Ricci

rah, rah, rah …

I suspect my readers probably know by now that the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the white Connecticut firefighters in the Ricci case. Count me unimpressed.

Nothing much has changed. The rules of the game regarding “disparate impact” have been slightly tinkered with, but affirmative action remains intact and as strong as ever. If anything is true, Ricci will probably go down in history as the highwater mark of conservative opposition to racial preferences. The nomination of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court clearly points to a future where the federal courts will become progressively less hospitable to white racial interests.

Guy White believes nominating conservative justices is “the one good reason to vote Republican.” I find that ironic considering how the GOP itself practices affirmative action by putting a woman on their national presidential ticket and a negro in their highest office. The Republicans are already talking about running an Indian in the 2012 presidential race. But who knows, I could be wrong. If we give them another 48 years, maybe the Pubbies will finally get the job done (ehrm .. .with a country that is half as white as it once was).

The whole basis of conservative opposition to affirmative action is their fidelity to the liberal principle of non-discrimination. Conservatives lost the philosophical battle against liberalism decades ago. They accept liberal principles, but resist the liberal conclusions drawn from them. That’s why conservatives never win.

Supporting these phonies only delays the inevitable. The Republicans will never get rid of affirmative action (or gay marriage) because it is too valuable as a wedge issue. Richard Nixon said as much.

The Ricci ruling only perpetuates the illusion that our political system is fair and just. The kabuki theatre of “liberals” vs. “conservatives” will drag on and continue to fool the dullard masses … and not an insignificant number of racialists. True nationalism will remain a sideshow for now.

Update: Jared Taylor’s take on Ricci.

About the Author

Hunter Wallace
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent

12 Comments on "Ricci"

  1. I’m not impressed either… it was only 5 to 4.

    Ginsburg, a Jew, said that a qualification test is a dubious practice, she prefers selection by race! What a disgrace.

  2. Jared Taylor: “This decision is not even half a loaf for whites—it’s more like a few crumbs.”

  3. I’ve always insisted that the reason we must oppose AA is because it is bad for whites. Conservatives actually try to argue against AA by saying it is bad for blacks. You can’t make this stuff up.

  4. AA is not only bad for whites, it’s racial discrimination, it’s unfair treatment under the law. It is unequal treatment to remedy unequal outcomes not in favor of non-whites. It’s cheating, it’s deceptive cheating in the guise of morality.

    I watched some of a AA debate, half for, half against, on YouTube. I couldn’t stomach most of it, but I was curious to see who was against it and why.

    The first person against it was a black actor. Not intellectual at all, in fact he couldn’t even pronounce some words correctly. His whole argument was that AA is bad because it makes others think blacks don’t deserve their positions (O’RLY?), and that hurts their feelings. Boo f’n hoo.

    So you see, even those against AA are only against it because it may be bad for minorities in some way. It’s never that discrimination against whites is wrong, or that the best person didn’t get the job. Equal treatment under the law isn’t even an issue, it’s only that minorities get equal representation regardless of merit. It’s identity politics.

    Of course Sotomayor is for racial quotas, that’s how she got her job, and why Obama picked her.

  5. notuswind | June 30, 2009 at 9:34 pm |

    Prozium,

    As you hinted at, the Ricci decision actually works against us because it helps to reinforce the “conservative vs liberal” paradigm that dominates mainstream thinking.

    Also, since it’s hard to imagine new conservatives being added to the Supreme Court, it’s almost as if decisions of this nature are something of a last gasp before the coming future; like Prop. 187 before California’s final demographic descent.

  6. Madame Smythe | June 30, 2009 at 9:38 pm |

    “Conservatives lost the philosophical battle against liberalism decades ago. They accept liberal principles, but resist the liberal conclusions drawn from them.’

    Yes, the fastest way to lose an argument is to accept the premises of the opposition.

  7. notuswind | June 30, 2009 at 9:39 pm |

    I think most conservatives oppose AA because they know, even if only at a near subconscious level, the anti-White nature of these policies; however, they have become so intellectually and spiritually whipped that they can only voice their dissent in the liberal language of our Leftist masters. Lessons in group psychology could be found here.

  8. The Monitor | June 30, 2009 at 10:47 pm |

    The Republicans will never get rid of affirmative action (or gay marriage) because… their leaders support such things and would rather lose than surrender these issues.

  9. As you hinted at, the Ricci decision actually works against us because it helps to reinforce the “conservative vs liberal” paradigm that dominates mainstream thinking.

    Replacing the false left/right dichotomy with a pro-white/anti-white dichotomy is THE issue, but I don’t think this case effects that much. The “conservative vs. liberal” paradigm is unquestioned by 99.9% of people who think about politics. It doesn’t need “reinforcing”, it’s self-reinforcing. For someone caught in the paradigm, every single thing they see reinforces the paradigm.

  10. Worthwhile remarks here.

  11. Who thinks it’s productive to attack conservatives who are at least culturally pro-white like Buchanan? Would his firing bring about some white revolution? Would former conservative whites suddenly become radical and don Nazi and Klan uniforms and take to the streets? 🙂

  12. — “Replacing the false left/right dichotomy with a pro-white/anti-white dichotomy is THE issue, but I don’t think this case effects that much”

    Actually probably the best dichotomy to get us out of this mess would be Whites vs. Jews. Jews are the ones who managed to be the ‘tipping point’ who pushed the liberalism juggernaut into a full on hegemony. Stop the Jews, stop the liberalism. Attack the brain of the beast.

    — “Who thinks it’s productive to attack conservatives who are at least culturally pro-white like Buchanan? ”

    These conservative types must be ousted or best of all marginalized so that a more muscular Racialism/ White Nationalism can be constructed to fill the vacuum.

    A similar process for what is needed worked its way out in Germany when National Socialists managed to beat out the Conservatives there and construct the first Modern Racialist State from the ashes of the Weimar Republic ‘failed state’ (note: the USA is heading for ‘failed state’ status sooner, rather then later)

Comments are closed.