I've always been intrigued by the fundamental contradictions that characterize affirmative action (AA) in its various guises.
First there’s the blatant inconsistency, underlined most notably in sport – the only activity at which blacks excel. The recent Winter Olympics have been attacked by numerous pundits as being for ‘wealthy whites’. Similar criticisms have been made of tennis and golf at various times. There’s ongoing pressure in South Africa to have the composition of the Springboks rugby team reflect ‘the nation at large’.
However, it never happens the other way around. In the US the NBA is almost exclusively black and American Football certainly doesn’t reflect ‘the nation at large’. It’s even more glaring in Europe where soccer is concerned. The most grotesque example is the French soccer team which is about 80% black. But have you ever heard calls to redress these imbalances? No, neither have I.
Then there’s the issue of race being a ‘social construct’. There’s no such thing as race. Look at the nonsense of apartheid-era South Africa. How bizarre, trying to assign everyone to a certain race. Where do you draw the line?
But the same people squawking this in our faces have no difficulty classifying people by race when it comes to favouring them at the expense of whites. So it seems is it possible to classify people by race after all?
Another bizarre example relates to the definition of ‘historically disadvantaged minorities’ (blacks to you and me). Under this dispensation, typified by the new Bill Gates Scholarships, the privileged daughter of wealthy black parents would be given priority over a dirt-poor white boy in terms of admission to a leading university.
Can anyone explain the logic of this?
But the situation regarding Jews is the most bizarre of all to my mind.
It hardly needs repeating that Jews have been at the forefront of AA from the beginning. They even lead the NAACP for most of its formative and most successful years. They were among the most effective supporters of the 1964 Civil Rights Act in the US and remain the most powerful advocates of AA.
Being naturally liberal could explain this. There is another theory of course that Jews have deliberately planned this, together with mass Third World immigration and black/white miscegenation, as a means of emasculating their nemesis, the rowdy white male who’s caused them so much grief in past generations.
But let’s just take the benign scenario, by accepting that their support for AA is motivated solely by altruistic liberal motives. (And it might be, I honestly don't know). You would then expect that, as AA takes hold and displaces whites at every turn, Jews would share the pain and accept displacement at the same rate as other whites.
But not a bit of it. You’ll see Jews massively over-represented among top business executives, the faculty at major universities, leading politicians, partners in leading law firms, the list is endless. I remember seeing a graph of Harvard under-graduates which showed Asiatics to be heavily over-represented while whites were under-represented. However, if you separated the whites into Jews and Gentiles you’d see a truly bizarre profile showing colossal over-representation of Jews and a corresponding under-representation of Gentiles.
Now let me be clear – I don't begrudge Jews their success, which derives from the same factors that account for blacks’ lack of success - intelligence and hard work.
However, it’s a bit rich to be leading the charge for the preferential treatment of ‘under-privileged minorities’ at the expense of ‘whites’ while deftly side-stepping and allowing Gentile whites to bear the full brunt. And bear in mind that religion was also expressly included in the 1964 Act but has been airbrushed out of subsequent AA activism which focused entirely on race.
It’s called having your cake and eating it. And Jews themselves have a word for it- chutzpah!