RSS
This video is available on Rumble, Bitchute, Odysee, Telegram, and X.
What we call civil-rights laws are actually anti-discrimination laws. You must not discriminate against blacks or women or homosexuals or old people or any other members of the always-expanding class of official victims. These absurd laws punish people for not doing something.
If your policy is “no Irish need apply,” it means there’s something you won’t do: hire Irish.
However, you are hurting no one. Anyone you don’t hire is no worse off than he was before — hurt feelings don’t count.
I bet you can’t think of many laws that punish you for not doing something. An example would be laws against child neglect. It’s a crime not to feed your children.
The government should have no more say in whom you hire than in whom you spend time with. I’m sure a lot of men would like to spend time with this lady, but she can pick and choose entirely as she likes.
She can spend time only with white men, if she wants, and it’s no one’s business but hers.
So, what’s special about refusing to hire people? Nothing. Nothing but selective moral frenzy.
We’re supposed to think that unless the law makes them do it, whites won’t hire blacks. That was never true, not even in the deep South, not even during slavery. Whites hired free blacks who could do the job — maybe for something less than the prevailing white wage — but they hired them. This 1902 book, Atlanta and Its Builders, gives a classic example from 1858.
“Some two hundred [white] mechanics and workingmen” wrote a letter to the city council complaining about “negro mechanics [who] can afford to underbid the regular resident citizen mechanics of your city, to their great injury.”
The whites wanted to make it illegal for blacks to practice trades because they didn’t like the competition. Whites hired black workmen.
In 1859, white Atlanta dentists complained to the council that “your honorable body tolerates a negro dentist (Roderick Badger) in our midst, and in justice to ourselves and the community, it ought to be abated.”
Too many people were letting a black man fix their teeth.
After emancipation, there were even more blacks competing for jobs. That was why many Jim Crow laws were passed: to ban blacks from skilled trades.
That was the only way to keep whites from hiring them.
You don’t have to like people to give them jobs. Marge Schott was the first woman to own and run a major-league baseball team.
She used to refer to some of her high-paid black players as her “million-dollar Negros” — except that she didn’t say “Negroes.” Maybe she didn’t like blacks, but this didn’t stop her from paying them a lot of money if they helped her team win. Is she known as a pioneering businesswoman? Of course not. She’d known as a racist.
In a free market, the profit motive is powerful. Not many businesses will deprive themselves of good workers for strictly racial reasons. And so what if they do? If customers or the other employees prefer an all-white staff, that’s nobody else’s business.
It’s the same for an all-black or all-Hispanic or Asian staff. How many white cooks do you see in a Chinese restaurant? When the government makes hiring decisions for you, you’re not running your own company.
Sex is like race.
We hear over and over that women are paid less than men, even for the same work. If that were true, why haven’t we ever heard of a company firing all its men, replacing them with low-wage women, and making boom-time profits? Because men and women are different. Their interests and aptitudes are different. The market pays them what they’re worth.
You can still find articles like this one by a black woman: “Why Diversity Is Really Our Greatest Strength.”
It’s all pure assertion and no facts. You can hire this woman as your personal life coach, by the way. Needless to say, diversity can be a strength — or a weakness, as in fact it is — only because groups are different, and it is 100-percent OK to prefer one group over another.
But those group preferences often give way to free-market forces. The famous 1896 Supreme Court case of Plessy v Ferguson was about whether it was legal for a railroad to have separate but equal cars for whites and blacks.
Few people know that segregation was required under Louisiana state law. The railroad company hated that law because it meant duplicating everything. It was a tremendous bother. The company hoped that octaroon Homer Plessy would win his case and the Supreme Court would get rid of “separate but equal.”
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 made race and sex discrimination illegal for employers. At that time, sex discrimination seemed so obvious and uncontroversial that Congressional opponents of the bill added the ban on sex discrimination, assuming that would sink the bill. They were shocked when the bill passed anyway: 290 to 130 in the House; 73 to 27 in the Senate.
By the way, look how few blacks there are in this photo. Today, there would be more blacks than whites for a signing like this.
This law was a huge setback to freedom of association. And, as I pointed out in last week’s video, a law that was supposed to ensure equal treatment was very quickly used to require unequal treatment — preferential treatment for blacks and women — so as to get equal outcomes. Only this month did the US Supreme Court finally rule that whites — and men and heterosexuals — can claim discrimination under the law on a completely equal basis with everyone else.
So, there are excellent reasons to repeal the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and any other law that bans discrimination, whether of age, sex, handicap, erotic orientation, you name it. Anti-discrimination laws are a terrible burden on companies, and almost never help employees. Only bureaucrats and lawyers get fat on them. The best book I know on this subject is Forbidden Grounds, by Richard Epstein of University of Chicago and published by Harvard University Press in 1992.
Take laws that forbid age discrimination. They make it illegal to set a mandatory retirement age. This book argues that companies should be free to set them and that most would. First, if you know you are leaving your job at a certain age, you can plan for it. Second, a company should not have to gather up all the intrusive, unpleasant details of someone’s creeping senility to justify firing him.
Just set an age limit. Third, if a worker ages out and then goes looking for another job, there is no suspicion that he left because he was going goofy. Finally, companies will discriminate against old job applicants because if they are no good and have to be fired, they can make pests of themselves by claiming illegal age discrimination. The government should stay out of this.
What would happen if the ’64 act were repealed? If United Airlines and Harvard were completely free to discriminate, who gets the shaft?
White men. Look at what companies and universities were doing when it was theoretically against the law to discriminate.
There is a tremendous head of steam built up behind the idea that we are the plague. Here: “How white supremacy became a global health problem.” Read all about it.
Do you think these people would make fair hiring decisions?
It’s true that there has been so much affirmative action and DEI, that people are numb to it, and things might not have got this bad without the ’64 law.
I’m beginning to sound like a broken record, but repeal would have to be part of an unrelenting campaign to publicize the facts about race differences in ability. Until whites understand that blacks or Hispanics, on average, can’t perform at the same level as whites, there is going to be an irresistible urge among some whites — whose own jobs aren’t at risk, of course — to discriminate against whites because they believe that’s how to right historical wrongs and let freedom ring.
I think they sincerely believe that.
Whites have been brainwashed for so long, it would take an intense campaign of truth-telling to set them straight. We’re headed that way for sure, but we’re not there yet.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Some academics go as far as: to argue sex-segregated toilets should not exist.
“The Overdue Case Against Sex-Segregated Bathrooms”, Laura Portuondo
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3221820
At least, the author of the paper above is principled: if you’re REALLY against Discrimination, indeed you should be for ENDING sex-segregated toitets as well (at least, public ones).
No.
Unless you want a massive civil war.
Let the bygones be bygones.
Ignore minorities as they ignore whites.
Last thing this place needs is more riots and tensions.
Whenever you see photos of the types of people who turn out at civil rights marches or any such thing, they usually look like the dregs of society with asymmetrical bodies and faces, caused by over 100 years of saving babies that nature would’ve weeded out in the past. That asymmetry not only goes for bodies and faces, also goes for minds. How else could you explain the widespread support for illogical left wing causes, that obviously work against the interests of the white race. Only a diseased mind would consciously work against the interests of their own race and bad genetics is one of the main causes of diseased minds.
Just a quick look at many democrat women who are members of either the House of Representatives or Congress, they look like something out of a circus freak show. Compare this to many of the women who are conservative, doing the same job. Asymmetrical faces usually show a diseased mind as symmetry in the face, shows a healthy mind.
First Taylor says that laws requiring discrimination are a burden because they require duplication of everything.
But then he says that laws banning discrimination are also a burden.
Poor companies! They’re damned if they do, and damned if they don’t.
Of course, the problem isn’t confined just to companies. Imagine the burden on society if separate facilities were always required for the various races! Taken to its logical extreme, we’d have separate schools, separate businesses, separate social services (such as police), separate militaries, etc. It basically would involve having de facto separate countries operating within the same geographic area. But if they wanted to remain unified under a single flag, then these de facto separate countries would have to decide whether to interact with each other on a basis of equality, or fight it out for mastery; fight it out to determine which race was ultimately in charge. It would be a prescription for social inefficiency that would probably lead to civil war. That being the case, we can perhaps now understand why white society collectively decided to go in the direction of anti-discrimination laws. Such laws introduce problems of their own, but at least are an attempt to keep society together, make maximum use of the talents of non-whites (however minuscule they may be), and avoid wasting time and resources by duplicating everything. Whites are betting that the technological system will be successful in domesticating non-whites and make them valuable members of their society, which will no longer be a white one, but instead a raceless amalgam. Their loyalty is to the system, not their race.
Ask your jewish wife Jared. She’ll tell you that the jews will block any effort to repeal their civil rights laws that they pushed through.
Oh, and don’t mention Israhell’s Genocide in Gaza. We understand.
Remember when cities like Baltimore, Atlanta, Buffalo, New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Portland, Detroit, Seattle, San Antonio, El Paso, Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, Milwaukee, and a hundred other cities were nice places to live and work and raise a family. The daycare generation wouldn’t understand because they’ve been raised on marxist dogma and all that entails. Diversity is our strength? Where? According to who? Coalburners, sports franchises, traitorous politicians? I’ll take America in 1960 anyday over this fucking nightmare that has been imposed on us. Russia is our enemy? Please, our enemies are much closer to home.
LBJ easily the most destructive President in history and probably the most evil man ever in that office.
Newly freed slaves were also imported northward during the Civil War by cynical Yankee capitalists as strike breakers, just as American workers were beginning to flex their political muscle in wartime labor shortages. This explains why the New York Draft Riot is remembered in conventional history books as a race riot when it was in fact the fiercest battle of genuine class warfare ever fought in the United States. Popular mythology has Americans passionately committed to abolishing slavery in the three decades before the war, but a careful reading of original sources reveals they were far more troubled by the wholesale immigration of impoverished, uneducated Catholics, Irish and German immigrants whose role was also to undermine the solidarity of the newly emerging American labor movement. Their presence turned American cities into dangerous no-go zones for the first time, and incidentally, the Bible was first taken out of public school curricula in cities and states with large Irish populations because they objected to their little darlings being exposed to the heretical King James Version.
It may be telling that the leading member of the congressional committee that drafted the 14th and 15th Amendments, Roscoe Conkling, would be the attorney who argued successfully before the Supreme Court two decades later that these new protections applied equally to corporations, as “artificial” persons. In retrospect the intense racial antipathy of Reconstruction comes off as a smokescreen to disguise the push by war profiteers to fill the vacuum left in the federal power structure by the downfall of the formerly dominant slaveholder lobby. As slain leader Lincoln had commented, the adversary he feared the most was not the southern army before him, but the money power behind him.
How i wish other comments on unz review are as thoughtful and intelligent as this one. Thanks
Very good article… see also thoughts in https://sacredtruthministries.com/articles/modern-politics-and-manufacture-unrightful-pre-eminent-right-be-offended-and-display
and see also this superb video
Way of the World – How Tennis Exposes the Lie of Feminism – https://altcensored.com/watch?v=oBmp8OOJ8sE
High bar, but he is certainly on a short list.
Its time for a makeover of the American constitution to put a check on powers excesses that wasn’t envisioned by the drafters of the constitution.
The American constitution was never meant to be a museum piece to be looked at and admired but not touched, it was meant to be a work in progress a reflection of the values of the contemporary America…not the past.
The language it is written in has to be updated to make it assessable to all, and its understanding by the majority of the populace can be used by the state as a litmus test of how well the education system is working.
The reason why so little is done on moulding the constitution to present values is because there are so many vested interests that want nothing to change that may effect their dominance.
Americans must start debating the changes that need to happen to the constitution, for starters the President needs to be cut down to size, they need to be made a servant of the people not a tyrant.
The American Constitution is the direct descendant of the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was always an elite document that was never intended to share power with the people, it was always a tool for the merchant and clergy to demand more autonomy under autocratic rule, this document didn’t evolve but was lost in the weeds and diluted in law, government was, and still is, an elite project.
We come to the evolution of the Magna Carta in the American Constitution, this is the sort of document that the British people never got due to the machinations of those who wanted to keep power among the few.
The problem with the American Constitution is it hasn’t evolved and it doesn’t have its army to ensure its rules are followed, we still have a government by elite for elite.
The next evolution for the American Constitution is for it to have teeth and consequences for executive power, it must have power to dissolve parliament and to be head of military in a crisis of executive power, the military must stand aside while an executive is put on trial for breaching its duty to the people and one of those duties must be a referendum on military adventurism outside North America continental political boundaries.
Americans have to start putting a harness on executive power, the time to evolve the constitution is now.
No disrespect intended, but you have the typical foreigner concept of the Constitution of the united States of America claiming that the Constitution grants “rights” and should change with the times.
YOU, my friend could not be more wrong.
Now to educate you and others…
The Constitution of the united States is a charter of “negative rights” that puts strict limits on what government may do, to wit: ” Congress shall make NO LAW, etc.”
According to the wisdom of the founders, our “rights” are endowed by our Creator and cannot be abrogated or limited.
The founders KNEW that eventually, all governments degenerate into fiefdoms and kingdoms, ruled from the top down and that they do get oppressive and disregard their charters.
By declaring that our RIGHTS are inherent in us merely being born, this takes the onus for authority and responsibility from government and puts it squarely on the INDIVIDUAL.
The First Ten Amendments to the Constitution of the united States of America constitute the “Bill of Rights” which further spells out andcodifies the rights that we possess merely for being human.
No other system of government has a Constitution that puts the rights of the individual ABOVE that of government.
To put it bluntly, this is the most asinine proposal Amren has ever made- Just enforce the !964 Civil Rights Law as written , and drop the ‘Bureaucratic interpretation” ala Chevron doctrine provided by Jewish bureaucrat Alfred Blumrosen -second in command in 1969 at the EEOC, the bureaucracy tasked with enforcing the 64 Civil Rights bill. We now have so many leftists employed in the EEOC particularly and the federal bureaucracy generally that It would be suicide for whites to give them carte blanche to discriminate against whomever they please- Jared’s” Spoken like a true Yankee Yalie” proposal would allow them to discriminate against whites with impunity-don’t trust anything Jared has to say! He lives in an ivory tower- remember, he went to Yale and you didn’t.
anarchyst: “According to the wisdom of the founders, our “rights” are endowed by our Creator and cannot be abrogated or limited.”
Not true. The state abrogates and limits rights all the time. Calling them “unalienable” in the Declaration of Independence was a bit of Jefferson’s flowery rhetoric that was a more than a little deceptive. What he should have said is “unalienable (without due process of law)”, but that would have ruined the flow. After “due process of law”, the state can even deprive its citizens of life, and cheerfully does so every time it executes someone. It also feels entitled to deprive them of liberty and the pursuit of happiness whenever it feels the urge to do so, as long its victims are given “due process”. In recent years there are always more than 2 million people being held in the USA’s thousands of prisons and jails, more than any other country in the world. No doubt more than a few of them have wryly pondered the value of such “unalienable” rights they’ve had taken away from them.
The Constitution needs to be reread, not rewritten.
Yes, the Constitution has been so abused that “original intent” has been ignored, politicians dong whatever they want…
The civil rights acts were not meant for whites. Congress was legislating for ITS citizens. The 14A created federal citizens who are called citizens of the United States. This type of person was granted a set of civil rights which are inferior to God-given rights. In our political system, the whites have inalienable rights, but not the blacks descended from slaves.
Getting rid of the “public accommodations” clause would do more to restore true “freedom of association” especially for whites, than just about any other “tweaking” of the so-called “civil-rights (for some)” laws.