"The premise that many races can and should live together in harmony will be rejected in the United States within 20 years."
"While the precise shape of this rejection is unclear, the forces compelling it are clear and irreversible."
This is the fourth in a series of articles examining the issue of race in the United States
By now, you might be asking:
"Ok, Yggdrasil, many of the news clips reprinted in your lessons are 20 years old. You have known about these problems for a long time. So, why have you come to life and begun speaking to us now?"
This installment will answer that question.
In our first lesson, we reviewed an article written by an Economist from Harvard University arguing that when diverse ethnic or racial groups fall under a power of a single government, they tend to use the political process as a means of extracting advantages for their own group at the expense of others.
In our second lesson, we reviewed dozens of examples of racial and ethnic strife around the world, and recognized that racial hostility is a natural and expected phenomenon whenever different races are placed in the same country.
In our third lesson, we examined racial preference schemes from around the world, and came to the conclusion that they are a prelude to larger conflict.
The readings for this week illuminate three trends which make deepening racial conflict in the United States inevitable.
Below is an excerpt from an article entitled "Tales from the Oppressed Class" about the impact of racial preferences on European-American males. But we are not really interested in the reactions of European-American males. The impact of racial preferences on employment in the public sector is far more important.
The article notes that racial quotas are far more severe in the public sector that in the private sector. An inevitable consequence is that white males are forced to find employment almost exclusively in the private sector. Over the next 20 years, private sector business will become or remain overwhelmingly the preserve of European-American males.
There is simply no other place for them to go.
A second effect is that public sector bureaucracies will become overwhelmingly black, brown and female over the next 20 years.
Successful private sector participants can avoid contact with non-European peoples by living in exclusive suburbs. But increasingly, every contact with government will become contact with non-Europeans over the next 20 years.
Most encounters with government, including police, the judicial system, university disciplinary boards, tax authorities, licensing and registration of all kinds, are quite unpleasant. Increasingly, these encounters will take on racial overtones for middle class European-Americans.
The impersonal anger directed at government now by many European- Americans will change in character and depth over the next 20 years. It will become a major force for rebellion by middle class European-Americans against government.
BY FREDERICK R. LYNCH
How many white men have been affected by affirmative action -- and how have they reacted? Few experts in the press or academe wanted to probe this most politically incorrect topic until Louisiana's David Duke seized the issue and became a political force.
General population polls conducted by Gordon Black Associates in 1984 and by the National Opinion Research Center in 1990 suggest that 1-in-10 white men has been injured by affirmative action. This figure alone adds up to millions. Circumstantial evidence suggests even larger numbers.
Preferential policies were instituted during an intensely competitive era when huge cohorts of baby boomers crowded job markets increasingly constrained by international competition, lean-and-mean downsizing movements, and tax revolts. Thus, affirmative action often occurred in zero-sum contexts; someone was quota-ed in at another's expense.
My research indicates that reverse discrimination's bite has varied by age, geography, occupation, and private or public sector. Most vulnerable have been public-sector white men under the age of 45 with people-oriented skills. Their phone calls flood radio talk-show programs on this topic.
Many more white men may not have been fully aware that they were being injured by behind-the-scenes tactics such as "race-norming" of employment tests by public testing agencies, and many private ones. (The EEOC only recently stopped pressuring corporations to use such procedures.) Nor have they been told of the drive to tie managers' bonuses to affirmative action hiring and promotion records.
I became curious about the impact of affirmative action while working in the increasingly quota-crazy higher education systems of California -- where policies moved far beyond the Supreme Court's 1978 Bakke dictum that race could be considered as one of several factors in selection processes.
During the 1980s, a state mandate for the community college system (AB1725) ordered a 30% minority-faculty hiring "goal" until the year 2005 -- when faculty must mirror the ethnic diversity of the entire state; the University of California began advertising "targets of diversity" faculty positions and substantially boosted minority-female representation in administrative staff positions to 72%; and the California State University system implemented set-aside faculty positions, set-aside grant and fellowship programs for graduate students -- while the politically correct faculty union lobbied (successfully) for higher pay for "underrepresented" junior faculty. And "parity goals" for the entire state work force were monitored in annual reports by the State Personnel Board.
As my quiet interest in affirmative action leaked out -- a professionally dangerous development -- students, colleagues, friends and relative strangers began to report encounters with reverse discrimination. In 1984-85, two graduate assistants and I supplemented this rising tide of informal data -- and scattered press reports -- with 32 in-depth interviews with California-based, mostly middle-class white men who reported that preferential policies prevented them from obtaining jobs or disrupted or ended extant careers.
-- A community college instructor repeatedly lost tenure-track appointments to less qualified minorities after he moved to California from Michigan. "At first, you think it's you," he said. "You blame yourself." (He finally obtained an appointment at another college.)
-- A mid-management bank administrator -- and an ardent liberal -- began to have second thoughts as he watched women he'd hired the year before move by him on the affirmative-action fast-track. (Rapid increases in female mid-management employees in his bank and at others lent credence to his account.)
-- Public-sector workers reported that affirmative action barriers eventually became obvious and quietly acknowledged by most employees. After 13 years of being bypassed by minorities or women, one upper-middle-management California state official reported being offered a promotion -- with some public fanfare -- only to have the appointment rescinded because, as an agency head told him, "Let's face it, you're not the right color."
Most of these men avoided open complaints or protests out of fear they wouldn't be believed or would be labeled racist. (No one said he feared being thought sexist.)
Six resigned from the organizations that discriminated against them. Three circumvented reverse discrimination problems through various organizational means. Three filed suits, none of which was successful. No government agency offered redress. (EEOC guidelines effectively insulate employers from reverse discrimination complaints if the employer has taken "reasonable" voluntary affirmative action to remedy "deficiencies" in minority representation.)
The majority of our subjects simply acquiesced in their treatment with varying degrees of bewilderment, resignation or anger. Most subjects voiced temporary, if not long-term, frustration and cynicism about social institutions. "A lot of us were sold a bill of goods," complained a California state middle-management worker. "We were told if you went to college you could write your own ticket. But . . . affirmative action has lowered standards to the point where education counts against you."
No subject expressed hostility toward minorities per se, but many felt alienated from a society that refused to acknowledge whites' victimization. A teacher, transferred to a distant school in a racial balancing plan, commented: "My friends couldn't handle this. They experienced cognitive dissonance. They didn't want to be seen as racists." Another teacher noted: "I found out what it was like to be a victim. Nobody likes a victim."
Research sponsored and then suppressed by the Democratic Party in 1985 and 1987 suggests a possible class split in white reactions to affirmative action. Political analyst Stanley Greenberg's "Report on Democratic Defections" by blue-collar white "Reagan Democrats" in Michigan found fury over quotas for blacks and immigrants. (This anger, Mr. Greenberg concluded, undercut Democratic campaign themes of "fairness" and "justice.") These data, in combination with the record of lawsuits filed by blue-collar groups (overtly or covertly aided by unions), indicate a more militant, angry working-class response. This is perhaps because of more intense zero-sum problems wrought by a shrinking blue-collar jobs market.
Until Pete Wilson, Jesse Helms and David Duke began to attack quotas in statewide election campaigns last year, a curious bipartisan paralysis thwarted any open political response to rank-and-file whites.
Radicals and liberals have neutralized whites' complaints with swift, categorical denials, such as "white males can't be victims." Indeed, much liberal and multicultural theory today embodies a colorized version of Marx's class struggle. White men (regardless of individual backgrounds) are regarded as a privileged modern-day "bourgeoisie," while women and people of color (again, regardless of individual or subgroup circumstances) are the oppressed "proletariat." Any mention of a white working class -- once prominently represented in labor histories -- is simply met with more rationalizations or with awkward silence.
* * *
The stereotype of "racist" working-class white men has made most journalists, academics and politicians fearful of acquiring a "racist" label themselves if they even raise the white-male problem. Thus, most of the recent debate over affirmative action has focused on the safer topics of costs to employers and the stigmatization of officially favored groups.
Unwanted, inadvertent findings about whites and affirmative action have been buried. Just as the Greenberg studies were suppressed in the mid-1980s, a 1990 study by the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, designed to provide impetus for the 1991 civil rights bill, was bottled up. News leaks indicated the study uncovered substantial white anger toward affirmative action preferences.
* * *
Mr. Lynch is visiting associate professor of government at Claremont McKenna College in California, and author of "Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action" (Praeger Paperbacks, 1991).
A vast, stabilizing influence in United States politics is the disproportionate voting of retirees. In most states, approximately 30% of all votes cast are by those above the age of 60, even though they comprise a much smaller percentage of the total population.
The American Association of Retired Persons ("AARP") lobbies this group to write their Congressmen in favor of free immigration on the theory that new immigrants will pay Social Security taxes needed to fund Social Security payments to retirees in our "pay- as-you-go" unfunded Social Security System.
An unspoken premise of free immigration is that the new arrivals will be willing to pay this tax.
Current retirees deeply believe in the idea (myth, if you prefer) of racial integration and harmony - the "melting pot". In opinion surveys, it is difficult to detect any understanding of the impact of racial preferences or of high employment taxes on younger European-Americans. Without the votes of European- American retirees, working age European-Americans cannot protect themselves through the political process. The numbers simply do not work!
This dynamic of American Electoral politics will change dramatically.
Twenty years from now 60 million post-WW II "baby-boomers" now in the work force will begin retiring and drawing Social Security benefits. Employment taxes amount to 15% of payroll now, including both employer and employee pieces. In twenty years, these taxes must rise to 25% to fund the retiring baby boomers.
Over 70% of these "baby-boom" retirees will be European- Americans. But in 20 years, 55% of the people entering the workforce between the ages of 20 and 30 will be people of color.
It is inconceivable that members of this group, accustomed as they are to racial preference and to block racial voting, will sit by and watch 25% of their earnings go to fund retirement benefits for European-Americans. It won't happen!
Because "minority" racial interests will be at stake, Social Security benefits will be cut for all except the indigent, among whom such "minorities" will be over-represented.
This trend has already begun, with the taxation of benefits for those with annual incomes above $30,000.
The difference between the current retirees and the "baby boom" generation is that the baby boom has been subjected to racial quotas. Once the social compact to care for the aged becomes threatened by the same racial lobbies that created employment preferences, many of these baby boom retirees will lose faith in the multi-racial empire and begin voting their racial interests in the same way as African Americans do now.
American politics will never be the same.
It was the appearance of the following article in the Wall Street Journal on October 29, 1993 which aroused YGGDRASIL from a long period of stillness.
As outlined in the two preceding sections of this lesson, all of the ingredients for radicalizing European-Americans in the private sector and European-American retirees will be in place in 20 years.
But in 20 years a very large group of young whites will emerge for whom the ballot box may not be a speedy enough. This group will have little to lose by resorting to violence.
As you will see from the following article, there is nothing we can do to stop the emergence of this group. Its members are now being born to young, unwed teenage girls.
In 1980, 9% of all births to European-Americans were illegitimate. By 1991, that figure has increased to 22%.
This group will have no middle class aspirations and no loyalty whatever to middle class values. In all probability, it will inhabit neighborhoods that bring it into direct and violent competition with people of color.
This group will be so large that the middle class will be forced to abandon the manners and social restraints that make life in a multi-racial empire such as ours possible.
We cannot look to the past to predict the consequence of the emergence of this class. It has never before existed, not even in regimes such as the Third Reich.
However, forceful political action will be necessary to transmit the values of western civilization to this new class of European- American and to channel its energies into positive political change.
The assault on traditional religions and upon middle class values by the liberal multiculturalists has finally had its effect. The full consequences will be felt in 20 years.
BY CHARLES MURRAY
Every once in a while the sky really is falling, and this seems to be the case with the latest national figures on illegitimacy. The unadorned statistic is that, in 1991, 1.2 million children were born to unmarried mothers, within a hair of 30% of all live births. How high is 30%? About four percentage points higher than the black illegitimacy rate in the early 1960s that motivated Daniel Patrick Moynihan to write his famous memorandum on the breakdown of the black family.
The 1991 story for blacks is that illegitimacy has now reached 68% of births to black women. In inner cities, the figure is typically in excess of 80%. Many of us have heard these numbers so often that we are inured. It is time to think about them as if we were back in the mid-1960s with the young Moynihan and asked to predict what would happen if the black illegitimacy rate were 68%.
Impossible, we would have said. But if the proportion of fatherless boys in a given community were to reach such levels, surely the culture must be "Lord of the Flies" writ large, the values of unsocialized male adolescents made norms -- physical violence, immediate gratification and predatory sex. That is the culture now taking over the black inner city.
But the black story, however dismaying, is old news. The new trend that threatens the U.S. is white illegitimacy. Matters have not yet quite gotten out of hand, but they are on the brink. If we want to act, now is the time.
In 1991, 707,502 babies were born to single white women, representing 22% of white births. The elite wisdom holds that this phenomenon cuts across social classes, as if the increase in Murphy Browns were pushing the trendline. Thus, a few months ago, a Census Bureau study of fertility among all American women got headlines for a few days because it showed that births to single women with college degrees doubled in the last decade to 6% from 3%. This is an interesting trend, but of minor social importance. The real news of that study is that the proportion of single mothers with less than a high school education jumped to 48% from 35% in a single decade.
These numbers are dominated by whites. Breaking down the numbers by race (using data not available in the published version), women with college degrees contribute only 4% of white illegitimate babies, while women with a high school education or less contribute 82%. Women with family incomes of $75,000 or more contribute 1% of white illegitimate babies, while women with family incomes under $20,000 contribute 69%.
The National Longitudinal Study of Youth, a Labor Department study that has tracked more than 10,000 youths since 1979, shows an even more dramatic picture. For white women below the poverty line in the year prior to giving birth, 44% of births have been illegitimate, compared with only 6% for women above the poverty line. White illegitimacy is overwhelmingly a lower-class phenomenon.
This brings us to the emergence of a white underclass. In raw numbers, European-American whites are the ethnic group with the most people in poverty, most illegitimate children, most women on welfare, most unemployed men, and most arrests for serious crimes.
And yet whites have not had an "underclass" as such, because the whites who might qualify have been scattered among the working class. Instead, whites have had "white trash" concentrated in a few streets on the outskirts of town, sometimes a Skid Row of unattached white men in the large cities. But these scatterings have seldom been large enough to make up a neighborhood. An underclass needs a critical mass, and white America has not had one.
But now the overall white illegitimacy rate is 22%. The figure in low-income, working-class communities may be twice that. How much illegitimacy can a community tolerate? Nobody knows, but the historical fact is that the trendlines on black crime, dropout from the labor force, and illegitimacy all shifted sharply upward as the overall black illegitimacy rate passed 25%.
The causal connection is murky -- I blame the revolution in social policy during that period, while others blame the sexual revolution, broad shifts in cultural norms, or structural changes in the economy. But the white illegitimacy rate is approaching that same problematic 25% region at a time when social policy is more comprehensively wrongheaded than it was in the mid-1960s, and the cultural and sexual norms are still more degraded.
The white underclass will begin to show its face in isolated ways. Look for certain schools in white neighborhoods to get a reputation as being unteachable, with large numbers of disruptive students and indifferent parents. Talk to the police; listen for stories about white neighborhoods where the incidence of domestic disputes and casual violence has been shooting up. Look for white neighborhoods with high concentrations of drug activity and large numbers of men who have dropped out of the labor force. Some readers will recall reading the occasional news story about such places already.
As the spatial concentration of illegitimacy reaches critical mass, we should expect the deterioration to be as fast among low-income whites in the 1990s as it was among low-income blacks in the 1960s. My proposition is that illegitimacy is the single most important social problem of our time -- more important than crime, drugs, poverty, illiteracy, welfare or homelessness because it drives everything else. Doing something about it is not just one more item on the American policy agenda, but should be at the top.
Here is what to do:
* * *
[policy prescriptions for restoring family life to people below the poverty line omitted]
* * *
Three decades after that consensus disappeared, we face an emerging crisis. The long, steep climb in black illegitimacy has been calamitous for black communities and painful for the nation. The reforms I have described will work for blacks as for whites, and have been needed for years. But the brutal truth is that American society as a whole could survive when illegitimacy became epidemic within a comparatively small ethnic minority. It cannot survive the same epidemic among whites.
Mr. Murray, a fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, is the author of "Losing Ground" (Basic, 1984).
© 1996-1998 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute texts freely.