Poor Whites Will Be Further Dispossessed Under Hillary

By Ilana Mercer

“Strengthening families” is big in Hillary Clinton’s immigration platform—not American families, but families of undocumented Democrats. To that end—and “within her first 100 days in office”—Hillary has vowed to “introduce comprehensive immigration reform with a pathway to full and equal citizenship.” These newly minted Democrats will be speedily naturalized (likely in time for Hillary’s second term). “All families” will be granted “affordable health care,” a privilege very many Americans are without.

Yet another political grant of privilege Americans don’t have, unless pigmentally endowed, is affirmative action. The throngs of immigrants and refugees—whose entry into the US Mrs. Clinton will accelerate, and whose numbers she’ll increase, should she become the next president—will benefit from affirmative action.

Although the federal bureaucratic behemoth acts otherwise, the American Constitution “gave the government no license to set quotas for hiring personnel by private enterprise or admitting students to institutions of higher learning,” remarked Richard Pipes in “Property and Freedom: The Story of How Through The Centuries Private Ownership has Promoted Liberty and the Rule of Law” (2000). The institutionalized American quota culture has been imposed by administrative fiat, courtesy of “The Power Elite” and the engorged administrative state under which Americans labor.

For the purposes of conferring affirmative-action privileges, civil servants have compiled over the decades an ever-accreting list of protected groups, “as distinct from whites.” In addition to blacks, the list entails mainly minorities such as Hispanics—Chileans, Puerto Ricans, Cubans, Dominicans, and Mexicans—Pacific Islanders, American Indians, Asian/Indians, Filipinos, Vietnamese and Cambodians.

Affirmative action was ostensibly crafted to correct “the injustices endured by black Americans at the hands of their own government … not only during the period of slavery but also in the Jim Crow era that followed.” The policy took a very different turn, starting in 1965, “when new immigration laws dramatically altered the demographic makeup of the U.S.” In short, the policies of racial redress were extended to all “people of color,” shifting “from remediation toward discrimination, this time against whites.”

It goes without saying that “those who came to this country in recent decades from Asia, Latin America and Africa did not suffer discrimination from our government, and in fact have frequently been the beneficiaries of special government programs,” averred Senator Jim Webb, in a 2010 Wall Street Journal article, titled “Diversity and the Myth of White Privilege.” “The same cannot be said of many hard-working white Americans, including those whose roots in America go back more than 200 years.”

Indeed, much is known about the groups that inherit the earth; much less about the disinherited.

The present ideology on immigration considers all whites, rich or poor, a privileged, “fungible monolith.” This outlook brooks little or no consideration of lives lived in penury for over a century. In particular: It overlooks the descendants of poor white Southern sharecroppers who did not own slaves, but were devastated by the War Between the States both “in human and economic terms.” Even now, this sizeable segment of the South has yet to recover; its attainments with respect to education and income mirror those of the region’s African-Americans, with one distinction: poor whites are barred from affirmative action programs.

First to forewarn about the “immigration-with-preference paradox” was Frederick Lynch, in “Invisible Victims: White Males and the Crisis of Affirmative Action” (1991). The perspicacious sociologist noted that once mass immigration became a bipartisan policy, millions of imported non-black minorities were—and still are—given preference over native-born American citizens. No sooner do these minorities cross the border, legally or illegally, than they become eligible for affirmative action privileges.

At least today we have the benefit of a study that explains, with lots of statistics, the manner in which set-in stone racial set-asides operate to the detriment of poor whites in US academia. It is the work of Princeton sociologists Thomas Espenshade and Alexandria Radford, as reported on in a 2010 column by Patrick Buchanan:

When “[e]lite college admissions officers prattle about ‘diversity,’ what they mean is the African-American contingent on campus should be five to seven percent, with Hispanics about as numerous.” Naturally, “Forty to fifty percent of those categorized as black are Afro-Caribbean or African immigrants, or the children of such immigrants.” Wealthy white kids can still do satisfactorily (even if they’re borderline retarded as with Meghan McCain or Barbara Bush). Poor whites, on the other hand, come to a great deal of diversity-driven grief. At America’s elite schools, a tacit admissions rule exists among Ivy-League recruiters to advance the advantaged. “Lower-class whites prove to be all-around losers,’ at these schools. They are rarely accepted. Lower-class Hispanics and blacks are eight to ten times more likely to get in with the same scores.”

In essence: “poor whites need not apply,” quipped Buchanan.

The “immigration-with-preference paradox,” moreover, has also ensured a constant downward pressure on the meritocratic nature of American institutions. In “State of Emergency: The Third World Invasion and the Conquest of America” (2006), Mr. Buchanan prognosticated that “our two largest minorities, African-American and Hispanics, which now number together seventy-nine million or twenty-seven percent of the population, are leaving school with achievement levels three, four, and five grades behind white and Asian students. [A]s their combined share of the U.S. population…rises toward 40 percent in 2050, they will use their political clout to demand equality of results: racial and ethnic quotas and affirmative action in all profession.”

Again, the affirmative action subterfuge has come about in the teeth of popular opposition and constitutional injunctions against unequal treatment under the law.

Ultimately, under Hillary Clinton’s rule, Syrian, Somali and Mexican new arrivals will continue to supplant poor white Americans in the country’s institutions.

Adapted from Into the Cannibal’s Pot: Lessons For America From Post-Apartheid South-Africa (2011). Ilana’s latest book is The Trump Revolution: The Donald’s Creative Destruction Deconstructed (June, 2016). Ilana has written a weekly paleolibertarian column, begun in Canadian newspapers, since 1999. Follow ilana on  https://twitter.com/IlanaMercer & on  https://www.facebook.com/PaleolibertarianAuthorILANAMercer/
Subscribe to ilana’s new YouTube channel



  1. The interesting thing about post-apartheid America is that, much like post-apartheid South Africa, it provides a startling demonstration of the failure of mass immigration and the catastrophic slow-motion breakdown of the assimilationist model of mixed-racial multi-culturalism.

    Of course, American apartheid never ended, nor did it end in South Africa or the other white minority states of Africa, nor even in Britain, where we have our own soft apartheid.

    But the term ‘apartheid’ is used advisedly here, even in the case of South Africa, where ‘apartness’ was never strictly realised and was not the reality. In fact, the blacks and Coloureds formed a working class within South Africa mainly at the service of the whites. The Bantustans were part of the remedy for this, in that they were meant to form the microcosm of separate, sovereign black and Coloured states, with the aim that ‘white’ South Africa would become self-sustaining as a Euro-ethnic federation of Anglo-Africans and Dutch-Africans.

    That liberal realist vision formed the core of apartheid, but it was never realised – for various reasons.

    Likewise, the liberal realist vision of the assimilationist multi-culturalists in Western societies is based on ‘apartness’, albeit with different connotations and based on radically different rationalisations,

    This latest incarnation of liberal racial realism (or liberal racial supremacism, as I sometimes refer to it) will collapse too, just like the South African experiment did – but this time I think it will be for organic reasons, rather than due to the work of subversive and seditious forces within.

    The solution posited by the liberal race realists/supremacists is integrationism. That, really, is what the ethno- and racial nationalists are fighting against. Trump is a civic integrationist. He is the second- or third-to-last throw of the dice from those who want to “make America great again” (translation: save America from collapsing).

    It won’t work. America has no Gabbian ‘on/off’ switch (see Dr. Gabb’s essay on renovating Britain socially, culturally and constitutionally). America was purposefully designed to collapse, the Constitution is the eject button – that’s what the Founding Fathers understood would happen, and they would not be surprised to see America as it is today. The creative tension was between America as a Republic (a society in which civilised men govern themselves under law with minimal government) and a distinctive people (i.e. the Celtic-Anglo-Saxons who founded the country, joined later by ethnic Germans). These two foundations are dynamic forces in conflict, stretching back to Colonial America and on into the future. The Articles of Confederation reconciled the tension much better than the federal Constitution, but the Fate of the country was sealed from the beginning in that you can’t sustain a free society by allowing unfree people to enter it. You need more than positivistic liberal-minded documents.

    • Seen the BBC’s latest adverts for its series devoted to the supposedly “forgotten” black history in the UK btw? I imagine they’re going to turn it into another chapter of the oppression Olympics. If anything, it is the history of whites in the UK which is under threat of being forgotten…

      • I’m spared that experience as it’s almost 20 years since I owned a TV or paid the TV licence. I can’t bear to even be in earshot of a TV. I do however occasionally watch snippets of programmes like Question Time on YouTube – but even that’s an ordeal. In fact, the other day in an idle moment I started watching an edition of Question Time, but I had to stop after about five minutes. I really just could not bear it. It is the most appalling rubbish and obviously intended for dimwits.

        It’s like a vision of Nineteen Eighty-Four, only an early draft of the book before the publishers told Orwell: “Look, you’ll have to tone it down a bit son, as nobody would find this stuff believable”. It’s obviously staged – the Griffin edition was just an extreme and more obvious example of what I must assume happens on every show. I cannot believe people would think our media are not controlled. The adverts you mention must of course serve as further proof of this.

        A few years ago, I was stuck in a room with an avid TV watcher. I was forced to watch soaps, TV shows, dramas, etc. for hours on end. At first it was interesting, but very quickly I started to go crazy – and I mean literal, schizophrenic crazy – and I had to insist it was switched off.

        • I teach students, mostly in their houses. When we talk about something and they say “but it says on the TV that…” and then I reply that “I find the television unhelpful and uninformative” – they are completely incredulous, and think I have just landed from another planet.

          We have actually lost.

          • Please forgive the accidental downvote… at any rate, I don’t think we’ve lost but you’re right, a lot of people literally confuse what they hear on TV with received doctrine. It is on par to the indoctrination that takes place at the hands of teachers in various public and private schools.

          • Actually David, I think the power of TV could be their undoing in the end. If people are so easily brainwashed in one direction, then they could easily be brainwashed in another, if you see what I mean.

        • Same here, though I was in an earshot of it near a work TV… it reminded me of how far it has degenerated into out and out anti-white, pro-“minority” propaganda.

          I am heartened by the fact that TV is a dying thing in the face of on-demand online venues, but they still obviously can rely on the licence fee (and no doubt, copious EU subsidies) to push their venomous agenda…

Leave a Reply