Affirmative tactics: Despite a sympathetic court ruling, Affirmative Action advocates are on the offensive, showing the world a good view of their flawed racial collectivism.
Since the supreme court ruled that colleges can use race as a factor in determining who gets into said colleges, most rational citizens have been shaking their heads, wondering whatever happened to the ideals of a color-blind society. The sad fact is that those who embrace the racial selections of “affirmative action” never shared those ideals. Even though the Supreme Court ruling upheld their official racism, the court has no jurisdiction over reality, nor over the honest perception of it. So it is that even in light of court support, the backers of quotas and other race-stacked measures are on the defensive. The supporters of affirmative action have been faced with far more scrutiny since the ruling than they would have been if the supreme court’s opinion turned the other way, and struck down the race-stacked admissions policy. Some have even proposed ballot initiatives to eliminate race-tainted admissions policies and other procedures, in effect doing the job the supreme court neglected to do – i.e., enforce the constitution – piecemeal. As the advocates of categorizing Americans by race begin to protest this, one can witness, plain as day, their faulty ideas at work. Such is the case with a recent photo of some protesters printed in a newspaper. The photo showed protesters who did not want “affirmative action” ended in Michigan, something evidenced by one sign that reads: “No anti-affirmative action ballot initiatives in Michigan.” This is in itself interesting, for when it serves their purpose the race agitators are the first to use public opinion as justification for anything and everything under the sun. This isn’t an argument, of course, its idiot bean counting, and to claim that simply because x number of people want such-and-such a law passed justifies it, is to ignore any argument entirely; focusing on the number of one’s supporters is not focusing on the nature of one’s ideas nor can it legitimize them. Thus if a majority of citizens approve a just law (say, for example, one prohibiting discriminations such as that inherent in “affirmative action”) it isn’t a just law because it is popular, but rather because of the nature of the law itself. Likewise, even if a majority of people supported racist policies such as affirmative action, that could never justify it. The purpose here is not to discuss the popularity of affirmative action per se, but rather to simply note the inconsistency of its supporters, who have claimed in the past that public opinion justifies their various ideas but now don’t want to put their racial preferences to a vote for fear of justice winning out. A larger ideological flaw on display was the tremendous, willful ignorance of words used to contradict themselves. For instance, several protesters called for their audience to boycott any supporters of anti-affirmative action measures, who they called “segregationists” or “re-segregationists”. The term segregationist is normally used to describe a person who for whatever reason (usually the embracement of racial collectivism – i.e., racism) believes people of different races should be separated. Yet, it is the people referred to as “segregationists” who desire to end the segregating of Americans by race, and the awarding of preferences thereby, while those who hurl the insult and its implications of racism are the ones who actually want to continue to label Americans by race and arbitrarily treat them different accordingly. Why the protesters use the words is this manner is not hard to grasp; they themselves are aware of the ire raised by racism amongst rational people. Collectivism is a false view of reality, and racial collectivism – racism – is the most base of all. It seeks to judge, punish, or reward individuals based on physical characteristics they were born with, simply because said characteristics make them a member of a group of other similar individuals. Judging people based on skin color or other racial factors makes no more sense then judging people based on whether they are tall or short…Moreover, focusing on such incidental factors as race causes important, voluntarily chosen characteristics of the individual to be overlooked. For instance, both Michael Jordan and Colin Ferguson are black. The first is an international icon due to his skill at basketball and a role model to youth; the other is the notorious Long Island Railroad gunman who shot up a commuter train on a rampage. Obviously these are two very different individuals. The only apparent similarity is racial – yet according to the thought process of the affirmative action supporters, it is that racial similarity that is the important characteristic of both individuals.
It is keeping with the intellectual ignorance of the times that those who only think to focus on race call their critics racist. But it also shows how desperate they are, and how ignorant of ideas they assume the general public is, for they would certainly not utter such contradictory terms if they thought their listeners would catch on. ______________________________________________
