Race Bias #41 - "What do They Know?"
In Race Bias #40, "White Bread," we examined the anti-white racial attitudes of a large group of educated Americans who read the "Arts" sections of our major daily newspapers.
This is the strata of our society that implements the policies of racial preference for non-whites that have been the subject of the first 39 posts in this series. Although "white" themselves, they detest middle class European-American culture, seeking always to escape it.
Many university professors, reporters in the print and broadcast media, and government employees share these views of "white bread" with associated stereotypes of the people from whom they wish to distance themselves.
Thus, it should be no surprise that our bureaucracies can find people to staff programs that flatly contradict the plain words of the 14th Amendment without troubled conscience. However, while this portion of the American elite may be well educated, it is not necessarily economically well-off.
And this leads to a natural question. We have a clear picture of the "cultural elites," but what of the economic elites? Are they anti-white too?
Certainly, there is a fair scattering of white-haters among the top corporate leaders and the super rich in America. However, there are important differences in perspective between this elite generally and the cultural elite profiled in Race Bias #40.
A defining characteristic of the super-rich and the CEOs of the fortune 500 is that they are far more conscious of what others think, particularly their customers and fellow market participants. It is an elemental skill for survival in the marketplace. Those obsessed with their own needs and feelings tend to be less able to identify and satisfy market demands (the needs of others).
With this market and customer focus on what others think, our corporate elites are typically going to be far less inclined to indulge any anti-white ethnic or racial animus they might harbor. The term "white-bread" will never sell soap or beer and they all know it. (Although it does sell theater tickets!)
Nevertheless, this class has enormous power in our society, and so the question naturally arises whether they are "guilty" and whether, in some changed future, they ought to be held accountable. After all, they are the ones who have approved these policies of discrimination against European-Americans based on race!
The prime measure of guilt is intent. So then the question becomes, "what do these corporate chieftains really think?" What do they know? Why would they do this to their own kind? Do they share this contempt for "white bread?"
This post provides you with some tantalizing clues.
First is a short excerpt from an economic forecast called the "Sommers Letter", published by the Conference Board for its members. The Conference Board is a lobbying, issues analysis and "networking" organization for large U.S. Corporations.
Its purpose is to give the fortune 500 a forum for organizing input to Congress on those issues on which most of the members agree. One of the member services the organization performs is publication and distribution of its own economic forecast made by its own staff economists.
To many members, this service is one of the most important. If the Conference Board has an ideology, it is moderate to liberal in the sense that they have learned to live with big, intrusive government. As "realists" they all accept the metastasis of intrusive and irrational government as "inevitable." They organize, in part through the Conference Board and similar organizations, to gain influence over the direction of that malignant growth.
In any event, you would be amazed at what these corporate chieftains discuss in private among themselves. Here is that classic example from the Sommers Letter, published by the Conference Board, Sept. 1, 1987:
"But the prevailing impression, based upon such portentous facts as the 18 percent of U.S. employment represented by disadvantaged minorities, the 32-percent share of minorities among the unemployed, and the high percentage of advanced engineering degrees granted by American institutions to foreigners (with a penchant for returning to their own countries) supports a troubling prima facie case for an educational impairment of efficiency not present in the homogeneous labor forces of our principal competitors."
So there you have it - "homogeneous labor forces of our principal competitors". The Corporate Chieftains of America are abundantly aware of the advantages of a racially homogeneous work force. They are abundantly aware of the weaknesses of multi-racial empires.
And as the somewhat longer excerpt printed below makes clear in the most straightforward language, these liberals are abundantly aware of the damage that mass immigration of the low skilled inflicts on our living standard.
The above quote from the Conference Board sat unused in Yggdrasil's clippings file until the May 1, 1995 issue of Barron's arrived with an article on page 15 entitled "Really Rich - How very wealthy families view investments, society, the future." The article is a survey on the attitudes of Americans with more than $100 million dollars. As that survey notes:
"[T]he second great difference of those with wealth. Many of them perceive the nation's social fabric to be unraveling, the delicate threads being pulled by ethnic and racial conflicts, a worldwide population explosion and a growing national debt."
"At least two-thirds of them believe that in the next decade, the U.S. trade imbalance will get worse, that the national debt will balloon, that more and more tax dollars will be chewed up by entitlement, - and oh, yes, that law enforcement is going to become somewhat, um, problematic."
"lastly, the "internationalists," who metaphorically - and sometimes literally - are getting out of town before the barbarians come crashing through the front gates. * * * Their response: Jump ship. This group believes not only in investing overseas but in seeking out offshore tax shelters, still a relatively radical move for most wealthy families. In extreme cases, these folks will consider renouncing their U.S. citizenship."
The Barron's survey speaks in "code". The belief by two-thirds of the wealthy that "law enforcement is going to become somewhat, um, problematic" is a polite way of saying that urban juries will lead to spotty law enforcement, as will the inevitable darkening of urban police forces.
At the time this survey was taken, the participants were aware of the O.J. Simpson charade, but probably unaware of the percolating rage in rural America, and certainly unaware of its potential for destruction.
The wealthy have no respect for our legal system and have no expectation that the legal system can deliver fair or just results. They are frightened by the civil (tort) system, and afraid of being sued. They have no need to read the "Bonfire of the Vanites." They have already moved part of their wealth, and they are getting ready to move themselves.
But despite these attitudes, untrammelled immigration continues to exacerbate the skills deficit and the potential for ethnic conflict. While virtually all of corporate America privately recognizes that integrationism is a myth, they do nothing to oppose it. The question is "why?"
The truth may surprise you.
The fact is that despite the power of the corporate chieftains and the wealth of those with over $100 million, most of these people feel that politics is alien and that they have little real power to change things.
From their immediate personal perspectives, it is better to appear generous and kind in public, to counteract the natural tendency towards economic jealousy. They keep any anti-egalitarian thoughts to themselves.
In a sense, this feeling of helplessness among the corporate elites and the wealthy is merely one more natural and predicable pathology of the multi-racial empire. You see, our corporate elites are not at all sure that Americans are "their people." It is easy to disclaim responsibility for the fate of total strangers.
To the corporate chieftains and the wealthy, image is everything. The corporate chieftains have learned that the art of acquiring and keeping power in a large organization revolves around withholding information. After all, if a subordinate knows what you know, he may be able to make a better presentation to the board. Most chief executives come up from sales. Seldom is the CEO the smartest person in the organization. Deny those around you the essential data, and they can never mount a successful challenge to your power.
And indeed, it is no surprise that the wealthy and the corporate captains opt for this familiar stratagem in public life as well.
After all, it is the only thing they know.
This need to conceal, control and manipulate information creates a profound distrust of our society and our political institutions. But they can never say so in public. They know that integration is not working. They know that multi- culturalism is fragmenting the U.S. However, they have a powerful short term economic interest in patching over the conflicts and keeping the system running until their stock options can be exercised or, in the case of a wealthy founder, the company can be taken public.
In any event, that is why corporate officers never criticize such obviously silly policies as affirmative action. It is best to go along with it. After all, one misstep, and you could lose that power.
Their primary wish is to appease the "political classes" and not arouse their jealousy. What they fear most of all is the political power of the mass of educated "white bread" haters in the media and on the legislative staffs who can stir up political hostility toward business.
From the perspective of a Fortune 500 CEO or corporate founder with over $100 million, society is ruled by a very dangerous class of information elite skilled at extracting tribute and disrupting real economic activity through the press and the political and legal systems. As individuals, the members of these information elites may be less skilled at acquiring power than CEOs, and less lucky at being in the right place at the right time than the wealthy founders. However, they control the opinions of the voters and consumers.
From the perspective of top managers and the very wealthy, it is a class that is far too dangerous to confront.
In the words of Prof. James Q. Wilson, in a review of a book from the Jan. 11, 1978 Wall Street Journal, P14 Column 4:
* * *
The contrary hypothesis is easily stated. Since the 1930s, and especially since the 1960s, the drift of public policy has been increasingly hostile to business.
The essential difference between Mr. Lindblom's theory and the alternative stated above is that his imputes power to an institution or class on the basis of the resources it possesses, while the other attempts to measure power on the basis of who wins and who loses. The fallacy of the Lindblom view is well-known to every student of politics: One cannot assume that the disproportionate possession of certain resources (money, organization, status) leads to the disproportionate exercise of political power. Everything depends on whether a resource can be converted into power, and at what rate and at what price. That, in turn, can only be learned by finding out who wins and who loses.
For a long time, business could block environmental controls; now they cannot. Why? They have great power, it would appear, in maintaining the favorable tax treatment of capital gains, but not in lowering the corporate tax rate. Why? They lose on most OSHA regulations, but win (usually) on maritime subsidies. Why? Clearly, some distinctions are in order. But even more, some research is in order. This book is destined, I think, to have a great intellectual influence. And it fails in that part where evidence rather than logical analysis is most necessary. It is an armchair view of American politics and stereotyped from the outset: The only actors on the stage are elected politicians and business firms, so Mr. Lindblom sees the latter as being the principal constraint on the former.
But to a participant in politics, and even to most observers, the full list of actors is much larger and the constraints far more complex. The student reading this book will learn nothing of the professions, the bureaucracy, the courts or the public-interest law firms, and next to nothing of the mass media, intellectuals, "experts," universities and foundations that have such a large effect on American public life. It is a pity, because in the past we have learned so much from Prof. Lindblom.
Mr. Wilson is Henry Lee Shattuck professor of government at Harvard University.
It is thus clear that the very wealthy and the corporate CEOs know exactly what is going on. It is clear they understand that the racial burdens they are imposing on less fortunate members of their own kind are destructive and contrary to the plain words of the Constitution and the Civil Rights Act of 1964. (And, indeed, all of these people could be placed on trial without adopting a single word of new legislation!)
But the ultimate question is whether they are guilty of sins of omission or commission. Do they indeed feel constrained by a hostile political environment, or is the adoption of racial quotas a direct and intentional attack motivated by hate?
We will know in the fullness of time!
With the exception of the chiefs of the movie studios and networks, few CEOs are interested in changing the popular culture. They are generally happy with the status quo. Therefore, they are unlikely to support new social movements, particularly ones as unpopular as "white nationalism," until long after the movement demonstrates its broad appeal, acquires political power and the collective self-discipline to reward and punish business.
Thus, among the corporate chieftains, we will find out who is motivated by animus by observing who resists our movement with money and resources in the future. We will find out who is not so motivated, by observing who seeks to come to terms with us. The important thing to do is to keep good notes along the way!
But do not expect business to defend Western Civilization. The truth is that business has no direct interest in preserving our civilization. And of course, defending that civilization has costs. Our institutions subsidize those who hate our "white bread" civilization while the image meisters of Beverly Hills do their utmost the convince the great herds of freeway commuting "white bread" that their civilization is in good hands.
It is a lie. But it is a lie that has kept the shopping malls full and the checkbooks open for a very long time.
In the meantime we know that they have actual knowledge - a key ingredient of guilty intent.
So, take very good notes!
The Sommers Letter
The Conference Board
September 1, 1987
* * * Finally, there is an ongoing struggle, probably still in an uncomfortably early stage, over the quality of the U.S. household sector viewed as producers rather than consumers. The issues here are educational attainment, worker training, worker incentive. International comparisons in this area are even more uncertain than comparisons of saving and investment rates, which are themselves undependable. But the prevailing impression, based upon such portentous facts as the 18 percent of U.S. employment represented by disadvantaged minorities, the 32-percent share of minorities among the unemployed. and the high percentage of advanced engineering degrees granted by American institutions to foreigners (with a penchant for returning to their own countries) supports a troubling prima facie case for an educational impairment of efficiency not present in the homogeneous labor forces of our principal competitors.
All of these struggles have a powerful bearing on the U.S. living standard, the high consumption share that prevails in the United States, and future prospects for the U.S. living standard. A living standard has to be "earned," in the same sense that a living standard is a "cost" to the system. Earning it is a matter of labor, capital and managerial efficiency; it is not earned by a falling currency, however helpful the decline may be for producers in tradeable-goods industries. Indeed, in its own mysterious way, a falling currency is symptomatic of the fact that the prevailing U.S. living standard, in the present international context, is exposed. If our domestic economic institutions and policies will not constrain it, then it seems likely that the world will impose constraints on us, in the form of higher domestic inflation, and higher interest rates.
May 1, 1995 Barron's p15
How very wealthy families view investments, society, the future
By Andy Zipser
The truly rich are different from you and me - and, Hemingway notwithstanding, it's not merely because they have more money.
* * *
Which brings up the second great difference of those with wealth. Many of them perceive the nation's social fabric to be unraveling, the delicate threads being pulled by ethnic and racial conflicts, a worldwide population explosion and a growing national debt. Inside the mansion gates, however, it's no picnic, either, what with the kids and grandkids and great-grandkids all clamoring for their share of the estate as Malthusian dynamics nibble away at the family fortune. What to do? Where to turn? Whom to trust when you can't talk to anyone?
Such sentiments may explain why 150 of the country's richest families-each of whom has at least $100 million in assets- recently took the time to fill out an exhaustive questionnaire probing these very issues. Prepared and analyzed by Graystone Partners, a Chicago-based matchmaker for wealthy families and investment managers, the survey may be the country's first comprehensive public profile of truly rich people. The data collected obviously benefit Graystone, but as principal David Horn points out, it also fills an information void for the respondents themselves.
"These families are very interested in benchmarking," Horn says-a polite way of saying that rich people, just like the non- rich, are immensely curious about other people's money.
After hours and hours of computer number-crunching, Graystone can tell you this: The rich are not only different from us but from one another, with four distinct personality types emerging from the bits and bytes. And, second, that capital preservation is no longer the overarching consideration it used to be. Instead, Horn explains, the combination of increased global volatility and growing family size means "this generation has to be more aggressive than the last" - a polite way of saying they'll have to gamble more. (Horn is always polite when he talks. Comes with the turf.)
Taken as a group, Graystone's respondents clearly demonstrate that money can't buy peace of mind. At least two-thirds of them believe that in the next decade, the U.S. trade imbalance will get worse, that the national debt will balloon, that more and more tax dollars will be chewed up by entitlement, that tax breaks favoring the rich will be eliminated - and oh, yes, that law enforcement is going to become somewhat, um, problematic. No wonder, then, that the great majority of respondents also say they'll move more of their wealth out of the U.S., diversify their holdings and increase their use of offshore tax havens (see chart, page 16). Graystone's four categories of rich people include the "trendists," whose world view tends to be determined by the media; the "optimists," who tend to believe the country will somehow manage to muddle though perilous times; the "power brokers," who know things are a mess but believe they can influence events for the better through their own direct intervention, and lastly, the "internationalists," who metaphorically - and sometimes literally - are getting out of town before the barbarians come crashing through the front gates. Viewed from each of those vantage points in turn, this is how the world looks:
The Trendists - Don't bother with these folks if you're looking for contributions to the city symphony. Trendists (39% of the total) are least likely to prepare for change. They tend to think of events as moving in a straight line. They are the most likely of all four groups to believe that entitlement will devour a growing share of the federal budget and are least likely to believe that a flat-rate tax will be enacted, or that the affluent will invest heavily in what Graystone calls "the rebuilding of America." They're also least likely to believe the wealthy will increase their support of the nonprofit community.
The Optimists - Despite their rosy label, this 19.9% slice of the respondents are the milquetoasts of the bunch. They don't have really strong feelings about much of anything and can be swayed relatively easily. But underneath all the vagueness is a belief that everything will end up for the best. Optimists are most likely to believe the government will restructure itself, that the federal deficit will be significantly reduced through cost- cutting and that aggressive trade policies will create a favorable trade balance. In short-don't worry, be happy.
The Power Brokers - This is the Chicken Little crowd, but with attitude: The sky is falling, but if we get our act together we can hold it up. Power brokers (25% of the total) believe the affluent will lose faith in financial institutions and in the federal government - thanks in large part to a national debt that expands beyond control. Power brokers are also more convinced than other respondents that ethnic and racial violence in the U.S. will escalate, disease will ravage the world, and environmental collapse is a real probability. But for these strong-willed types, this only reinforces the need to enlarge their circles of financial advisers and come together in "affinity groups" to affect public policy.
The Internationalists - Less apocalyptic than the power brokers, this 16.1% of the total nevertheless is highly skeptical about the future of the U.S. economy-virtually all are certain that income taxes will rise significantly and that value-added taxes are on the way. Their response: Jump ship. This group believes not only in investing overseas but in seeking out offshore tax shelters, still a relatively radical move for most wealthy families. In extreme cases, these folks will consider renouncing their U.S. citizenship. Fairweather friends or citizens of the world? You decide.
Yet whether adopting as their muse either Pollyanna or Cassandra, today's wealthy families recognize that investing has grown much more complex and turbulent. That's only half of the problem, however. The other half, as students of dynastic wealth well know, is the propensity of most families to grow exponentially--a growth rate, alas, at which few fortunes can expand. Moreover, human psychology all but guarantees that family wealth will be dissipated over successive generations: It's a rare family in which the founder's entrepreneurial zeal is matched by his descendants'. Instead, as children and grandchildren become more cautious or detached, the great wealth- creating engine slows and stops and then starts shifting into reverse.
Now, a growing number of wealthy families realize they have to be more daring if they intend to keep their fortunes.
* * *
Back to Main Page
(c) 1996 Yggdrasil. All rights reserved. Distribute Freely.