July 5, 2011

Federal court hands By Any Means Necessary victory over Michigan voters

On the Friday before the long weekend, a three federal judge panel released a 2-1 decision to override the landslide majority Ward Connerly won in his 2006 initiative in Michigan banning racial preferences.

None of the handful of news reports that I saw mentioned that the lawsuit was brought by the group By Any Means Necessary. There's a reason for not mentioning that this is a huge triumph for BAMN.

My new VDARE column begins with a 2005 video of BAMN trying to intimidate the Michigan Board of State Canvassers into not letting Connerly's initiative on the ballot.    

54 comments:

Anonymous said...

ann coulter has been writing quite a bit about the liberal mob recently. -I presume its only going to get worse since they are rarely punished for their violence - while conservatives get the book thrown at them.

Black Death said...

Another good reason to elect federal judges.

Chicago said...

Affirmative action judges aren't likely to want to halt the gravy train from which they and theirs have been benefitting. They have a keen eye for their own self-interest, unlike all those wishy-washy folks out there who approach politics with the most recent church sermon they've heard still playing in their mind.
Makes me wonder how many judges like this are embedded within the system, from the "wise Latina" on down.

George said...

Steve, I like "legacy majority" but I think it shows too much respect, that will not be forthcoming from the new majorities, to us aging white folk. I think they would go with something like "has-been majority". It shows just about the right amount of disrespect while also saying "losers".

Kylie said...

Rather than "legacy majority", I imagine the left will refer to non-leftist, non-majority whites as the "historical majority" as in the "historical wrongs visited on non-whites by their white oppressors" and as in "they're history".

This would also serve to underscore the disdain the left has for traditional history (as opposed to Zinn's ludicrous "people's history".) Also, too many non-whites don't know the meaning of the word "legacy" whereas they've all learned about the "historical" wrongs whites have committed against their peoples.

Anonymous said...

Just in case anyone isn't aware of the reference:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Malcolm_X_any_means_necessary.jpg

I wonder if this group is on the domestic terror watch list

Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov said...

No, not "legacy majority".

No need to guess. Look at the vocabulary of present Latin American populists like Hugo Chavez and I'd guess you'd find terms like "historical oppressors", "exploitative oligarchs" and "ruling elites".

Anonymous said...

GOP is afraid to take this on because it would be 'racist'. Then, the logical thing to do is to take from the Jews since whites lose to blacks(and since Jews are behind people like Obama). But GOP can't do that because it worships the Jews. Lose to blacks, lose to Jews. And lose to Hispanics also. White race is a disgrace.

ExtraMedium said...

Sailer bait in the NYT:

"These used car markets have appeared all over Los Angeles County in the past 15 years, especially in the largely Latino communities southeast of Los Angeles like Walnut Park, where they conduct business entirely in Spanish."

http://nyti.ms/mbmp85

Silver said...

GOP is afraid to take this on because it would be 'racist'. Then, the logical thing to do is to take from the Jews since whites lose to blacks(and since Jews are behind people like Obama). But GOP can't do that because it worships the Jews. Lose to blacks, lose to Jews. And lose to Hispanics also. White race is a disgrace.

And then the ones who do "get it," who've seen through the smokescreen and don't care about being called names ("racist" "antisemite") tend to go off the rails and marginalize themselves. Not saying their anger isn't justified, but their extreme attitudes haven't done their cause any favors.

Jimbo said...

Don't worry folks, this stupid decision will not stand more than a few months. An en banc panel of the circuit court will probably overturn it; if not, SCOTUS will stomp on it the first chance they get--you can count on that.

Luke Lea said...

Althouse predicts the Supreme Court will not only reverse this decision but reframe the whole issue of affirmative action:

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2011/07/6th-circuit-says-michigans-ban-on.html

Hacienda said...

"And lose to Hispanics also. White race is a disgrace."

There's something profoundly wrong with the way whites are socialized. It's why whites are losing everywhere. But don't cry over it. Okay?

Anonymous said...

Why do the lefties in the media get so bent out of shape on Obama "selling out" this is where the Democratic Party gets thing done, in the bureaucracy, the courts, and non-profit organizations that they dominate. They get rules and laws passed without going through those unreliable voters and their silly expectations of equal treatment. I'm sure however that the Supreme Court overturns this ruling, seems very imperial judge like.

One Radical said...

Black Death said...

"Another good reason to elect federal judges."

Wouldn't work. Disparate impact would come in to play when too many of these or those folks sat on the bench, unable to use "empathy" for their fellow "humans".

This is not a representative democracy.

agnostic said...

"Of course, the judges have also handed the GOP a killer issue to defeat Obama in 2012—if the Stupid Party has the courage to use it."

Zero chance of that -- they didn't even bother try stopping the normalization of gay deviance in New York, which was led by "conservative" "bankers".

Since they surrendered and served as traitors for a battle that was not even over yet, there is a smaller still chance that they'll take on a really dug-in parasite like affirmative action.

Anonymous said...

Off topic; Steve, an article of interest for sports statistics and home field advantage; book review of "Scorecasting":

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n13/david-runciman/swing-for-the-fences

Swing for the Fences
David Runciman

Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won by Tobias Moskowitz and Jon Wertheim

Crown, 278 pp, £19.50, January 2011, ISBN 978 0 307 59179 1

Anonymous said...

Okay, I am trying to see how this will shake out.

First, do we have evidence that the ban actually changed practices?

Like to we have data on who applied/was accepted and their academic and ethnic data from before the ban and after the ban?

Second, if we don't have evidence of compliance with the ban, will we have evidence of change.

I am guessing they never complied in the first place.

Wandrin said...

This is slowly becoming a blatant apartheid system.

(As an aside the biggest mistake the founders made was not making federal judges - especially the supreme court - elected. Elected for life maybe or very long terms -(with a minimum age that allowed for them to have a record of the decisions they made) - but directly elected.)

.
"The purpose of discrimination law is to legalize discrimination against “the majority”."

Except when white people are no longer the majority the laws remain.

Given the total lack of interest in legal fairness among the BAMNs of this world and how they view this as permanent reparations what logical reason is there for white people to believe these laws will change when white people are the minority everywhere?

The only logical conclusion is that when white people are a minority everywhere these laws will get WORSE.

.
"But Republican politicians are typically terrified of doing anything for their own supporters, lest they be tarred as “racist”."

Sadly i don't think that's it. I think big business wants what is happening for cheap labor reasons and they have simply bought the current top layer of GOP politicians and pay them to pretend to be against this. They're paid traitors rather than fools imo.

The only assistance there'll be from the GOP will be state level and up and comers.

.
"Maybe they'll start calling whites "the legacy majority"!"

I don't think the people behind this are going to stop until white people are completely wiped out. They also like word games.

So i think they'll settle on "historical majority" because,

1) The word "historical" ties into using slavery as the continuing justification for discrimination and the mainstream media's 24/7incitement of revenge-violence against white people

2) "Historical majority" will make the people behind this smile at how clever they've been to come as mostly poor refugees to a nation with a 90% majority and then bring that population to a point where a direct extrapolation sees them wiped out entirely.

3) It hints at the finalness of the intended solution. "Legacy" makes it sound like there'll be some white Americans left at the end. There's no chance of that on a direct extrapolation. However you could still use the phrase "historical majority" after they're all gone. It's nice and final.

So my guess is historical majority.

Daybreaker said...

"Former Majority Americans" gradually shortened to "Former Americans".

Whiskey said...

Is anyone surprised? The Law is whatever the elites say it is, at any given time. This has been the case since the New Deal and arguably during TR's Presidency. This is what happens when a modern economy gives power to what amounts to a hereditary aristocracy. [Half-Sigma has done ground-breaking work detailing the biographies of the NYT reporters -- all come from money, a lot of it.]

But lets get real. Nike just gave Michael Vick a huge new endorsement deal. Because ... he's Black. This ruling is undoubtedly very popular with most Whites. Not all, but most. Most Whites prefer to celebrate Blacks, push for Black preferences over Whites, and so on. It is an obsession shared by elites and the average NFL fan, who is as Steve points out quite conservative. Most White guys give Vick a pass ... because he's Black.

It is a huge cultural shift, from say 1920 to 2011 (in terms of how Whites view and relate to Blacks). I don't see that changing -- probably most Whites would welcome being a discriminated minority in their own country. [Here I think the attitude of White women is the key -- as both minor beneficiaries of AA/Diversity and being fed up with equal White guys, it is understandable.]

jewamongyou said...

When a people is oppressed, and it gets tired of the situation, it has two options available to it: Armed revolution or civil disobedience. Since we can never win through armed revolution, civil disobedience is our only viable option.

All white college applicants need to identify as "African American". Let the forces of evil waste their own time and money trying to sort it out.

Anonymous said...

http://www.jta.org/news/article/2011/07/04/3088411/op-ed-jews-becoming-commonplace-in-conservative-new-media

Anonymous said...

OT - Atlanta school test scandal

http://tinyurl.com/3q26c6q

Kylie said...

"I don't think the people behind this are going to stop until white people are completely wiped out."

Are you kidding no question mark. However much the people behind this believe their own PR, deep down they know whites are the ones who pay the bills and keep the lights on.

These people will marginalize, demonize and criminalize the goose that lays the golden eggs. But they won't kill it.

Note that it is only those on the right who support any kind or separatist notions. Much as those on the left loathes non-leftist whites, you don't see the former calling for separation along red state/blue state lines or anything similar.

Nanonymous said...

OT - Atlanta school test scandal
http://tinyurl.com/3q26c6q


Ah, the vagaries of black-run America! And the main impetus was, without a doubt, "closing the gap".

kurt9 said...

Has anyone noticed from the recent rash of flash mob robberies and attacks that "teans" in the U.S. is coming to mean the same thing in the same context as "youths" in France?

Rev. Right said...

Kylie said...
Rather than "legacy majority", I imagine the left will refer to non-leftist, non-majority whites as the "historical majority" as in the "historical wrongs visited on non-whites by their white oppressors" and as in "they're history".
---------

Excellent.

It will allow for the continued rationalization of punitive policies against whites long after they are demographically marginalized.

Rev. Right said...

jewamongyou said: "All white college applicants need to identify as "African American". Let the forces of evil waste their own time and money trying to sort it out."

I was just speaking to a friend who works at a pseudo-elite eastern college and asked him what if my kids simply claimed a black grandparent and checked "black" on the admission form, would there be some questioning of a white looking kid? His eventual answer was no.

What are they going to do, start demanding DNA tests of applicants?

Anonymous said...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkmlujV-TvU

Luke Lea said...

I have a grand nephew who looks white but who is technically black. And if you accept the Out of Africa thesis we are all African Americans, literally. As for college admission essays, whites can describe what it feels like to be liable to racial discrimination without implying their color: the threat of affirmative action itself. The civil disobedience route has promise.

RKU said...

"Of course, the judges have also handed the GOP a killer issue to defeat Obama in 2012—if the Stupid Party has the courage to use it."

That would be a bit tricky since the GOP/conservatives seem absolutely every bit as enthusiastic about AA as the Democrats, just more dishonestly so.

In fact, for pretty obvious reasons, the AA of conservatives often tends to be more extreme and ridiculous. Since the vast majority of politically-active "minorities" align with the Democrats/liberals, they can pick the cream of the crop if they so choose, and put forward reasonably qualified candidates (though they often don't). Since the GOP/conservative pool of minorities is so much smaller, their AA slots are quite often filled with total laughingstocks, which makes them look completely ridiculous when they simultaneously proclaim their adherence to race-blind merit and also put forward the sort of individuals whom no one would ever hire even under AA requirements. There are certainly some exceptions to this pattern (e.g. Cubans and some Asian groups lean Republican), but overall I wouldn't be surprised if there were almost a 1 SD qualification gap in the AA individuals put forward by the R's and the D', and favoring the latter.

So the poor voters are faced with the choice of supporting the liberal position, or supporting the conservative position---which is actually the same in practice as the liberal position---and also being vilified as "racist" by the media. Therefore, the issue doesn't exactly arouse a great deal of popular enthusiasm.

FieryJack said...

Frankly, I was surprised that BAMN was associated in any way with this "win" for affirmative action. My own experience with BAMN members showed them to be near-illiterates who appeared incapable of anything except name-calling. I am sure their contribution to the appeal was minimal at best.

Anonymasaurus Rex said...

This federal court was correct - affirmative action must be maintained. I, for one, am grateful that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan will be there on the bench to insist that all ethnic groups have equal representation in all walks of life.

Anonymous said...

Much as those on the left loathes non-leftist whites, you don't see the former calling for separation along red state/blue state lines or anything similar.

Not at the moment, no. But back when the "Bush regime" was in power (that's lefty speak) there was plenty of sentiment for the liberal states to break off and go their own way.

Anonymous said...

nice slam of rove at the end. Why don't more question his "genius"?

Why didn't bush have a fresh VP to run in 2008?

Bush Rove crew are crypto leftistswho probably voted for Obama...

Kylie said...

"...back when the 'Bush regime' was in power (that's lefty speak) there was plenty of sentiment for the liberal states to break off and go their own way."

I remember that. They wanted to get away from Bushites but I don't recall a lot of talk about specific ideas for separating. I got the impression that separatist talk was more an expression of their visceral hatred of Bush and his supporters than anything else. That kind of talk died out once Obama was elected.

By contrast, the right-wing separatists go into a lot of detail about the division of the country, preserving some sort of manufacturing base, etc. They have no use for either political party and don't express a desire to beat or defeat the left. They just want to get away from it, permanently, even if that means scaling back their way of life.

I think the difference is one of loathing an individual and his followers and loathing modern liberalism in all its manifestations.

eh said...

Why don't more question his "genius"?

Because he's a proponent of the conventional wisdom, and people don't usually question the conventional wisdom, especially when it's politically incorrect to do so.

The conventional wisdom is still that with a growing minority (i.e. non-white) population, the Republicans must appeal to this group in order to win elections. Which at the moment isn't strictly true, since there are still enough white votes that they can win simply by carrying a large enough share of Whites. That's basically the 'Sailer Strategy': appealing to Whites, albeit perhaps discreetly, e.g. by pushing policies that at least don't disadvantage Whites, because acting explicitly in the interest of Whites, and saying that's what you're doing, is absolutely a non-starter.

Given the biggest demographic trend -- more and more poor Hispanics -- eventually the conventional wisdom will prove correct. This is aka getting what you wish for. Meaning something to be careful about.

Unless of course the demographic trend can be reversed. But this would seem to involve open recognition that a majority white America is worth preserving (a simple and not all that unreasonable proposition), and then appropriate changes in immigration policy.

But that's White Nationalism, which isn't respectable at all.

So it's not going to happen.

Especially since many establishment Republicans are even too cowardly to speak out against the conventional wisdom, e.g. regarding affirmative action.

So what's the use of the 'Sailer Strategy' unless the political power gained will be used to implment WN-leaning immigration reform? Which it wouldn't be.

Anonymous said...

they didn't even bother try stopping the normalization of gay deviance in New York, which was led by "conservative" "bankers".
correction neoconservative jews.

Anonymous said...

However much the people behind this believe their own PR, deep down they know whites are the ones who pay the bills and keep the lights on.
Never underestimate stupidity - look at Zimbabwe. Look at blacks who shot at fireman trying to rescue them during katrina.

Look at blacks who took over a mine in south africa, it stopped yielding precious minerals because they didn't know what they were doing, so they sold off all the equipment -

- one of the key traits here is lacking foresight and poor impulse control. That will always override abstract ideas like where the money is coming from.

Camlost said...

I was just speaking to a friend who works at a pseudo-elite eastern college and asked him what if my kids simply claimed a black grandparent and checked "black" on the admission form, would there be some questioning of a white looking kid? His eventual answer was no.

What are they going to do, start demanding DNA tests of applicants?


No, but the school you fleece may require your kid to attend "the Black 1st-year Experience" or other mentoring/tutoring sessions with the other upperclass AA students at said school.

Anonymous said...


Wouldn't work. Disparate impact would come in to play when too many of these or those folks sat on the bench, unable to use "empathy" for their fellow "humans".

This is not a representative democracy.


"Disparate impact" has nothing to do with election law. It's pretty narrowly tailored, to employment law. Otherwise, don't you think the Blues would've been suing the Reds already? Hell, the Blue fringe would probably have sued the Blues already; are "minorities" even proportionally represented among the Blues?

There's a good reason for "disparate impact" to be narrowly applied; there are some very sharp edges on the other side of that sword.

Svigor, Name/URL not working for me here or at Mangan's.

Anonymous said...

"Of course, the judges have also handed the GOP a killer issue to defeat Obama in 2012—if the Stupid Party has the courage to use it."

Zero chance of that -- they didn't even bother try stopping the normalization of gay deviance in New York, which was led by "conservative" "bankers".

Since they surrendered and served as traitors for a battle that was not even over yet, there is a smaller still chance that they'll take on a really dug-in parasite like affirmative action.


You may be right, but politically those are two very different issues. White Americans favor non-discrimination as law, by wide margins. Homosexual marriage is being sold as "non-discrimination," and "equal rights," and currently Americans are probably buying that argument (even though it's preposterous, since homosexuals have never been denied the same marriage rights everyone else gets - what they want is new, special rights invented just for them). AA, not so much. The typical American knows perfectly well that AA is the opposite of "non-discrimination" and "equal rights."

Svigor

Anonymous said...

I am guessing they never complied in the first place.

I forget the exact statistics, but "minority" enrollment dropped. IIRC, from 11.x to 10.x. Maybe I read it at discriminations.us? (The Jewish guy who runs that blog is a mensch, btw, and could probably use a few comments now and then)

Svigor

Truth said...

"But lets get real. Nike just gave Michael Vick a huge new endorsement deal. Because ... he's Black."

That Sux! I'm black , when am I getting my endorsement deal?!?!

Wandrin said...

Hacienda
"There's something profoundly wrong with the way whites are socialized. It's why whites are losing everywhere."

White people, especially northern europeans and their descendents, are more out-bred than other ethnic groups. This makes them particularly good at large-scale group co-operation and consequently extremely strong at national scale inter-group competition but weak at family-level or clan-level group competition.

The latter weakness is a product of diversity as you don't get low-level ethnic competition within national borders if you have a mostly homogenous population.

.
Kylie
"However much the people behind this believe their own PR, deep down they know whites are the ones who pay the bills and keep the lights on."

When the people behind this realised they couldn't keep the lights on with the people they were replacing white americans with they didn't stop what they were doing, they simply started importing more Indians and Chinese.

.
FieryJack
"My own experience with BAMN members showed them to be near-illiterates who appeared incapable of anything except name-calling. I am sure their contribution to the appeal was minimal at best."

They won't have been the brains behind the operation. They're the cossacks.

JSM said...

"I remember that. They wanted to get away from Bushites but I don't recall a lot of talk about specific ideas for separating. I got the impression that separatist talk was more an expression of their visceral hatred of Bush and his supporters than anything else. That kind of talk died out once Obama was elected.
"

Yeah, Kiley, I can remember arguing with a yellow-dog Democrat on another forum during the last Prez campaign. I said, let us red states go. You guys can have 'im (Obama).

He came back with an essay about how, oh, gee, you want to secede? "Okay, we get Harvard. You get Ol' Miss," etc., etc.
I said, and we red-staters also get Rice. Bring it on.

THEN he came back with hooey about how red states take more fed money than they pay in in taxes. I said that's because us red states sell our oil to the feds, so, yeah, we want to be paid for it.

And so on.


The yellow-dog dem's whole point, boiled down, was, you red-staters neeeeeeeeeeed us blue states.

Funny that, huh? Weirdly like the arguments made by an abusive husband to his wife that she can't leave because she needs him so much.

Anonymous said...

Look at blacks who took over a mine in south africa, it stopped yielding precious minerals because they didn't know what they were doing, so they sold off all the equipment

*Facepalm* Svigor

Anonymous said...

(As an aside the biggest mistake the founders made was not making federal judges - especially the supreme court - elected. Elected for life maybe or very long terms -(with a minimum age that allowed for them to have a record of the decisions they made) - but directly elected.)

I vote for failing to include an explicit secession clause as their biggest mistake.

What are they going to do, start demanding DNA tests of applicants?

Yeah, like bureaucrats prefer rigorous standards. No, they'll just start subjecting racial categorization to bureaucratic review. Problem solved.

Svigor

Anonymous said...

What's with the Rove hatred? Yeah, he paid lip service to the need to appeal to Blacks, Hispanics, etc. But that's not what he did. What he did was actually pretty close to the Sailer strategy: identify who is likely to vote for you (i.e. white, married, religious) and get them to the polls. Sounds simple but it's not. And it worked beautifully for two presidential elections, and stopped working for the third because those he delivered to the polls decided to vote for Obama.

Now, of course Rove couldn't come out and spell out what he was doing, hence the blah-blah-blah about diversity. But the left knew exactly what Rove did, which is why they hate him as a racist.

Anonymous said...

"I, for one, am grateful that Justices Breyer, Ginsburg, and Kagan will be there on the bench to insist that all ethnic groups have equal representation in all walks of life."

So, does that mean we can get a Protestant on the Supreme court?

Londoner said...

Kylie - "These people will marginalize, demonize and criminalize the goose that lays the golden eggs. But they won't kill it."

Never heard of the scorpion and the frog?

Kylie said...

"The yellow-dog dem's whole point, boiled down, was, you red-staters neeeeeeeeeeed us blue states.

Funny that, huh? Weirdly like the arguments made by an abusive husband to his wife that she can't leave because she needs him so much."


Yes, that's the only time I ever recall blue staters being concerned about what red staters need. (I mean financial/material needs, not the needed lessons in diversity and tolerance that the left is always trying to impose on the right.) That alone was enough to raise my suspicions.

The left doesn't get that right-wing secessionists want not only a non-leftist government but a smaller government altogether.

The left literally doesn't believe there are people like my conservative, Christian neighbor, who qualifies for government aid but who, despite having RA, works two jobs rather than apply for that aid. He and his wife support themselves and five children with a little help from friends and family and no help from government. This is exactly the kind of life secessionists have in mind that the left will never understand.

Kylie said...

"Never heard of the scorpion and the frog?"

I just don't see the left as a scorpion. Leftists are way too fond of getting those they despise to pay for their public policies to kill the goose that lays the golden egg. Besides, if they killed off non-liberal whites, they'd have nobody left to humiliate.

And yes, while I realize it's the nature of the scorpion to sting the frog regardless of the consequences to itself, I think the left has a far better developed sense of self-preservation.

You do have a point, though. I may be overestimating the left's sense of self-preservation.