THE powerful white man is set to join the powerful white rhino as the world's latest endangered species.
Let's say goodbye to what some have dubbed the "VOMITS" - the Very Old Men In Ties who are running this country.
Thanks to planned changes by the Brumby Government to the state Equal Opportunity Act, it will soon be legal to discriminate against middle-aged white able-bodied men who hold the reins of power.
In fact, it will be actively encouraged.
It's about time too.
Susie O'Brien was commenting on the following changes to the equal opportunity laws here in Victoria:
DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged in a bid to boost the status of women, the disabled and cultural and religious minorities.
Such positive discrimination -- treating people differently in order to obtain equality for marginalised groups - is set to be legalised under planned changes to the Equal Opportunity Act foreshadowed last week by state Attorney-General Rob Hulls
... Equal Opportunity Commission CEO Dr Helen Szoke said males had "been the big success story in business and goods and services".
"Clearly, they will have their position changed ..."
... the proposed changes go much further, allowing the commission to inquire into discrimination, seize documents and search and enter premises after attempts to bring about change have failed.
Businesses and individuals would be required to change their ways even if a complaint had not been received.
Action could be taken where an unlawful act was "likely to occur", not just in cases where discrimination has taken place. [Another Orwellian moment in the modern West]
Some of the terminology used here gives the game away. Susie O'Brien sets herself against the "powerful" white man. Discrimination will be allowed against "dominant" white males.
We're dealing here with the belief that if inequality exists it's because white men as a group have unjustly secured an unearned privilege for themselves by discriminating against the oppressed other.
This belief has certain logical consequences. It means that white men are singled out as a kind of "cosmic enemy", standing uniquely in the way of social justice and equality.
It means that the success of white men isn't attributed to hard work, talent or self-sacrifice but to racism or sexism or other forms of discrimination.
It means that the preponderance of white men in professional positions in Western countries isn't attributed to white men being an historic majority in these countries, but to discrimination.
It means that the privilege of other groups in society is overlooked and not attacked by coercive, anti-discrimination laws.
It means that the declining status and position of white males in Western countries isn't recognised, let alone remedied.
Let me give a few examples of the above points. Is it really true that white males are the most privileged group in Western countries? If we take America as an example, then it is Asians who do best in terms of university admissions and income. For example:
Asian Americans, though only 4 percent of the nation's population, account for nearly 20 percent of all medical students.
As for earnings, Asian men are 14% better off than white American men:
An Asian American male with the same level of experience and education as a white American male receives a 4% bonus in earnings - for women the gap rises to 17%.
If mean earnings remain unadjusted for education and experience, then the discrepancy is even more pronounced: in 2000, native-born Asian American men recorded a 14% bonus in mean earnings compared to white American men, and the gap for women was 32%.
It's the same story when membership of the professions is looked at:
In the year 2000, 4.1% of America's population was Asian American, but Asian Americans were 13.6% of doctors and dentists, 13.2% of computer specialists, 9.9% of engineers, 6.1% of accountants, 8.7% of post-secondary teachers (such as uni professors) and 6.9% of architects.
Nor is it only in the US that Asians are doing better. In the UK it is white boys who are least likely to go on to university:
White teenagers are less likely to go to university than school-leavers from other ethnic groups - even with the same A-level results, according to official figures.
... According to a Government report, just over one-in-20 white boys from poor homes goes on to university.
This compares to 66 per cent of Indian girls and 65 per cent of young women from Chinese families.
... Last year the proportion of young men studying for a degree fell to 35 per cent, compared to 47 per cent of women.
... Overall, 58 per cent of men from Indian backgrounds and 66 per cent of women go on to university. Among Chinese families, 60 per cent of boys and 65 per cent of women go to university.
Is the success of Asians generally attributed to unjust discrimination against others? No - it's held to be the result of hard work, talent and strong family support. For instance, Pyong Gap Min, the author of a book on Asian Americans, explains their success at school in terms of the strength of their family life:
high educational attainment amongst Asian American youth reflects in large part the heavy investment of Asian parents in their children.
Robinder Kaur, a Sikh woman living in Britain, has told whites that they cannot escape the guilt of their unearned privilege:
there is no 'safe space', no haven of guiltlessness to retreat to.
But what about successful Sikh women? If they have privilege, is it due to the suspect influence of discrimination? Should successful Sikh women be wracked with guilt?
No, the message is very different. The same Robinder Kaur quoted above edits a magazine for Sikh women which has this mission statement:
The magazine will encourage the Sikh woman to rediscover herself in the light of the glorious heritage and current meritorious achievements of the Sikh community.
And what might explain the meritorious achievements of the Sikh community? Discrimination? Unearned privilege? No, it's this:
Hard work, confidence, dedication and, of course, the blessings of the Almighty are a sure recipe for success.
How should we react to all this? The worst response would be to become demoralised - which is exactly what the modernist liberals behind the anti-white male laws would want.
We should instead inflict a bit of dismay on them.
One thing that every reader of this site has in their power is to make a clean break with liberal politics. If we stop pinning our hopes on liberal politicians, if we stop thinking that what is required is an ever greater dose of liberalism, and if we instead adopt a principled opposition to liberalism itself - then we begin to break free of the grip of those who are hostile to us.