In a recent five-year study conducted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) and paid for by the Department for Education and the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, it is revealed that indigenous British youngsters are now significantly less likely to be accepted as undergraduates at British universities than people other, minority ethnic groups.
The statistics presented in the report show that in 2008: of those school students who described themselves as ‘White British’, only 32.6% went on to university; while 75.7% of Chinese students found university places; 67.4% of Indian students; 48.8% of Bangladeshi students; 44.7% of Pakistani students; and 37.4% of Black Caribbean youngsters, did also.
The IFS researchers said they found little difference in the rate of university admissions between white British boys and girls, but they wrote: “All ethnic minority groups are now, on average, more likely to go to university than their white British peers.”
This state of affairs was described by Dr Claire Crawford, assistant professor of economics at the University of Warwick, and one of the authors of the report, as “staggering”, “We were particularly surprised to find that ethnic minority groups which have relatively low school attainment – such as those of Black Caribbean, Pakistani or Bangladeshi ethnic origin – are, on average, more likely to continue into higher education than white British pupils.”
The report said school performance did not appear to dictate which pupils went to university.
What this report therefore demonstrates is that even ethnic minorities drawn from racial groups who have consistently performed worse than Whites in intelligence testing, and whose academic achievement in schools is consistently lower than that of White pupils, are securing disproportionately more university places. For whatever reason therefore, university places are not being offered on the basis of academic merit, as they should be in a fair society.
The report suggested that non-White families may work harder to get their children into higher education, adding: “There must be other factors that are more common among ethnic minority families than among white British families which are positively associated with university participation.”
To suggest that White parents as a racial group are less concerned about their children’s education than ethnic minority parents is quite frankly insulting, and racist! However anti-White racism seems to glibly slip from the tongues of establishment pundits these days, as we are all only too well aware!
What we see here is the effect of what I describe as ‘Organised Minority Advantage’ (OMA), in which highly ethnocentric minority groups, living within a loosely cohesive host population, employ in-group preference in order to benefit themselves and advance their own people unfairly at the expense of the host population. As a corollary of this, the effects of OMA become exaggerated if there are ‘affirmative action’ programmes, or if there are attempts at ‘positive discrimination’ by influential members of the host population who misguidedly feel it their duty to discriminate against their own kind, as a means or rectifying real or imagined historic wrongs. This is clearly what is happening with regard to university admissions.
In an earlier article I have discussed the phenomenon of OMA and demonstrated how it allows ethnic minorities to enrich themselves in business at the expense of the host community, but it does not stop there, OMA has a very powerful effect in the world of academia as well.
Organised Minority Advantage is the same phenomenon that Marxists refer to as ‘White privilege’, except that White privilege works the other way around: it enables highly ethnocentric host communities to maintain their position of primacy in their own land by practicing in-group preference for their own people. However, while White societies may have practiced in-group preference in the dim and distant past – prior to the mid-1800s in most cases, and certainly prior to 1945 – in-group preference among Whites has not been practised by our elites for the best part of a century, and it has been illegal in almost all Western countries for at least five decades. Any suggestion that ‘White privilege’ still exists, other than as a figment of someone’s demented imagination, is quite ridiculous, whereas OMA on the other hand, is alive and kicking and manifests with increasing frequency every day.
One doesn’t have to be a rocket scientist to deduce that our entire culture is now oriented in such a way as to deter Whites from even thinking ethnocentrically, let alone acting that way. Children are subject to multicultural and multiracial mental conditioning from their earliest days at school and this continues throughout their schooling, throughout university and follows them into the workplace. Non-Whites on the other hand are taught to be race conscious and to be ever vigilant in identifying all and every last vestige of ethnocentricity among Whites, labelling it as ‘racism’ and screaming the house down until the perpetrator is punished and prevented from continuing.
Furthermore, our mass media is meticulous and fanatical in its promotion of non-Whites as glamorous, sexy, powerful and dominant, and in portraying Whites as feeble, corrupt, bigoted, and effete in every way.
We are all familiar with the spread of cultural Marxism and its sanitised, but no less virulent form known as ‘political correctness’, beginning with the Frankfurt School and gradually filtering its way up through Western institutions, propelled by the vast wealth of organised Jewry. Large sums of money were donated to Ivy League colleges in the USA and to Oxford and Cambridge and the other Red Brick universities of Britain and the rest of Europe, establishing seats of learning through which the benefactors concerned would gain influence in the appointment of lecturers and in determining the content of university syllabuses.
Through this process, the selection processes applied by university dons in choosing which pupils were allocated university places has also been corrupted, such that where preference might once have been given to clean-cut and wholesome young White people with healthy traditional values, it is now given to people of immigrant stock, who believe and are increasingly made to believe that their people and their native countries have a genuine grievance against White people, for which they are justified in practicing ‘reverse discrimination’ in order to gain both group and individual redress.
When Whites write academic papers in their field of expertise, it is expected of them that they will cite sources to substantiate the points they make, that are drawn from the ethnic minorities. To do otherwise would be to run the risk of being considered racist by one’s peers and no White person in academia could afford to allow that today. Conversely, ethnic minority academics are free to write papers in which they disproportionately cite non-White sources, and like Professor Noel Ignatiev, they can write academic papers that are blatantly anti-White, without attracting opprobrium.
Through this process of disproportionate citation, non-White academics acquire positions of influence within academia out of proportion to the objective value of their writing and their work, and in this way, they gain elevated status within academia that is not justified by their ability nor by their contribution to academia in any objective sense.
The end result therefore, is that we have a disproportionate number of ethnic minority university dons, academics and lecturers, increasingly choosing to offer university places to a disproportionately large number of ethnic minority students, and showing preference for the work done by those students, thereby giving them higher grades than would otherwise be their due, and in this way the adverse impact of OMA upon the interests of White students becomes progressively exacerbated over time.
The proof of the non-White ethnocentricity at work here, and through OMA endowing ethnic minority students with a disproportionate advantage over White students, can be seen in the plethora of ethnic minority clubs and societies that exist on university campuses compared to the almost total absence of clubs and societies aimed at promoting White interests and social cohesion among White students. The influence of cultural Marxism to which I referred earlier can also be seen in the plethora of Communist, Marxist, socialist, left-wing, anarchist and anti-racist clubs, groups and societies on campuses, compared to the almost total absence of their right-wing or traditionalist counterparts.
Sadly, universities have become dangerous places for White student nowadays. Not necessarily dangerous in the sense they will necessarily be subject to physical violence just for being White, although they will face violence if they try to assert or defend their interests as White people, but dangerous in the sense that universities are now ‘occupied territory’, in which our racial enemies hold sway and subject our youth to further intense mental conditioning aimed at making them servile and submissive in the face of non-White aggression or the assertion of non-White interests ahead of those of our own people.
Any White parent needs to be vigilant when their child goes to university, and they need to take time to mentally prepare their children for what they will encounter, so that their children will not be psychologically damaged by the experience.
White children need to be prepared and schooled in the techniques and tactics required to avoid and counter the mental conditioning that they will inevitably be subject to.
Most importantly, we need to inculcate within our children a determination to maintain a healthy, pro-White, ethnocentric, outlook and to begin the reversal of the trends that I have described that are aimed at robbing them of their future prosperity and wellbeing.