. The ideology of the professionals was that they were a uniquely tolerant and broad-minded group battling to save America from the uneducated, pre-fascist white majority.
All in the Family dramatized this myth perfectly. On the one hand, you had Archie Bunker, the racist, fearful, blue-collar bigot; on the other, in Meathead, you had an idealized image of the liberal young pre-professional, earnestly studying for his college degree—towards the end of the show’s run, Meathead becomes a professor. In episode after episode, Meathead manfully does battle, and prevails, against Archie’s ethnocentric extremism.
The work of sociologists had laid the ground for the sit-com confrontation. The period between the 1950s and 70s produced a voluminous literature on the dangerous authoritarianism of the white working class. According to the intellectual historian and social critic Christopher Lasch, in this period “one study after another depicted a working class … socially at sea, resentful of blacks and other minorities pressing up from below, beset by status anxiety, and ripe for radical demagogues.”2 In the 1960 book Political Man, the most famous of these studies, sociologist Seymour Martin Lipset described his “gradual realization that extremist and intolerant movements in modern societies are more likely to be based on the lower classes than on the middle and upper class.”3 There was much hand-wringing about emotional remoteness of working class parents and their tendency to use corporal punishment in child-rearing. These dangerous tendencies were, in the view of the scholars, due to lack of education.4
It was the professional class that displayed most markedly the anti-authoritarian and anti-ethnocentric spirit that characterized the 1970s. In fact, according to historian Steven Brint, antipathy to authoritarianism was the foundation of professionals’ political outlook.5 These inclinations contrasted with those of blue-collar whites, who possessed a strong sense of racial solidarity and were more likely to support traditional values.
In the period between 1974 and 1988, professionals’ stance on social issues was easily the most liberal of any American group. They were about twice as likely as blue-collar workers to support government programs to help blacks, racial integration, environmental spending, civil liberties, women’s equality, reducing the role of the military in American life, and the rights of the accused in criminal prosecutions. It is worth noting that high-income business people, while not as liberal as professionals on social issues, were much more so than blue-collar workers. When it came to economic issues, such as welfare and reducing income inequalities between the rich and poor, however, blue-collar workers were furthest to the left and business people furthest to the right.6
Brint finds large discrepancies in political attitudes among various spheres of professionals. Relatively conservative groups of professionals were those who worked in the applied sciences, such as chemists, physicists, and computer scientists, and in business services, such as accountants, auditors, corporate attorneys, and management consultants.7
The most liberal groups of professionals worked in the culture and communications sphere (university professors, journalists, and artists are examples), the civic regulation sphere (such as prosecutors and judges, staff responsible for running public works and mass transit systems, and the employees of liberal foundations), and the human services sphere (such as teachers, counselors, therapists, and social workers).8 Another good predictor of liberal views among professionals was employment in the public and non-profit sectors.9
When Brint analyzes the views social and cultural professionals in the 1974-76 period, he predictably finds that they were even more liberal than professionals as a whole on social issues. This group was also most likely to support welfare programs, although the gap with blue-collar whites was small.
What is striking, however, is that, despite all of their liberal sympathies, social and cultural professionals did not express strong support of the labor movement, the institution that had traditionally defended the interests of the poor and powerless. Indeed, social and cultural professionals were less likely to support the labor movement than professionals as a whole, and were much closer to high-income business people in this respect than to blue-collar workers.10 The reason for the anomaly was probably that the labor movement spoke in the name of blue-collar whites, and the anti-ethnocentric elite sympathized with minorities.
The issue on which there was the widest discrepancy between professionals and the rest of the public was busing. In 1974, over 40 percent of professionals supported busing to promote racial integration, as opposed to ten percent or fewer of blue-collar whites, high-income businessmen, and blacks.11 Brint does not break out social and cultural professionals separately, but given their other beliefs, it can scarcely be doubted that they were particularly likely to support busing.
Professionals’ view of busing perfectly illustrates their hostility to blue-collar whites. Since the latter were more likely to live in the urban neighborhoods that desegregation orders applied to,12 it was they who were most damaged by the social disruption that busing caused. The public-sector professionals in the legal and educational spheres who implemented busing were plainly motivated by resentment towards blue-collar culture. Ronald P. Formissano makes this point in Boston Against Busing, a history of school desegregation in Boston, where the dispute over busing was particularly bitter.
The desegregation planners … looked upon the Southie Highs [a white urban Boston high school] of the world as at best anachronisms, and at worst as narrow, parochial places perpetuating distrust of outsiders, prejudice, ethnic and racial stereotypes, and outmoded and ineffective modes of education, trapping their students in a cycle of immobility. The planners (e.g., Board of Education employees, Judge Garrity’s advisers) believed that it was right on both moral and utilitarian grounds to “take away” the Southie Highs from their communities. The planners assumed the superiority of their middle-class and cosmopolitan values to those of persons and groups they judged to be localist, uneducated, and, unlike themselves, bigoted.13
Formissano also points out the sense of superiority the busing dispute caused in affluent liberals:
One consequence of the… desegregation that tends to be imposed on the lower classes is that the white working class screams and acts out its frustration in public. Neighborhood militants and racists [who publicly protest busing] are catapulted into influence and to the forefront of media attention, while an aura of shame begins to infect the atmosphere. This allows the rest of society, particularly middle-class liberals, to feel morally superior to the “racists” in South Boston.14
Anti-busing protesters recognized the class hostility directed against them:
When antibusers compared themselves to black activists, they usually ended up seething with bitterness. “They were heroes and martyrs,” they lamented, “but we are racists.” Who regarded the antibusers as racists? The liberals, suburbanites, elite politicians, outsiders, and especially the media. For antibusers these groups not only overlapped, but “the liberal establishment” and the media were virtually the same thing: a hated enemy who presumed to judge them from the safety of their “lily-white” suburbs. The media doubly frustrated the antibusers by portraying them as racists and by refusing to anoint them with victim status, much less to bestow on them a mantle of morality. But the liberal media earlier had readily legitimized black demonstrators and hairy, unruly youth [that is, leftist student protesters]. For the antibusers, the contrast was infuriating.15
Professionals in the 1970s, particularly in the social and cultural sphere, viewed themselves as an educated, enlightened minority defending America from the pre-fascist masses. This ideology of anti-ethnocetric snobbery is epitomized by a remark made in 1972 by J. Stanley Pottinger, a white lawyer employed at high levels of the US government, including assistant Attorney General, during the Nixon and Ford administrations. On hearing it argued that affirmative action was wrong because it discriminated against whites, Pottinger exclaimed, “That is the biggest crock I have ever heard. It is the kind of argument one expects to hear from a backwoods cracker farmer.”16 Pottinger’s remark demonstrates that professionals were contemptuous of rural, as well as urban, white non-professionals. It is, moreover, the perfect emblem of a class that crusaded against bigotry while remaining blind to its own.
- Steven Brint, In an Age of Experts: The Changing Role of Professionals in Politics and Public Life (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1994), 4. ↑
- Christopher Lasch, The True and Only Heaven: Progress and its Critics (New York: Norton, 1991), 460. ↑
- Ibid., 460-61. ↑
- Ibid., 460-68. ↑
- Brint, 103. ↑
- Ibid., 89. ↑
- Ibid., 55-56. ↑
- Ibid., 56-60. ↑
- Ibid., 92. ↑
- Ibid., 120 ↑
- Ibid., 108. ↑
- Ronald P. Formisano, Boston against Busing: Race, Class, and Ethnicity in the 1960s and 1970s [book on-line] (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1991, accessed 4 June 2007), 13; available from Questia, http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=24275601; Internet. ↑
- Ibid., 17. ↑
- Ibid., 233. ↑
- Ibid., 5. ↑
- Paul Seabury, “HEW and the Universities,” Commentary (February 1972), p. 44. Quoted in Michael Lind, The Next American Nation: The New Nationalism and the Fourth American Revolution (New York: Free Press, 1995), 150. ↑
If you want this article to be exposed to a wide audience, take the time to recommend it at digg. Millions of readers traffic the site, and the more recommendations an article gets, the better its chance of being read. If you don't have digg account yet, registration is easy. Just click submit to get started. |
Click here to join the White America mailing list. You'll get an e-mail notice whenever White America publishes new entries.
I am a libertarian, and my sympathies are not with the socialist white working classes, who are more likely to be white nationalist than their richer brethren. However, I am against government forcing middle class whites to mix with those who they don’t want to mix with and subsidizing multicultural communities.
I attended law school in the 80’s. I can’t really remember one professor who didn’t tow the liberal line. It’s irritating and embarassing, but some of the prevailing ideology even crept into my narrative, if you will, and effective expungement has taken its sweet time, but is nearly (as far as I can objectively discern) complete.
To the Realist and All (in The Family) as might be:
“All in the Family dramatized this myth perfectly. On the one hand, you had Archie Bunker, the racist, fearful, blue-collar bigot; on the other, in Meathead, you had an idealized image of the liberal young pre-professional, earnestly studying for his college degree—towards the end of the show’s run, Meathead becomes a professor. In episode after episode, Meathead manfully does battle, and prevails, against Archie’s ethnocentric extremism.”
As I have stated before, I will again; we have moved beyond this as a country, socio-culturally, I believe? This is particularly true, if “All in the Family” reflects its dark and oddly hopeful doppelganger, “The Sopranos” today? Tony is no Archie, in that he reflects many of the personally and destructive “choices” one makes in hedonistic excesses; however, there is a charming and unprecedented “victory” of his love and fondness for his lost neighborhoods and a way of life, that fuel him toward mastery. He laments endlessly on that series not about what is being lost, but how things should be again, if only it could be so?
It is not a “fascist” America lost that he bemoans, but a looming reaction to a Communist and Multi Cult planned Utopian States of America, that will likely bring it into being? He knows that his upper middle class life is amoral and steeped in criminality, but that it is no worse than an oppressive and outright enslaving “governmental” system he opposes in those actions of criminality. In short, he is lost to only not reacting to it fully; much like most of us feel now, but do not because greed and nostalgia do not limit us in tandem.
If any character represents most here and the American public at large, it is Dr. Jennifer Melfi, Duce Soprano’s psychiatrist. She challenges him from both morally prescribed platitudes and comforting professional elucidations. For her efforts, she is both threatened and depended upon, by this Alpha Male of Crime and archaic meanderings.
That is until she is raped, by a half Italian-Puerto Rican who is the local “Employee of the Month,” at the Starbucks near her.
That episode (3-4-01 originally) detected how ineffective both the system and other stopgaps around Dr. Melfi are. Her only recourse for retribution, is found in a dream of a Roman guard dog, literally tearing apart her rapist?
Her moral dilemma resolved with her own psychiatrist being aghast, should her dream become a violation “of the social compact” in reality, via her Mafia patient?
Welcome to Weimar America!!!
“I am a libertarian, and my sympathies are not with the socialist white working classes, who are more likely to be white nationalist than their richer brethren. However, I am against government forcing middle class whites to mix with those who they don’t want to mix with and subsidizing multicultural communities.”
Such an attitude cannot form the basis of a healthy and effective MN movement. Far healthier is the approach shown by Jared Taylor in his reply to a suggestion by Prof David Weiss that WN’s should accept the ‘racial spoils’ system for want of any realistic alternative. I quote from Jared Taylor’s reply.
“…and who can measure the tragedy of the millions of Americans who have seen their schools and cities turn into outposts of Mexico or Liberia? Every once-happy street that is now desolate, every flight to the suburbs, every working-class family that must scrimp to pay for private school is a tragedy. And greater still is the tragedy of those who cannot flee and who cannot pay. Prof. Weissberg got his son transferred out of a class taught by an affirmative-action incompetent. Not all of us can do that.”
Rieder’s “Canarsie” is an important book on this subject, as it pit working and lower middle class Jews and Italians against Park Ave Jews, and the whites of Canarsie were in the end, utterly defeated.
But what of successful resistance? See Cannato’s “The Ungovernable City” for successful resistance to planned housing projects in Forest Hills, Queens. It seems that the middle class is better able to protect themselves than the working class, perhaps in no small part because of their ability to enlist political leaders. It was here that Ed Koch, a “Reformer” of Greenwich Village, emerged as champion of the outer-borough middle class.
Something which eluded me previouly in the discussion about the hypocritical holier than thou attitude of the liberal professionals is that their attempt to control pre-fascist tendencies has turned itself into out of control Orwellianism. In other words, to fight traditional facism, the liberals have morphed into fascists in a different way. As with anything else, moderation is the key to stability. Politically, the answer too is moderation, not to be confused with liberalism which in its pure form is just another extreme movement and which could be titled neo-facism.
To The Realist:
You might want to check out the antisemitic response to your article here:
http://blog.occidentaldissent.com/2007/06/11/the-judaization-of-the-professionals/#comment-71
From my response:
“You will recall that IQ is negatively correlated with conservatism, authoritarianism, and xenophobia. Thus, if you have a population whose average IQ is a full standard deviation above the average, chances are you are going to have a population which is on average less conserivative, less authoritarian, and less xenophobic than lower IQ population groups. Whether this is due to the fact that Jews are more likely to go to college and imbibe currently fashionable egalitarian ideas, or because IQ is inherently related (negatively) to conservatism and xenophobia, is beside the point. If leftism and egalitarianism are promoted most vigourously in college campuses, do you see how a population that is more educated than the general public will have a stronger tendency towards leftism and egalitarianism?”
Great comment, Gretl!
Typically of white nationalists, Scimitar believes that the ethnic conflict between Jews and Gentiles entirely explains the racial revolution of the 60s and 70s. However, this theory can never explain why liberalism on race had any appeal outside the Jewish community. My theory attempts to remedy this problem by viewing liberalism in the context of class conflict, rather than ethnic conflict. Your remark strengthens my thesis by attributing Jewish liberalism to class ideology rather than ethnic resentment of Gentiles.
Certainly, the professional class makes up the bulk of the cognitive elite, and it may well be that high-IQ people are naturally less authoritarian and ethnocentric than average- and low-IQ people. I would, however, like to see your evidence for the negative relationship between authoritarianism and intelligence. The Authoritarian Personality (http://inverted-world.com/index.php/column/column/theoriginofthemyth/) found only a weak negative relationship between the two traits. Also consider that if there is such a relationship, it may be due to particular historical circumstances rather than to biology; that is, high intelligence may be associated anti-authoritarianism in some eras and with authoritarianism in others.
Your comment is very much in the right spirit. One of the key tasks of realists today is to oppose the disastrously simple-minded mono-causal explanation of the racial revolution that prevails among white nationalists. For them, the most profound shift in political and social beliefs that America has ever seen had just one cause, which they harp on ad nauseam: Jews. I do not deny that Jewish resentment of Gentiles played some role in the racial revolution; however, I see it as one cause among many, and I think that other causes, such as the increasing power of the professional class and revulsion against Nazi Germany, were more important.
More intelligent populations are more permissive, less authoritarian, and more “liberal” because they can be. Societies don’t create draconian punishments and strict rules for the sadistic thrill of it. They do it to preserve order and civility. The less intelligent the population, the more blunt, immediate, simple, and physically painful consequence is effective. Things become toxic when a more intelligent population imposes its moral framework on a less intelligent population.
Jews (and Whites to a lesser extent) can experiment with homosexuality, prostitution, and other “immoral” behaviors without their families imploding and without disease sweeping through their community. High IQ populations sometimes fail to be retrograde even if they try to be. The Dutch can’t shake their wholesomeness even when they have brothels and flagrant drug abuse. Conversely, the mere relaxation of the taboo against divorce and adultery has caused the Black American family to disappear altogether.
The most severe example of this toxic effect in action is with the South African Whites and their disastrous replacement of the indigenous Blacks’ cruel and primitive culture with a more enlightened and judicious one. The effect has been horrific - with unprecedented decadence and lawlessness. The threat of potential confinement at some point in the distant future doesn’t quite cut it.
We’ll soon do the same thing throughout the Muslim world, too, encouraging them to adopt a moral and legal framework that will destabilize their communities. One can claim that the Jewish influence on American society has been largely corrosive without demonization, fetishization, or conspiracy theories. Swedish Finns in Finland have a similarly corrosive impact on the nationalism and morality of Finns. The Chinese have a similar impact throughout Southeast Asia.
“Typically of white nationalists, Scimitar believes that the ethnic conflict between Jews and Gentiles entirely explains the racial revolution of the 60s and 70s. However, this theory can never explain why liberalism on race had any appeal outside the Jewish community. My theory attempts to remedy this problem by viewing liberalism in the context of class conflict, rather than ethnic conflict.”
But the class conflict is a result of, and a weapon in, ethnic conflict. Have you not read Marx or Trotsky? They sought to foment class conflict, while gentile socialists and liberals from Robert Owen in the 1830’s to John Dewey in the 1930’s advanced a different view, explained by George Novack in his “Liberal Morality: The Controversy Between John Dewey and Leon Trotsky”. To Owen and Dewey, “Class conflict is wrong — and ought to be replaced by class harmony and collaboration.”
Some Jews wrote about class conflict, proving that the underlying motive is ethnic conflict. Some gentiles wrote about overcoming class conflict, proving that the mere notion of class conflict is entirely alien to non-Jewish people. It’s hard to argue with logic like that. Heck, I wouldn’t even know where to start.
Realist: what is your ethnic and religious background, if you don’t mind my asking?
phil—
I’m mostly English, with a few other Northern European ethnicities thrown into the mix. I have no Jewish blood at all.
Brilliant Article.
But really then, how can it be fixed?
The educated people who go into Media and journalism will ALWAYS be liberal - something to do with the personalities that are attracted to such (vapid) fields. So, isnt it fair to say that this form of polarization and class warfare is a direct consequence of an industrial or post-industrial society?
Whites as cancer is an ideology of professionals highly exemplified recently by district attorney Michael Nifong. This man is in the “civil regulation sphere” as described above in The Realist’s article.
This is one of many news articles that appeared yesterday in which Nifong is blasted for obstructing justice in relentless, obsessive pursuit of the prosecuting the Duke boys to the point of suppressing evidence. He vows to resign for “crossing the line” in violation of ethical professional conduct.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/15/us/15cnd-duke.html
(Note: Without subscription, free viewing of online NY Times articles expires in a week or 2 after publication.)
The Duke Rape Hoax is a perfect storm of the issues addressed in this column. Mike Nifong had every reason to believe that he could trust the media to help him whip up the Black anger necessary to win the election and then turn the other way when it no longer corroborated their warped perspective. He trusted that the cameras would turn off and they didn’t.
His math was right, but he’s the victim of a new phenomenon - the Internet. Blogs, and only blogs, forced the media to continue paying attention to the Duke Hoax as it unraveled. The media didn’t want to watch. Nifong certainly wanted them to stop watching. But it’s a different world now, one in which the elites are less and less capable of forcing America to stop paying attention.
It’s like with the immigration bill. This time ten years ago, the bill would have swept across the president’s desk without a serious challenge. Now, because of an unprecedented mobilization of blogs, alternative media, and angry individuals, the elites have been caught red-handed trying to pass a seditious, sinister, and cynical amnesty bill. The bigots will tell Senator Graham to shut up. Talk radio will “do something” about Trent Lott. And it will become really obvious that El Presidente Bush doesn’t want what’s best for America.
There’s a lot for us to be excited and optimistic about.
Wikitopian wrote,
“His math was right, but he’s the victim of a new phenomenon - the Internet. Blogs, and only blogs, forced the media to continue paying attention to the Duke Hoax as it unraveled.”
While you are clearly correct that blogs were an absolutely critical component both to mounting pressure and to actually clearing these innocent mens’ names, I am curious as to how you would explain Sharpton’s defeat in the Tawana Brawley case.
One could claim that this was a different time; after all, it was 20 years ago, but I would say that though the press is prone to give blacks a pass for the racial motivation of their crimes and even race of the assailant when black, the media is not willing to convict innocent whites even when the lying accuser is black.
“The educated people who go into Media and journalism will ALWAYS be liberal - something to do with the personalities that are attracted to such (vapid) fields.”
From The Realist’s own source:
“In spite of their visibility in public life, the political preferences of professionals remain very much in dispute. Once considered among the solidly conservative elements of American society, the professions are now sometimes depicted as the source of a new kind of class conflict in which “knowledge-based” professional elites engage in a half-hidden, half-open conflict with “profit-oriented” business owners and executives for power and status in the advanced societies.” (Brint 1994, 4)
DK,
I agree with you that the media stops short of advocating for the conviction of people who are obviously innocent. They were humiliated with Tawana Brawley (now Maryam Muhammad) and they were humiliated with Crystal Gail Mangum (not Islamic, yet). I saw Geraldo tonight and he was clearly angry about having been duped into the witch hunt. He was humiliated.
The media didn’t follow the Brawley case into the ground with the same degree of detail that they have with this. I believe they would have, now - destroying Sharpton in the process. Perhaps Nifong would have been able to leverage his demagoguery into a career as a revered civil rights leader…
I made a comment earlier that wasn’t posted. I meant to say that I don’t what poorer whites to lose out, just that they don’t deserve more privliiges than blacks of the same ilk just because their race founded this country. I believe in limited government and equality before the law. Currently we don’t have that. If we do, racial problems will sort themselves out and whites will get the place they deserve in society.
Ajo,
Unfortunate, unintelligent, and unsuccessful Whites deserve the respect and priority of this nation for the same reason that the underclass in Japan deserves the respect and priority of the Japanese government. My children do deserve more of my love and attention - because they just happen to be mine.
Oprah is a good example of this. She could just as easily turn her back on her poor Black heritage. She could have kicked away the ladder. She could have declared that her community is now “the cognitive elite” or “the professionals”. She hasn’t. She has invested her success in her people, in inner-city America and now in South Africa.
Oprah’s not out to get or humiliate White people. She’s not “racist”. It’s just that she sees and respects those deeper ancestral, genetic, and cultural ties that transcend The Bell Curve and the Income Bracket. I wish we Whites had half as many advocates for our poor, our weak, and our pathetic as Blacks do. We don’t. We join in insulting and humiliating our own people.
What Wikitopian and ajo said are not really in conflict. Wikitopian is free to contribute his taxes to white only upliftment or relief, as long as it is his taxes alone, or of him and like-minded people.
MensaRefugee,
Multiculturalism, diversity, and libertarianism empower the overclass to toss aside their burden of responsibility for their families, communities, and nation. It’s all a transparently thin ideological excuse for exploitation of other classes, other races, and even their own parents - whom they no longer feel responsible for the care of.
They are often professionals, they are often secular Jews, they are often coastal blue bloods, and they are often Asian immigrants. They are more frequently White Middle Americans who had Middle American values. Increasingly, White Middle Americans are the most virulently set against their own kind. Just look at Trent Lott.
I would agree with your proposal, MensaRefugee, that we go our separate ways. I do agree with it. I just have serious doubts that a nation of folks who explicitly refuse to develop a sense of shared community and communal obligation can stand. I suspect you would prefer to have your “live and let die” mantra while enjoying all the benefits of being surrounded by people who have that sense of community. Best of both worlds, no?
That doesn’t make sense at all in terms of implementation. Even if you feel strongly, it would make more sense to establish a similar Federal and local social services for everyone, and then to have private foundations and charities which help the poor that Wikitopian and others prefer.
Another aspect of professionals worth mentioning is that they tend to see the world from a managerial rather than an idealistic perspective. In other words, they think in terms of achieving goals and solving problems rather than adhering to ideals for their own sake. They greatly prefer consensus building to out-and-out conflict; and would rather try to co-opt their opponents than to vanquish them.
During the 1950s, as racial tensions mounted, a stark conflict was shaping up: would there be forced racial integration (favored by blacks and liberal whites) or would the segregated status quo be preserved (favored by conservative whites)? From a managerial viewpoint this was a serious problem that was not going to go away; and there are few things more intolerable to the managerial mind than doing nothing about a festering problem. For the professionals/managers, the question was: which solution will eliminate the problem most quickly?
They instinctively chose integration, for they correctly intuited that (1) if they chose segregation, the demands for integration by blacks would only grow louder, and could only be squelched by a bloodbath, while (2) the choice of integration would anger segregationists for a while, but ultimately, they would accept integration and move on. This is precisely what has happened.
Today’s professionals don’t really want to live among blacks and mestizos, but they dread the rapid unraveling of the relatively peaceful status quo if whites ever gain racial consciousness and refuse to continue appeasing non-whites through the many indirect subsidies they currently provide them with, from free health care in emergency rooms to welfare to “diversity” set-asides, scholarships, and affirmative action programs to cushy civil service jobs. Therefore, professionals seek to stamp out “racism” and “divisiveness” even as they retreat into near-lily-white gated communities and well-guarded hi-rise condos.
In multiracial America the wealthy non-white elevates underclass members of his race in relation to underclass white Europids. Historically, this behavior is contrary to that of wealthy whites. The exception was Jim Crow, a historically temporary measure where the preservation of monetary and political advantage in the face of European immigration and labor competition required that action be taken in the interests of the native white underclass.
The wealthy white is “Homo Monetarus,” a unique form of traitor in the history of our race.
H. Monetarus
Race: Europid
Class: Upper. Includes middle-class aspirants to the upper-class.
Morality: Dual. Egocentric. Shuns physical work and risk. The physically “bravest” members of this group died during the intra-Europid wars of the 19th and 20th centuries, leaving few descendants.
Out-group: Underclass Europids.
In-group:
Class- and race-based.
Religion/ethnicity/race incidental to interclass economic and political alliances.
Politics:
Monetarist – Equates money with wealth and regards them as coeval.
Personal money preservation and accumulation.
Speculator – Minimum monetary risk, maximum monetary return.
Political power necessary to preserve and extend items 1-3.
Class interests outweigh religion/ethnic/race interests.
Noblesse oblige extended to less privileged members of allied groups.
Underclass Europids scapegoated to justify out-Europid alliances.
Rather than feel guilty about (Negro) slavery, the middle- and under-class descendants of (white) slaves in this country should thoroughly research the topic. Below, a few teasers:
In 1659 the English parliament debated the practice of selling British whites into slavery in the New World. In the debate whites were referred to not as “Indentured Servants,” but as “Slaves” whose “Enslavement” threatened the liberties of all Englishmen. Thomas Burton, Parliamentary Diary: 1656 59, Vol. 4, pp. 253 274.
Dr. Holary McD. Beckles of the University of Hull, England, writes regarding White Slave labor, “…indenture contracts were alienable…the ownership of which could easily be transferred, like that of any other commodity…as with slaves, ownership changed without their participation in the dialogue concerning transfer.” Dr. Beckles refers to “indentured servitude” as “White Pro Slavery” The Americas, Vol. 41, No. 2, p. 21.
The judges of Edinburgh Scotland during the years 1662-1665 ordered the enslavement and shipment to the colonies a large number of rogues and others who made life unpleasant for the British upper class. Register for the Privy Council of Scotland, third series, vol. 1, p 181, vol. 2, p 101.
The sex ratio among imported slaves was at least 2:1 (or 200, using the proper demographic measure) and probably higher at certain times and places. Peter Kolchin, American Slavery, p. 39 and more generally Ira Berlin, “Time, Space, and the Evolution of Afro-American Society” AHR 85 (Feb. 1980), 44-78. [Think carefully on how this effected white female “servants” in the house and field.]
In the Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series; America and West Indies of 1701, No. 919, p. 565, we read of a protest over the, “…encouragement to the spiriting away of Englishmen without their consent and Selling Them for Slaves, which hath been a practice very frequently and known by the name of kidnaping.”
In Barbados by the 1640s there were an estimated 25,000 slaves, of whom 21,700 were white. Some Observations on the Island of Barbados, Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series, p. 528.
“…White Indentured Servants Were Employed and Treated, Incidentally, Exactly like Slaves…” Morley Ayearst, The British West Indies, p. 19.
In the Massachusetts Court of Assistants, whose records date to 1633, we find a 1638 description of a white man, one Gyles Player, as having been “Delivered up for a Slave.” The Englishman William Eddis, after observing white slaves in America in 1770 wrote, “Generally speaking, They [white slaves] Groan Beneath a Worse than Egyptian Bondage.” Letters from America, London, 1792.
Virginia law of 1662 established the doctrine of partus sequitur ventrem, that the free/slave status of a child was solely determined by the free/slave status of the mother:
Whereas some doubts have arisen whether children got by any Englishman upon a negro woman should be slave or free, be it therefore enacted and declared by the present grand assembly, that all children borne in this country shall be held bond or free only according to the condition of the mother….
The new law held that neither continent of ancestry, skin-tone, nor patrilineal descent had any effect on whether you were a slave. It launched a 143-year period in U.S. history (1662-1805) when slavery had no legal connection to continent of ancestry. If your mother was a slave, you were a slave, even if you were European. If your mother was free, then you were free, even if you were African.
The 1664 statute at Archives of Maryland 1:533-4 specifies that “freeborne English women forgetfull of their free Condicon” would be slaves for the lives of their husbands, and the children would be slaves as well. This law punished inter-class marriages. It did not prohibit free Europeans from marrying free Africans, nor did it forbid forced-laborer Europeans from marrying forced-laborer Africans. It forbade only marriages between free women (of any ancestry) and slaves (of any ancestry).
The 1692 statute at Archives of Maryland 13:546-9 clarified that slaves and their children were slaves for life.
In a March 28, 1743 notice published in the South Carolina Gazette, a South Carolina grand jury issued a statement condemning interracial liaisons calling it “The Too Common Practice of Criminal Conversation with Negro and the Other Slave Wenches in This Province, as an Enormity and Evil of general Ill-Consequences.” See Winthrop Jordon, White Over Black: American Attitudes Towards the Negro, University of North Carolina Press, 138-139.
(This is a great article)
These social engineers have absolutely no regard for the will of the public. That became particularly obvious in Michigan with the latest Affirmative Action push, when the Republicans couldn’t even be brought to support a bill that the public overwhelmingly favored - by a margin of nearly two to one. That’s why it had to be a ballot proposal in the first place - because the overclass in the legislative and executive offices could not be bothered to represent their constituents. Luckily for them, they still have a chance with the judicial branch to evade the will of the people.
You saw it with busing, you’re seeing it with Affirmative Action, and now you’re seeing it with the Republican machine’s betrayal of its membership in favor of its small but powerful overclass elite that are far too dependent on illegal immigrant exploitation to allow the will of the people to interfere. While the Internet enables information to get around the (overclass-filtered) media, it only informs. So, while the charade that this is all democratic and righteous can’t go on, the overclass will still get their way.
The Kausfiles blog on Slate has noted how Fox News has been suspiciously silent and evasive on the immigration issue. Were this pre-Internet, the conservative masses would not really have any way of knowing how profound the sell-out was. In fact, with the 1986 amnesty, they didn’t. Were this pre-Internet, the media would have been able to turn the cameras off when Nifong’s case fell apart, too - leaving Americans to assume that the White gang rape of the Black stripper had happened.
After the overclass destroyed our cities, they moved to the suburbs to get away from the Blacks that it was no longer politically correct to enslave. Now, as they destroy our entire nation, they’ll begin moving to international enclaves - the entire time being morally superior to the increasingly desperate White underclass that can’t afford to evade the mayhem caused by the irresponsible addiction to slavery of the overclass.