MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Posts Tagged ‘Whiteness’

Biden’s New Intersectionality: Where Equity Policies Meet Bad Economics | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on May 16, 2023

Although the chart no longer is found on the Smithsonian website, the mentality that created it lives on in the policies of the Biden administration. To show its commitment to equity—equal outcomes—the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) implemented a new policy on May 1, 2023, that punishes homebuyers with high credit scores who can put down at least 15–20 percent on a mortgage by making them pay higher interest rates and extra fees. Declares a Wall Street Journal editorial:

Good credit score = bad social score

https://mises.org/wire/bidens-new-intersectionality-where-equity-policies-meet-bad-economics

William L. Anderson

In the summer of 2020, the Smithsonian Institution created a chart meant to condemn what it calls “whiteness,” and it listed a number of characteristics it claimed were essential to “white culture.” Among the so-called characteristics it described in pejorative terms was delaying gratification, or saving for the future, what Austrian economists would call low time preference.

The chart, which was withdrawn after widespread protest, sought to identify the characteristics needed to build not only an economy but civilization itself with a racist culture. Thus, the kind of lifestyle and values that might culminate in someone having high credit scores and saving up for a significant down payment for a house were something not to be emulated or praised, but rather to be called out and declared shameful.

Although the chart no longer is found on the Smithsonian website, the mentality that created it lives on in the policies of the Biden administration. To show its commitment to equity—equal outcomes—the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) implemented a new policy on May 1, 2023, that punishes homebuyers with high credit scores who can put down at least 15–20 percent on a mortgage by making them pay higher interest rates and extra fees. Declares a Wall Street Journal editorial:

According to calculations by Evercore ISI, buyers with strong credit scores between 720 and 739 who make 15%–20% down payments will see their rates increase by 0.750%. Borrowers who put down 20%–25% will see rates increase by 0.500%.

The winners are borrowers with weak credit scores—that is, riskier borrowers. Under current FHFA policy, a borrower with a weak credit score below 620, who is borrowing more than 95% of the value of their home, pays 3.750%. Under Ms. Thompson’s new plan, those borrowers will see their fees decrease by 1.750%.

Not surprisingly, commentators like James Bovard have rightly attacked this policy as one that imposes perverse incentives, turning the rewards for creditworthiness upside down. Bovard writes:

Starting May 1, The Post exposed last week, a Biden administration decree will require adjusting mortgage calculations to penalize homebuyers with a FICO credit score of 680 and above—almost two-thirds of the population.

This levy will be used to reduce costs for people with low credit scores—i.e., risky borrowers more likely to default on mortgages.

However, this is not merely another version of the Law of Unintended Consequences, in which well-meaning government officials implement a policy without looking at the so-called bigger picture. The consequences here are intended. The Biden administration officials know full well the implications of this new policy and is sending the message that the notion of creditworthiness itself is implicitly racist.

As Newsweek points out, the racial gaps in home ownership and credit scores are significant:

See the rest here

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Problem With Tearing Down Statues…

Posted by M. C. on May 3, 2022

In this episode, Douglas Murray and I discuss the current assault on the West, slavery, gratitude, racist mathematics, whiteness, (non-Western) accomplishments, and individual sovereignty. Douglas Murray is the associate editor of The Spectator and the bestselling author of seven books, including The Strange Death of Europe: Immigration, Identity, Islam; The Madness of Crowds, and The War on the West.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Facebook Announces Sweeping New Speech Restrictions

Posted by M. C. on July 23, 2021

Anti-discrimination comes to mean enforced silence on behalf of protected groups, no matter how central the issue in question is to the nation’s political and social future.

https://www.city-journal.org/facebook-announces-sweeping-new-speech-restrictions?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Organic_Social

Arthur Milikh

The battle over permissible speech in American society was helpfully, and predictably, elaborated by Facebook last week in an update to its “hate speech” rules. The social media giant’s changes are a signal of the new limits being placed on political expression and the freedom of the mind. Other major American institutions are almost sure to follow its lead.

Until recently, most online platforms largely defined “hate speech” as speech that could lead to imminent physical harm. But Facebook now demands that its users “not post” speech critical of “concepts, institutions, ideas, practices, or beliefs associated with protected characteristics, which are likely to contribute to imminent physical harm, intimidation or discrimination against the people associated with that protected characteristic.”

“Protected characteristics,” according to Facebook, include “race, ethnicity, national origin, disability, religious affiliation, caste, sexual orientation, sex, gender identity and serious disease.” On its face, this sounds neutral and universally applicable. Yet anyone following the matter knows that it is inconceivable, for instance, that Facebook would ban critiques of “cisgenderism,” a concept whose purpose is to attack heterosexuality and the legitimacy of the generative family. It is similarly unimaginable that protected groups would be blocked from criticizing American constitutionalism as a construct of “whiteness.” Oppressor groups, after all, do not possess “protected characteristics.”

Discrimination once meant denying housing, access to public accommodations, or employment to people based on immutable characteristics. This, of course, was corrected by civil rights laws. But discrimination now means speech that protected groups find insulting. In other words, the last place where discrimination exists is in the minds of oppressor groups.

This new view of discrimination conflicts with the basic requirements of political liberty. It means, for instance, that speech defending the traditional family harms the self-respect of LGBTQ people; that arguments in favor of secure borders harm the self-respect of illegal immigrants; and that analyses of the different rates of criminality among demographic groups harm the self-respect of some groups, while also lowering their stature in the eyes of the oppressor group. Anti-discrimination comes to mean enforced silence on behalf of protected groups, no matter how central the issue in question is to the nation’s political and social future.

Serious political deliberation in a nation devoted to constitutional self-government is circumscribed or even prohibited under such restrictions. Big Tech platforms are undeniably the major, if not the essential, forum for political debate today. Pew Research reports that 36 percent of Americans receive news from Facebook. YouTube, whose “hate speech” rules are similar to Facebook’s, accounts for 75 percent of the world’s video viewing.

Forbidding the discussion of “concepts, institutions, ideas, practices, or beliefs associated with protected characteristics” also hobbles the use of speech as a tool for discovering the truth about basic matters. Leading “hate speech” restriction advocates already demand the banning of factual claims, should they harm the self-respect of protected groups. Facebook’s guidelines could preclude the critical discussion of dogmas claiming that all oppressor-group members are unconsciously biased, or that only racism accounts for disparities among groups.

By this logic, the speech of protected groups becomes sacred, insofar as it cannot be subjected to rational inquiry, critique, or even calls for clarification. Liberal democracies separate church and state, but protected groups now form a new priestly class, not only with power over social life and death, but with the capacity to make unfalsifiable declarations.

Facebook’s reasons for these changes are murky. At their most hopeful, Facebook executives once seemed to believe that by connecting the entire world, their platform would help erase the causes of strife and war—like loyalties to nations and gods—without which, they hoped, human beings could live in harmony. “If people are asking the question, is the direction for humanity to come together more or not? I think that answer is clearly yes,” Mark Zuckerberg enthused several years ago.

More cynically, however, prohibiting “hate speech” coheres with Facebook’s business model: users with heightened, enraged tempers do not yield authentic user data that reflects their sellable tastes and preferences. As Facebook knows, “people use their voice and connect more freely when they don’t feel attacked on the basis of who they are.” So, too, is the Left’s pressure apparatus—which now includes the federal government—more effective at compelling corporate decision-makers to listen.

Facebook is one of the referees of our public square, a privilege that grants it the power to determine the thoughts, ideas, concepts, and even political direction of the nation. This immense power must not be permitted to warp the ability of citizens to exchange their thoughts freely and fearlessly.

Arthur Milikh is the executive director the Claremont Institute’s Center for the American Way of Life.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

I can’t believe it’s not banned yet: 5 problematic behaviors for the woke squad to outlaw next — RT Op-ed

Posted by M. C. on January 3, 2020

One zoo in London is correcting this historic injustice by allowing two gay penguins to raise a “genderless” chick, to allow visitors to “meet that individual and learn about its personality without assigning it any sort of pre-concieved gender roles.”

https://www.rt.com/op-ed/476677-woke-things-banned-2020/

The forces of social justice have been tireless in banning anything offensive, hurtful or ‘problematic.’ But why stop now? There’s danger everywhere, and only the censor’s stamp can save us.

Now that scantily-clad women are banned from sporting events, Santa has turned into Sustainability Pirate and ‘Baby It’s Cold Outside’ has gotten a chastity-belted 2019 rework, the job is far from done – it’s going to be a busy 2020 for the woke squad banning the next batch of problematic things. Like these.

Consensual Sex

Problematic Factor: 69/10, too hot to handle

RT

Men, you’ve had a lovely evening with her. She’s returned your affection and invited you back to her place to get more intimate. In no uncertain terms she’s told you that she wants to engage in a bout of horizontal cardio. Think you did everything right? Too bad, you’re still a rapist.

That’s according to one Georgetown Law professor, who believes that unless men continuously reaffirm during intercourse that they still have consent, that sex is definitively rape. The professor does not suggest how men actually do this, but a questionnaire submitted every minute would probably do the trick without breaking the mood at all.

Also on rt.com ‘Consent should be CONTINUOUS’: Liberal professor implies not asking during sex is RAPE But wait, consent or not, there are those who argue that all heterosexual intercourse is rape. Radical feminist Andrea Dworkin argued in 1987 that all sex is rape because power and the patriarchy and such, and totally not because she was missing out on the fun.

In a socially just world, all heterosexual congress should be banned. Men should be castrated at birth and forced to toil in the soy fields, while women live full and satisfying lives, finally free from the terrors of the heterosexual orgasm.

Hoop earrings

Problematic factor: nueve de diez

Cultural appropriation is a well-worn path at this stage. Our brave social justice crusaders have already reclaimed dreadlocks from pot-smoking white oppressors for their rightful owners of color, and universities across the US have clamped down on sombreros, feathered headdresses, and all kinds of ethnic costumes.

But go to any nightclub and you’ll see that cultural appropriation is alive and well. Did you know that hoop earrings aren’t just a tacky choice of jewelry? They’re also a sacred symbol of “resistance, strength and identity” for the latinx community.

Policing the outfits of every single oppressor will be a difficult task, true. But America can look east for inspiration here. Saudi Arabia’s Islamic Religious Police do a bang up job preventing the local women from appropriating dangerous western cultural trends, like reading, and uncovering their hair.

A Social Justice Police officer in every nightclub would go a long way towards ridding society of cultural appropriation. In addition, caucasians seen attempting to twerk could be summarily executed. Stick to your polkas and waltzes, whitey!

Alcohol

Problematic Factor: 150% Proof the patriarchy exists

Sure, there are plenty of arguments against our favorite poison: it causes liver failure, impairs judgement, and is a factor in two out of every three instances of domestic abuse in the United States. But did you know that it’s also a devious tool of the patriarchy, designed to keep women from noticing the barrage of microaggressions they face every day?

That’s right. According to one Quartz writer, alcohol is an elixir invented to keep women “purring when we should be making other kinds of noise.” Essentially, by remaining liquored up, women can tolerate “a thousand years of patriarchy,” or at least put up with awkward come-ons from men at office parties.

Progressive media outlet Vox has already banned the infernal rape-juice from its annual Christmas party. Isn’t it time for full-scale national prohibition? What could go wrong?

The unbearable whiteness of everything

Problematic Factor: 10/10, pure unadulterated racism

Damn white people and their *shuffles cards* woodland hiking! In case you haven’t noticed by now, many wholesome and healthy activities are unbearably white. America’s national parks are full of smiling white families clad head to toe in North Face gear, led by Asics-wearing dads who say things like “let’s go gang!” A Sunday trek is practically a Klan meeting.

RT

The problem was first identified in an article entitled “The Unbearable Whiteness of Hiking,” and thinkpiece after thinkpiece have since highlighted the “unbearable whiteness” of skiing, farming, cycling, Indie music, self-care, being Irish, and hundreds more seemingly innocuous activities.

The argument goes that the saturation of white people in these spaces can dissuade people of color from partaking in the fun. So, rather than banning the activities themselves, why not simply designate some whites-only spaces, where no self-respecting POC would ever want to go?

Perhaps a Jimmy Buffet concert? The hockey hall of fame? North Dakota? The possibilities here are endless.

Animal Sexism

Problematic Factor: 8/10 cats say they’re triggered

Not content to impose its will on human females (and the non-binary), the patriarchy is also working to assert male dominance over the animal kingdom. Did you know that natural history museums around the world display a shocking TWO PERCENT more male mammals than female? And where is the transgender animal representation?

One zoo in London is correcting this historic injustice by allowing two gay penguins to raise a “genderless” chick, to allow visitors to “meet that individual and learn about its personality without assigning it any sort of pre-concieved gender roles.”/

Also on rt.com ‘Completely natural’: London aquarium helps gay penguins get woke… they now have GENDERLESS chick But how many of us still call our dogs “good boy” without asking them whether they really identify as their biological sex? And isn’t putting pretty pink bows on our cats just reinforcing harmful gender stereotypes? All of these questions and more have been answered by the trailblazing journalists at the Washington Post and the activists at PETA.

We’ve covered five big nasties here, but this list is just the beginning. The world will only be completely sanitized once all traditions, humor, diversity of thought, and basically anything a white man ever says are stamped out in the name of political correctness. Sharpen your pitchforks, my gender-nonspecific pals, light your carbon-neutral torches, and let’s spread the light of social justice to the world.

Be seeing you

prince-charles-feb-1-2017-balloon-getty-640x480

Gay penguins in Londonstan shouldn’t surprise

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The Harm of Diversity and Inclusion – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on June 13, 2018

…academic rigor is a “dirty deed” that upholds “white male heterosexual privilege,” adding that “scientific knowledge itself is gendered, raced, and colonizing.”…

These are the government sponsored teachers programming your children.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2018/06/walter-e-williams/diversity-and-inclusion-harm/

By 

In conversations with most college officials, many CEOs, many politicians and race hustlers, it’s not long before the magical words “diversity” and “inclusiveness” drop from their lips. Racial minorities are the intended targets of this sociological largesse, but women are included, as well. This obsession with diversity and inclusion is in the process of leading the nation to decline in a number of areas. Read the rest of this entry »

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »