What is Digg?1 Comments
- inactive, on 12/19/2007, -0/+1Some interesting points.
Proponents of these programs are usually after an establishment dominated by their favored groups (Jews, women, blacks, Latinos, Muslims). They use populist-style logic (public workforce should mirror the state composition) to cover up their anti-majoritarian, anti-white goal.
We see this all the time in school board and city council debates over 'diversity,' wherein minoritarians claim that for a city that's 90% white, a school board or city council that's only 70% white isn't 'diverse' enough.
The Populist logic makes a certain amount of sense. How can anyone trust a representative body when it doesn't doesn't resemble the people? Blacks have never trusted the government, even when it and the country were 90% white. They still don't trust it now, when they're *overrepresented* in Congress. Latinos, most of whom are either illegal aliens, or descendants of illegals, certainly won't trust a government that is considering starting to enforce the immigration laws that Latinos have been breaking for decades -- until that government is mostly Latino.
Jews claim the government can't be trusted to protected favored groups (e.g., Jews), but Jews are *dramatically overrepresented* in all three branches of the government. If anything, a group at 2% of population with a *dominant* position in the government ought to be drowning in trust.
Ironically, whites (Caucasians and any assimilated individuals with white skin who don't identify with a non-Caucasian race), at 70% of the population, are the only major group *underrepresented* in all three branches, and have been paying for all these tax-funded, government-administered programs and studies that constantly scapegoat white people, yet whites are the only group *not* demanding that the government represent their people fairly.
So, if we wanted to make the federal government, for instance, fair on a population-percentage basis, we would need to reduce the number of blacks, Latinos, and, especially, Jews, to representative levels, as well as curtail illegal immigration, which threatens to illegally change the makeup of the population dramatically. If we expelled all the foreign criminals living in the US, the population might return to being 80% white, 12% black, 2% Jewish/Israeli-American, and 6% Latino (or whatever). (Could you imagine the lawsuits and intimidation tactics that would result from that?)
However, as a white person, I'd rather be represented by a libertarian or cultural conservative (= true conservative, not Zio-con) of any race than a Judeo-liberal, Marxist, or any other type of Caucasophobe of my own race. Also, I'd rather be represented by someone who's not religious of any race than someone who is from my race. Just sticking any old white guy up there isn't going to work. I really doubt that all Native American tribes want to be represented by members of enemy tribes, or all that most women want to be represented by the she-male NOW/feminist types, or that all blacks would feel properly represented by 'race capitalists' like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton.
In the end, it seems that any attempt to artifically introduce ethnic/racial representativeness in a government body will fail because race and ethnicity aren't all that matters.
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is