'White Men Need Not Apply'

It turns out the Left never hated racism. They just hated White people.

If you appreciate articles like this, sign up for our daily email newsletter and support us with a donation.

When you look at the policies the Left promotes, you'll find they push vehemently for racism – as long as it is against that one group.

Across the Western world, policies have been enacted to discriminate against the founding people of those nations. You don't have to look hard to find them. You can pick a nation (Canada, the UK, Australia, Germany, the US, etc.) and pick any industry at random, and you will easily find a slew of papers, guidelines, policies, and even laws, ensuring that this one group of people is discriminated against because of their race. It may be special grants reserved only for certain racial groups, certain policies restricting others, or continuous unabashed deprecation of the group in mainstream media – but these laws exist, and are increasing.

This critical issue was brought up again with the recent Disney revelations from the O'Keefe Media Group (OMG). A reporter uncovered the systemically racist practices pushed by Disney executives, including CEO Bob Iger, during a conversation with Michael Giordano, a vice president for business affairs. Giordano states that executives and the DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion)-infused company HR have told him directly on numerous occasions, "There’s no way we’re hiring a white male." Disney went so far with this policy that even a mixed-race man, who looked more white than he did black, was allegedly passed over for promotion because his skin was the wrong color.

There are also tacit policies ensuring the "no whites allowed" message is made clear. "I'm guessing that there are acceptable code words and buzzwords that are used to explain what they're looking for such as 'bringing diversity,'" Giordano told the undercover reporter. But, he notes these are mostly just ways to avoid legal issues rather than genuine goals with any sound reasoning behind them.

This is not an issue that is isolated to Disney. According to The American Association for Access, Equity, and Diversity, DEI initiatives have been an increasingly influential part of every major institution, corporation, and department beginning in the 1960s (the now-familiar Marxist foundations of the current culture).

However, the public only really began to notice the discriminatory effects of these policies in the 1970s, 80s and 90s, when several Supreme Court rulings gave government backing to this newfound, truly systemic, discrimination. Although most Americans would be quick to state their support for the idea of "the best candidate for the role" being given the position, this hasn't been the case in any major US institution or organization since then.

Many who support race-based policies claim their existence is needed to "undo decades of systemic oppression." They fully believe, and are erroneously taught by liberal Neo-Marxist professors, that White people unjustly stole everything related to modern society from other groups. Western cities, in their view, were built solely on the backs of slaves. Western wealth was stolen from the "3rd World" in the same way that Western Civilization was "built on stolen land." In the mind of one who believes these tall tales, a little "restorative justice" is only fair. And it is to this sense of Christian fairness, unique to the very Christian nations many of these activists so hate, that they appeal to push their grievance agenda.

This is why newly-introduced racial discrimination is often framed in language that sounds altruistic. Most will have heard such comments as, "These (nations, companies, or roles) have always only had white men in positions of authority. It's time to give others a chance." Of course, they hope those hearing their message will overlook their little lie of omission, their knowing refusal to add context. Few take the time to question why Western nations have traditionally had leaders taken from the traditional population of those nations.

Fewer still ask the next logical question. If it is a problem that "White men" retain positions in the hierarchy of the civilization their forefathers built, why it's not a problem for China to have Chinese men in their positions of authority, or India to have Indian men, or Africa having Black men? Of course, in societies less infected with Neo-Marxist masochism and the self-destructive notions so afflicting the modern West, none of these are a problem — and they shouldn't be. There is nothing wrong with a Black man leading a company in Ghana. So why is there a problem with a White man doing the same in Scotland? Yet, some in our nations believe it is such a problem, that laws must be passed to prevent this atrocity, and they have convinced leaders across society to rectify this problem post haste.

Owing to decades of Marxist programming, even those of us who sense a problem with this kind of behavior often feel uncomfortable noticing and speaking out about it. Even as I write this, my childhood leftist programming has set off warnings in my mind about even mentioning this issue as it takes place. The reality, however, is simple. When framed in the appropriate context, one can side-step the programming and it becomes clear just how disingenuous that programming has been.

The implication of all of these policies is that it is somehow evil to have a particular skin color. So evil, in fact, that those who have this particular epidural coloration should be softly removed from their ability to continue as a people. They should be removed from any position of influence and their positions should be mandated by law to be given to others who already have homelands and institutions of their own. If these same proscriptions were applied to any other group, or any other nations, there would be rightful outrage.

While there certainly was racism in the past, just as there still is among the many diverse groups around the world, these policies codify racism in a way that we were told for decades was evil and should not be done. What's more, they create the very problem among the population that the policies allegedly set out to eliminate. Racial policies tell Americans that they are not one unified body. Instead, they are rewarded or punished because of their immutable characteristics. This does not foster support for the nation or trust among neighbors, but instead further atomizes people and leads to a continued breakdown of societal trust. Of course, that is what any who wish to conquer a nation, especially one as strong as the United States, must do.

It should be obvious by now that "diversity" and atomization are not a strength, at least not to the people who are targeted for conquest. Throughout history, it is only unity that truly brings strength. But to have unity, people must have something around which they can unite. The question we all must ask, if we wish to retain a nation that is free, is what should that unifying thread be?

Arthur is a former editor and consultant. Born in India to missionary parents, he spent his early career working in development for NGOs in Asia, Central America, and Africa.

Arthur has an educational background in history and psychology, with certifications from the University of Oxford and Leiden in the economics, politics, and ethics of mass migration and comparative theories in terrorism and counterterrorism. He is currently launching CivWest, a company focused on building capital to fund restorative projects and create resilient systems across the Western world.

To support articles like this, please consider a donation to Souls and Liberty.