Self-Inflicted Wounds

Thomas Jackson, American Renaissance, February 8, 2013

Discrimination against whites by whites.

Wounds That Will Not Heal, by Princeton lecturer Russell Nieli, is a collection of the most powerful attacks on racial preferences likely to be found in a book by a mainstream publisher. It even touches on the inherent tribalism of man, the possibility of race differences in IQ, and the folly of thinking “diversity” is a strength. Wounds That Will Not Heal makes a few silly brotherhood-of-man concessions to liberalism, but the book is an important part of the fight against “affirmative action,” particularly in universities.


Preferences have sordid origins. How the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was supposed to ban race discrimination, was turned into a justification for discrimination against whites, is one of the most notorious legal-judicial perversions in American history. Mr. Niele notes that this was exactly what Southern opponents of the law predicted. However the law was worded, and no matter what its supporters promised, those old “racists” knew that the law would end in quotas.

And, as Mr. Niele writes, liberals have always been dishonest about what they were doing. Euphemisms such as “affirmative action,” “goals and timetables,” and “diversity” go over better than “racial preferences” or “discrimination against whites.” Mr. Niele also points out that the initial justification for preferences—compensation for those who had suffered most from discrimination—was always a fraud. Almost all beneficiaries have been middle-class blacks. And ever since the 1978 US Supreme Court Bakke decision, compensation has taken a back seat to the idea that “diversity” is so desirable that it justifies discriminating against whites.

Civil rights or special treatment?

Blacks, of course, welcomed preferences, though Mr. Niele is naive enough to be surprised by that. He recognizes that the civil-rights bargain required people of all races to renounce tribal loyalty, and he thought blacks would do their part. He says that since so many black leaders were ministers, they “would never stand for” the idea of special treatment. He quotes the usual Martin Luther King guff about “content of their character,” and thinks that after King’s death blacks somehow became more tribal.

This only proves that those “racist” Southern congressmen understood blacks better than a Princeton lecturer does. When blacks did not have equal rights they clamored for equality. As soon as they had equality they clamored for special treatment. Both appeals were tribal.

King, himself, made no secret of what he wanted. “[I]f a city has a 30 percent Negro population,” he reasoned, “then it is logical to assume that Negroes should have at least 30 percent of the jobs in any particular company, and jobs in all categories rather than only in menial areas.” King also wanted reparations for slavery. “No amount of gold could provide an adequate compensation for the exploitation and humiliation of the Negro in America down through the centuries,” he wrote, but he would accept “a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement.”

That is exactly what Wounds That Will Not Heal opposes on every page, yet Mr. Niele incongruously dedicated his book to King, “who spoke to our common humanity.”

Mr. Niele may be blind about King, but he has no illusions about King’s successors. He points out that “civil rights” comes from the Latin civilis, meaning of or belonging to citizens. Since civil rights are common to citizens, “to speak of the NAACP or La Raza as ‘a civil rights group’ is a sign of moral and spiritual confusion.”

White attitudes

Mr. Nieli writes that for blacks and Hispanics (henceforth, B&H), preferences mean swag for the tribe. But what’s in it for whites? Mr. Niele has clearly pondered this mystery, and writes that the impulse to support preferences probably comes from growing up middle class and then feeling guilty after discovering there are poor people in the world. He says this can sometimes lead to public-spirited acts, but that the white preferences supporter suffers from:

a kind of demonic self-righteousness and hypocrisy, which induces him to try to expiate his own sense of guilt, not by giving up any of his own wealth or privilege . . . but by using government power to force other people, usually people considerably less well off than himself, to sacrifice their jobs, their lives, and their promotion entitlements.

These are the whites who fawn on “black people, whose disapproval the white ‘liberal’ fears with an intensity bordering on horror.” These whites also romanticize poor blacks, “endowing them with a kind of secular holiness.” Poor whites, on the other hand, are “moral inferiors” if they dare complain about discrimination against them. Mr. Niele suspects that well-off liberals like it when lower-order whites complain because it “reinforce[s] and confirm[s] their own sense of moral and social superiority.”

For Mr. Niele, liberal race thinking is “ultimately narcissistic and self-preoccupied.” It assumes that B&H can hardly move a muscle without white benevolence, and that even if preferences sometimes harm beneficiaries by setting them up for failure, that doesn’t matter because what liberals care about most is self righteousness.

It is rare for a mainstream author to write so cuttingly and incisively about the motives of liberals, and it certainly took courage to denounce the thinking that no doubt prevails at Mr. Niele’s own university. He is also refreshingly—and boldly—angry about the unfairness of preferences, writing about “my own ethnic rage at affirmative action.” According to orthodox thinking, only non-whites are entitled to “ethnic rage;” anything whites ever feel is mean-spirited “resentment” over loss of “privilege.”

Mr. Niele is surprised that whites have not risen up in fury against systematic discrimination against themselves. Instead, they have been cowed by a ruling class that seems to have accepted the idea of “collective and congenital blood guilt.” He finds it “truly alarming” that such a concept could have taken root in America.

The River books

A large part of Wounds That Will Not Heal is devoted to taking apart three books that were funded by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to support racial preferences. The best known of this “river” series is The Shape of the River, published in 1998 by William Bowen and Derek Bok, who have been, respectively, presidents of Princeton and Harvard. It was followed by The Source of the River in 2003, and Taming the River in 2009, also by Mellon-supported authors.

The Shape of the River purported to follow the careers of Ivy-League affirmative-action babies and show how marvelously everything turned out for them—and for America. The two others used lengthy student questionnaires to try to prove the same thing. Mr. Niele says the authors are “passionately, even desperately” committed to preferences, and that their books reflect “the extreme ideological one-sidedness that dominates academic sociology.”

The River authors admit that preferences mean lower standards. They also admit that elite schools lie about this, but wish only that administrators lied more convincingly. They think it is a pity that B&H—who know they are less qualified—can’t be persuaded they are just as qualified as whites.


The authors are also dismayed to find that beneficiaries think whites and Asians are smarter and harder working than they are, and that whites and Asians think so too. Blacks are hardest on themselves, and rank themselves as even lazier than whites and Asians do. The authors then lament the power of “negative stereotypes”!

We also learn from the River books that although foreign-born blacks are just 13 percent of the black college-age population, they are 40 percent of the blacks at the top schools, and that black women outnumber black men almost two to one at these schools. Asians have lower self esteem than other students, and although affirmative-action blacks at top schools do not lack for self esteem, the ones who go to black schools have even more.

The authors also write at length about how we must make up for the horrific obstacles ghetto blacks face—while failing to point out that affirmative-action babies are almost invariably middle class. The authors also describe racial segregation as a crippling condition for blacks, but do not mention that it never held back Chinese students or boat people. The River authors agonize over the mental Calvary of being a minority but don’t seem to have noticed that Asians are a minority, too.

In short, Mr. Niele thinks the books are thoroughly mendacious. He also scoffs at the authors for what they left out of their questionnaires. They never asked blacks and Hispanics what they thought of affirmative action, no doubt for “fear of what the answers might be.”

Arguments against

For years, “conservatives” dared oppose preferences only because they threw beneficiaries in over their heads or “devalued the accomplishments” of competent B&H. Mr. Niele gets it right: Preferences are wrong because they are crushingly unfair to whites. He is furious that blacks with SAT scores of 950 to 1050 have a better chance of getting into the University of Virginia than whites with scores of 1350 to 1450—and he is furious that it took a Freedom of Information request to find this out.

In Mr. Niele’s view, racial discrimination is simply worse than other kinds of discrimination. He notes that after both world wars, veterans’ preferences bills passed overwhelmingly in Congress. Very few people thought they were wrong, and no one had to pretend they were anything but preferential treatment.

WWII veteran taking an aptitude test in an office dedicated to veteran employment.

WWII veteran taking an aptitude test in an office dedicated to employing veterans.

Mr. Niele still argues that preferences are bad for the beneficiaries. At elite schools, everyone knows some students don’t belong and got in because of race. Mr. Niele therefore thinks “racial-preference policies serve to heighten rather than reduce racist ideas,” and “strengthen the belief in black inferiority.” This could be true for students, who famously avoid black lab partners, but preferences may fool the rest of the country. It would send a very clear message if Harvard and Yale admitted strictly on ability and had no black students at all.

It is fashionable to worry that there are not enough non-white scientists and graduate students, and Mr. Niele thinks race preferences are part of the problem. He says B&H are more likely to switch out of science majors than whites and Asians, and that this is because they are at schools where the work is too hard for them and they get bad grades. If they had got better grades at lesser schools they might have stayed in science or gone to graduate school.

Mr. Niele quotes the well-known work of Richard Sander, who, with great difficulty, pried admissions data out of law schools. He found that blacks are two full standard deviations behind whites in qualifications and performance, and are twice as likely to drop out, fail, and flunk the bar exam. Prof. Sander thinks that if black law students were better matched to their schools, they would not fall behind, would stay in school, and be more likely to pass the bar exam. In other words, preferences reduce the number of black lawyers.

There are only a few studies that have tried to measure the benefits of “diversity.” Mr. Niele cites one that concluded that the more ruthless the racial preferences, the more they seem to erode academic standards for all students. Another study found that white students do not like preferences, faculty dislike them somewhat less, but administrators claim to like them.

Mr. Niele concludes: “It is difficult to see how more intellectually substandard black and Latino students on college campuses improve race relations, enrich the learning environment for the whites and Asians, or improve the image of blacks and Latinos in the minds of classmates.”

It is common to argue that since B&H know there are systematic preferences, they know they can afford to slough off. John McWhorter of the Manhattan Institute, for example, says he did not work hard in high school because he knew he could breeze into a good school because he is black. Mr. Niele supports this view by pointing out that blacks do worse in school than their test scores suggest they should. Their grades are not as good as those of whites who get the same test scores, and the tougher the school, the wider the gap.

In fact, many blacks—even beneficiaries of blatant preferences—think society is out to oppress them, so they may not be counting on white largess to make up for laziness. Mr. Niele does not consider the possibility that there could be average racial differences in behavior. A black and a white who get the same SAT score may have the same intelligence, but blacks are less able to defer gratification. This could mean they are more likely to goof off than study, which would hurt their grades. Asians are probably better disciplined than whites, which would improve their grades.

However, Mr. Niele does cite research suggesting that when blacks attend black colleges they are more likely to get the grades their SAT scores predict. It is hard to make grade-point comparisons between different colleges, but if this is true it would support Mr. Niele’s sloughing-off theory. There does seem to be no doubt, however, that black students are happier at black colleges—and there is no affirmative action for them there.

Mr. Niele writes that affirmative action is like high-rise apartments for the poor: a benevolent idea that backfired. This comparison is unfair to high-rises. The projects were not hives of degeneracy when poor whites lived in them, and people in Shanghai live in super-high-density apartment blocks. It was blacks who turned apartment buildings into crack houses.

Bad similes aside, let us hope Mr. Niele is right to conclude that “in time affirmative action will come to be viewed as a policy, not a crusade. And as a policy it will be judged by its merits—and found deeply wanting.”

Glimpses of the truth

Despite its generally neo-conservative orientation, Mr. Niele’s book contains flashes of dissident insight. He tells us “negative stereotyping” is a “moral failing” and yet he cites Philippe Rushton on the genetic basis of ethnocentrism. He claims that only losers identify with their nation or tribe, but concedes that tribalism is “hard-wired in our brains.” He urges us to embrace American diversity but writes that “ethno-racial homogeneity, not heterogeneity, is more likely to improve local and international competitiveness.” Mr. Niele even mentions the possibility of race differences in average ability; he lists Arthur Jensen, Michael Levin, Richard Lynn, and Philippe Rushton as sources on the hereditarian view—though only in a footnote.

Wounds that Will Not Heal is therefore a strangely fence-sitting book. Mr. Niele would no doubt bristle at being called a race realist, yet he recognizes many of the reasons why whites prefer homogeneity, and it is a significant step forward to have included these arguments. Mr. Niele can write about the “ethnic rage” he feels because of race preferences; why can he not understand the “ethnic rage” of white dispossession? For whatever reason, he does not take the final step: Reject the entire multi-racial project and argue for a society based on human nature rather than egalitarian fantasy.

This term, the US Supreme Court will rule on Fisher v. University of Texas, which could outlaw race preferences completely—at least until the court is packed with more non-whites. Of course, this will not end the lies and corner-cutting. Many states have banned preferences through ballot initiatives—no legislature has had enough backbone to ban them—but colleges practice them anyway. In Florida and Texas, anyone who graduates in the top 10 percent of his high-school class gets into the university system, so the best students even in low-performing all-B&H schools get in, too.

The latest trick is geographic discrimination. Those coveted “diversity” candidates conveniently live in clumps, so schools hire data company to find the clumps and then favor applications from certain addresses.

The problem—and Mr. Niele has covered this as well as anyone—is the contemptible mentality of white elites. Until that changes, no book or Supreme Court decision will make much difference.

Topics: , , , ,

Share This

Thomas Jackson
Thomas Jackson lives in Virginia and has been writing for American Renaissance for more than 20 years.
We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • NeanderthalDNA

    “Wounds that Will Not Heal is therefore a strangely fence-sitting book. Mr. Niele would no doubt bristle at being called a race realist, yet he recognizes many of the reasons why whites prefer homogeneity, and it is a significant step forward to have included these arguments.”

    Mr. Niele would no doubt PUBLICLY bristle at being called a race realist (I’m sure he enjoys a certain position which would be endangered by the allegation). But this does not mean he is not.

    I hate to say it but we need to be careful and subtle, sometimes throw in a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.

    Notice a TV sitcom I chanced to see at a friends, that new Tim the toolman one. Actually pretty good. Black family moves into the neighborhood, someone eggs their car (not for racial reasons), and Tim’s silly lib wife goes overboard trying to make the blacks feel welcome. Invites them over for dinner, acts like the typical apologetic white idiot. Finally Tim and the black man admit to each other that they have nothing in common, have no desire to socialize, and are OK with that and the blacks go home. There is even an exchange that goes something like this…

    Black neighbor to Tim, “And I’ll be sure to call the cops should I see a white guy robbing your house.”

    To which Tim replies something like, “Thanks but that’s not likely.” Kind of surprised me in a good way. How’d that slip past the totalitarian democratic thought militia?

    Point is…it’s leaking and seeping out, that unflattering Truth. Can’t keep it bottled up forever…

    • concernedcollegekid

      “I hate to say it but we need to be careful and subtle, sometimes throw in a spoonful of sugar to make the medicine go down.”
      ABSOLUTELY. I think the author I have read so far who is best at this is Jonathan Haidt, in the Righteous Mind, which is one of my favorite books I’ve ever read. The Righteous Mind wouldn’t be categorized by most people as a race realist book but if you read between the lines in it you can tell that Haidt is knowledgeable about race and is more sort of “gently preparing” people for the truth than he is actually spelling it out for them. The Righteous Mind is a very race realist book if you are searching for race realism in it, but nothing in it would be considered offensive to people who are not race realists.
      Yes, it’s always nice to see kernels of truth slipping past the PC Thought Police. I just hope there’s a way this can all end peacefully but I don’t see one.

  • Alice

    Dumb down our schools and then demand more immigrants because Americans are not trained for the job – works against all of us.

    • Garrett Brown

      Yep. This isn’t political in any way(although politics started it, yes) Keep changing the country demographically the worst our schools and education system results will be. You can’t fill stupid people in where smart people used to operate. It’s as simple as that.

  • Critic_of_Leviathan

    “He thought blacks would do their part.”

    ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha


  • mrcan

    it is difficult to admit one is wrong….something we all suffer from. however the radical liberal left in their hearts must know their ideology is vacuous. so sad to keep beating an old horse. but sad also for the millions of Caucasians who have been passed over and discriminated against for decades.

  • Garrett Brown

    Thomas “STONEWALL” Jackson!

  • LHathaway

    “Reject the entire multi-racial project and argue for a society based on human nature rather than egalitarian fantasy”.

    Come-on, this is actually an argument in favor of affirmative action. Races favor their own race, therefore, the racial spoils system we now have makes sense.

    What I notice about affirmative action is that wherever AA is most ‘rigorously’ enforced, the public face presented is that it is whites who are discriminating and that this is wrong and evil.

    I suspect the white Obamatrons, after 60 years of affirmative action, and they still favor more – I suspect they think white men will one day benefit from all this ‘progressive’ thinking and will benefit from AA of their own. OK, in truth, whites are simply afraid of dissenting from all this ‘progress’. Perhaps they do hope white men will one day benefit from AA campaigns, so they feel better in the here and now.

    They are in for one huge awakening. This will spell the end for AA in the USA. At least for a long time or until whites become a very small voting block. It will become impossible to justify another 60 years of discrimination against white men, to make up for injustices caused by white men being discriminated against in the first place. At least it will be when we finally break the once-sided conspiracy of silence and point this out.

    “Another study found that white students do not like preferences, faculty dislike them somewhat less, but administrators claim to like them”.

    I don’t understand this sentence at all.

    • HamletsGhost

      The only thing that props up AA and all other anti-white discrimination is the power and purse of the federal government. When the government goes bankrupt, (very soon, from all appearances), then it’s game over for the whole Negro grievance industry, and it won’t take anywhere near 60 years.

  • steve7789

    I disagree with Mr Jackson’s point about high rises. When they were introduced here in the UK during the sixties they had a terrible impact on the family and community and thus the habits and morals of the urban white population. Plus more than anything else they just look horrible

    • IstvanIN

      I know someone who grew up in a project in Scotland. He has fond memories of it and turned out OK but his brothers and sisters are a mess. That being said, how come middle and upper income people can live in highrises, such as in Manhattan, and turn out OK?

  • JohnEngelman

    When I got a better job I told the manager of the small business I worked for that I would help him find a replacement. After he interviewed a young black man who had recently received an honorable discharge from the Marine Corps he asked me to talk to the ex Marine.

    I told the manager that I liked the candidate, thought he would do a good job, and recommended that he be hired. However, when the manager told the owner about him, the owner said, “They should ship him back to Africa.”

    That was not the first time the owner of that company said something that disgusted me. He said things about the beautiful book keeper and receptionist I would not repeat here.

    Employment decisions are personal. I do not think that black man would have enjoyed working in that company. I did not. That was why I was leaving.

    Moreover, there are employers who dislike Jews and Orientals. These still tend to make more money than white Gentiles.

    • Nathanwartooth

      Go start your own business and only hire Blacks, Jews and Orientals. Let us know how that works out for you.

      • David Ashton

        Oh no, not another C

        • Nathanwartooth

          That pretty much sums him up.

      • David Ashton

        Don’t tempt him to add yet another chapter of his autobiography as a Nordic Gentile, Christian Zionist, Diversity Lover and Obama Democrat, already being serialized daily by American Renaissance!

      • JohnEngelman

        I would not hire someone on the basis of race. However, if I only hired Jews and Orientals I would not really harm my company because they have higher average IQs.

        • Nathanwartooth

          Assuming you are White, it could cause many problems for you.

          I don’t think you understand racial solidarity at all. It’s something every race has but Whites have been brainwashed to suppress it.

          Assuming you got Jews and Asians that were smarter than an average White would you have their loyalty? Having employees that respect their boss and want the business to succeed makes a huge difference. Having people who might secretly hate you because of your race will hurt your business in the end.

          But companies should be allowed to hire whoever they like.

          • JohnEngelman

            What I do not understand is why I should care more about the well being of a white scoundrel than a decent black person.

            An employer who treats his employees decently is unlikely to be hated by them, regardless of racial, ethnic, or religious differences.

          • pcmustgo

            Ha! I;ve treated blacks and other non-whites decently my whole life, in friendship and in business, and often got no gratitude and a lot of hatred in return for it.

            I would argue most people hate their superiors. Resent them

          • Nathanwartooth


            How much people hate their boss or manager is so widespread that it is cliche. So when people have another thing to add on top of hating their boss, their race, it strengthens how much they dislike them.

          • JohnEngelman

            Once I had a boss who told me in the job interview of all places that his subordinates were lazy incompetents, and that he would like to fire all of them, but he was afraid he would have the same problems with the replacements.

            Later I had a boss whose attitude was that those reporting to him wanted to do a good job, and were capable of doing a good job, and that it was his responsibility to help them do a good job.

            Who do you think was hated? Who do you think was eventually forced out? Who do you think was admired? Who do you think eventually got a much better job with another company?

          • JohnEngelman

            You only thought you were treating the decently. In the U.S. economy bosses are all powerful. This power often goes to their heads.

          • hiphoplimq

            Really!? So, in your opinion, this is a foregone conclusion? Of all your posts, this has to be the most idiotic.

          • pcmustgo

            EXCUSE ME??? I only *thought I was treating blacks (and asians and latinos) decently? What are you talking about? When I was young, the bulk of my friends came from these groups. I’m the biggest “giver” there is. I treated everyone decently. I still do.

            Blacks *rarely treat people decently. And your precious Asians are a little rude too.

          • pcmustgo

            Treating people decently- being helpful, kind, friendly, etc

          • pcmustgo

            Apt description. Yes, many blacks secretly hate whites, even their white friends.

            Having people who might secretly hate you because of your race will hurt your business in the end.

          • JohnEngelman

            Projecting your hatred onto others will hurt you in the end.

          • pcmustgo

            Going far beyond defending Asians and Blacks and Jews (I’m half jewish myself, and I’m fine with him doing this as long as it’s based on honest experience, and I’ve never said any group is 100% bad or racist or stupid), Engleman has repeatedly made bizarre, left-wing comments and responses towards things I, and others post.

            1. In another post he mentioned that I “only thought I was being nice to blacks” and other non-whites before I became a questioning liberal and then a race realist. I’ve heard that from Blacks online too. “You always were a racist!”, they belligerantly insist, you just thought you weren’t! Aka, “All whites are racist even when they’re not racist!” Wow, if being super-liberal, going out of my way to be extra nice to blacks and other minorities, priding myself on having interracial friendships, looking up to them culturally, feeling very sorry for some of them, being the only kid in the school yard to stick up for the lone black kid getting (rather mildly) racially bullied, etc, is not being nice to them, what is?

            At the end of the day, how do you KNOW I “wasn’t really nice” to blacks? Or asians? Were you there? Are you God?

            I’m a VERY, very, very, very different person than I was 12 years ago.

            2. In another post, he told another amren poster that whites are only angry about affirmative action and increasing diversity because “they can’t cruise by on their white privilege anymore” and it’s “not good enough to just show up and be white” on the job. Yeah, that really sums up the situation and feelings of ALL whites, doesn’t it?

            Engleman, why are you on this board if you hold those views? You seem to not only be insulting me, but all whites. You don’t seem to “get” the feelings and experiences of whites who have experienced have doses of reverse racism and diversity overload, including asian diversity overload. You’re very dismissive of them. It’s really rude and disrespectful.

            Engleman, you’re either schizophrenic or I’ve woken up and landed in the FAR LEFT section of the Huffington Post or something. Even most white liberals I know don’t talk or feel that way.

            I also suspect Engleman only has experiences with Asians as the model minority group, like in small white or white/black towns where they are forced to fit in. As in he has no experience with them in large groups or masses or situations where they are NOT a minority at all. I do. I’ve repeatedly told you that during a certain 6 year or so period of my young adult life, 80% + of my friends were east asian, east indian or black. Regrettably. Luckily I have white friends now who understand me better. It’s just that much easier in life to have ONE LESS THING TO WORRY ABOUT. When I get in a fight with a white friend, I don’t have to worry about it being about Race. It’s one less thing to consider. One less reason to resent and envy.

            I have talked to many white friends, all of whom are liberal, btw, and their experiences with asians or blacks as “friends” were pretty much the same. One tires of being left out of their “asian-american” cliques, etc. Even most white liberals admit that Asians are pretty boring , en masse. As do Blacks.

            You don’t seem to understand the many, many, many permutations and layers of “drama” that mingling with people of other races and cultures (aka, “Diversity”) brings- for everyone of every race.

            It isn’t just a black/white thing anymore.

          • pcmustgo

            Correction, heavy doses of reverse racism and diversity

          • Jefferson

            [QUOTE] Even most white liberals admit that Asians are pretty boring , en masse[/QUOTE]

            That is because most White liberals prefer the company of Blacks over Asians, because they see Blacks as being a million times more hip and cool than Asians. They see Blacks as more vibrantly exotic than Asians.

            White liberals love the “Mah Dick” culture of urban inner city Blacks. That is why there are tens of million of White liberals in this country who worship Black rappers and Black sports athletes.

            I also noticed that you believe there are only 2 Nonwhite races in the world, and that is Blacks and Asians.

            Because I NEVER see you mention Amerindians/Mestizos when you bring up the Nonwhite races of the world. Are you just lumping these people into the “White” category ?

            So you see most of the illegal immigrants in this country as “White”, because most illegal immigrants in this country do not look like Serena Williams or Jackie Chan.

          • pcmustgo

            Everything in life is PERSONAL… Because I grew up on the East Coast, I have yet to experience that much hostility from Latinos, the Mexicans who dominate the West and are more aggressive about it out there. I have had a few isolated incidents with them, of course, but the reality is, I was never super close to them as friends anyways (actually 2 I was close to, and I felt neither hated whites), so I just don’t have that much experience with Latinos, as in that much personal reason to be angry at them. Well I resent them as a group “taking over” and getting affirmative action all the way, am fully aware of the crime/iq stats on them, etc. My feelings towards Latinos are very paradoxical in this respect. Super conflicted and at odds.

            I lived in Puerto Rican hood for 2 years. While, of course, overall, they are ghetto and thuggish, I never once experienced racial hostility from them. Not while I lived there.

            It’s weird… on the one hand, I would like to halt all non-white immigration and particularly Latino immigration because of the affirmative action component. On the other hand, out of all the races, I think I find Latinos to be the most friendly, the most like us (due to some european genes? ), the most affable (unlike the robotic asians or the endlessly racially hostile blacks). In some ways, I find Latinos to be the least racist. Many have noted that MOST Latinos, barring La Raza activists, are very apolitical and not into “victimhood”. That could indeed change. I’ve noted that many Latinos I met in life “kissed up” to whites and often expressed race realist sentiments themselves, especially towards blacks.

            Amer-inds are apparently Mongoloids, but I’m not big on dividing the world into 3 races anyways, I believe there are spectrums.

            I say “non-white” a lot not to pretend all non-whites are the same- they are incredibly different from one another, culturally and in other ways. But what do ALL NON-WHITES SHARE???????????????????????

            ANSWER: They all have the *potential to resent “white” people….. to hate them, to mistreat them, to envy them, etc. Not all do.

            They all, to a lesser or greater degree, don’t understand “whites” culturally, or understand our feeligns on the racial stuff, and get in on that “I’m an oppressed victim of society and therefore have the right to be nasty and angry to “white” people stuff”.

          • pcmustgo

            Oh, also , I generally mention Blacks, Latinos (essentially amer-inds and mulattoes, mestizos), Asians and East Indians… I refuse to call East Indians Asians…. Of course, by only bringing up India, you may think I don’t know about Pakistanis or Bangladeshis, Sri Lankans, etc. I do. But I think East Indians are their own sub-race for all intents and purposes… Brown Caucasians?

            These are generalities.

          • Jefferson

            [QUOTE]While, of course, overall, they are ghetto and thuggish[/QUOTE]

            [QUOTE]I think I find Latinos to be the most friendly, the most like us[/QUOTE]

            Speak for yourself. I as a White person can not relate to urban inner city Latinos from The Bronx and East Los Angeles for example. You must be the Jerry Springer White trash type if you can relate to Latino thug culture. They are NOTHING like me.

            [QUOTE] I’ve noted that many Latinos I met in life “kissed up” to whites[/QUOTE]

            If Latinos kiss up to Whites, why do the majority Latinos support affirmative action which is anti-White.

            63 percent of Latinos support affirmative action programs to redress past discrimination.


            63 percent of Latinos are enemies of the White race.

          • pcmustgo

            I find, overall, most Latina women to be warm, bubbly, friendly, etc. Actually, living in NYC , I have an incredible amount of experience with Puerto Ricans. A few of them even cross over to the middle class and marry whites, etc.

            I don’t connect to their (overall) inner city thug culture. But yeah , doesn’t change what other traits I’ve noticed about them.

            Yes, the affirmative action stuff is the problem. NEVER SAID I WELCOME THEIR COMING TAKE-OVER…

          • Jefferson

            Yeah Puerto Ricans are so “warm”, “bubbly”, and “friendly. SO WHY DOES PUERTO RICO HAVE A PER CAPITA MURDER RATE THAT IS 6 TIMES HIGHER THAN THE UNITED STATES.


            What do you think is the reason why Puerto Ricans are such a violent people ? Could it be the Taino and Sub Saharan African genes in their DNA ? I will go with that.

            Puerto Ricans are “warm” “bubbly”, and “friendly right before they shoot and stab you. Puerto Rico’s per capita murder rate is closer to Detroit levels than it is to Denmark levels.

          • pcmustgo

            Didn’t say they didn’t have violent tempers. Didn’t say they don’t tend to have dozens of out of wedlock children scattered about. Didn’t say they don’t imitate ghetto blacks too much.

            The drug trade fuels a lot of that, as it does in Honduras, etc. I am not excusing it.

            Russia has a high violent crime rate too.

          • Jefferson

            There is a lot of drug dealers in Appalachia as well, especially people who run meth labs. But the per capita murder rate in Appalachia is nowhere near as high it is in Puerto Rico.

            Puerto Ricans are violent people because of their racial mutt genes, NOT because of the drug trade.

            You have to be pretty damn stupid to think the per capita murder rate in Puerto Rico would be similar to that of Scandinavian countries for example, if there was no drug trade.

          • pcmustgo

            Just said they tend to be nicer and less into the racial stuff than the Blacks. That’s all.

          • Jefferson

            [QUOTE] Many have noted that MOST Latinos, barring La Raza activists, are very apolitical and not into “victimhood”[/QUOTE]

            [QUOTE] I’ve noted that many Latinos I met in life “kissed up” to whites[/QUOTE]

            If most Latinos are not into victim hood and most Latinos kiss up to Whites, than why do 63 percent of Latinos support affirmative action to redress past discrimination. 63 percent of Latinos support a program that hurts White people.


            If you support affirmative action than you are an enemy of the White race. So that means at least 63 percent of Latinos are enemies of the White race.

            You sure do have a very positive opinion of Latin American culture, a culture that was created as a result of racial miscegenation between Spaniards, Sub Saharan Africans, and Amerindians.

          • pcmustgo

            I have a COMPLEX view of Latin American culture… and other cultures. There are things I like and dislike about most. I am a COMPLEX person. I would bet 90% of amreners are guilty of eating some Chinese or Mexican food…. there, there you go, there is something, maybe only one thing, you like about their culture.

            I am not against “miscegenation” per se….

            I do not think it wise for America to be turned into Latin America or to become majority non-white or the tower of Babel.
            I think it more unwise, horrible even, for Europe to go that way.

          • Jefferson

            Eating Mexican food is NOT the same as having sexual intercourse with and impregnating a Mexican woman with Amerindian genes in her DNA.

          • pcmustgo

            Indeed, it is not…. that being said, it’s called cultural appreciation. Those people invented… guacomole! And tacos and burritos. We don’t have to marry them or let them all pile in here, but we don’t have to totally deny them their humanity or “propers” either.

          • pcmustgo

            As far as your , which do whites prefer and why question regarding Asians and Blacks, well I guess they’re 2 opposite ends of the spectrum and we whites are somewhere in between, is that right?

            White liberals DON’T necessarily prefer blacks, they just have nothing in common with the cliquish, boring Asians either.

            It’s like saying because we don’t want to buy the Ferrari we should be thrilled to drive a Volvo or something.

            We respect Asians work ethic, sense of design, drawing skills, etc, but find them too boring to be around socially, and resent their ethnic cliquishness from which we inevitably learn we are also excluded from. We get that “I have nothing in common and I will never be as close to this person as I am to a fellow white (however imperfect whites are too) person so why f-ing bother after awhile” feeling.

            We respect Blacks cultural contributions in music and such, but find them often too aggressive, resentful, “get revengey” even on whites who are nice to them, thuggish and even violent to make worth the effort to “deal with”.

            You guys seem to think problems with “Diversity” are only about Crime. It’s not just that. It’s resenting the CULTURAL ALIENATION , the double standards, the sense of BETRAYAL you feel when you put yourself out there in a post-racial way only to see time and time again that your “asian-american” friend prefers her “asian-american” people and social clubs. It’s seeing time and time and time again friendships (or any interactions) with them, or Blacks, or any of the non-whites, are disappointing, don’t work out, somehow lacking, etc.

            I live in NYC. Diversity capital of the world. You don’t seem to understand how this all unfolds on the ground.

            Btw, I recently met an Asian girl who was adopted by Whites… I have no problem with her, and have no doubt she is nothing like the stereotypical “asian-american” boring dull third world immigrant types we drown in here. She’s capable of holding down a conversation, being open and expressive, etc. CULTURE, CULTURE, CULTURE….

          • JohnEngelman

            In another post, he told another amren poster that whites are only angry about affirmative action and increasing diversity because “they can’t cruise by on their white privilege anymore”

            – pcmustgo

            I have always made it clear that I am opposed to affirmative action.

          • pcmustgo

            That doesn’t negate what you said about white people and their feelings and your dismissive attitude towards them. And your dismissive attitude towards my experiences in life and my telling you that I tend to be a do-gooder that treats everyone, of all races, far too well.

            Why do you come on here? Why not cruise the internet and do some online dating and meet your perfect Asian wife? You’ve stated multiple times that Asians are superior to White People and that is why whites dislike them. You stated that in blanket, absolutist terms.You then accuse others of being racists. On a white racialist chat board.

            Seriously, Asian women usually love white men. Why can’t you find one? Don’t make enough money? What? In the era of online dating it shouldn’t be hard for you to find an Asian woman… they apparently are whitewashed and will go for any white guy. Seriously, go do some online dating instead.

          • JohnEngelman

            That doesn’t negate what you said about white people and their feelings and your dismissive attitude towards them.

            – pcmustgo

            I am only dismissive of white Gentiles when they express the opinion that Jews and Orientals do not belong in the United States. White Gentiles who blame their problems on “race displacement,” “genocide,” and “Cultural Marxists,” make me think of blacks who blame their problems on “white racism.”

          • pcmustgo

            I am half Jewish and you were dismissive of my experiences with Asians and now apparently Blacks. Cultural Marxists are a serious problem.

            Also, most of us don’t blame all of our problems in life on blacks or asians or other non-whites, we just realize they’ve become a problem for us in life , a problem we’d rather avoid. We’d rather avoid them and their “problematic” behavior and attitudes. Our own mental (and sometimes even physical) health is more important than “diversity” and mingling with alien cultures.

            Whites are being racially displaced- both here and in Europe.

            Please stop lumping Jews together with the Asians… Jews are nothing like Asians. Jews are colorful and warm and creative and funny. On average. Not perfect, but nothing like the Asians. Jews are also mostly white.

    • Garrett Brown

      That’s a cool story, bro.

    • Triarius

      Yet there are thousands of companies, and a lot are multi-national corporations, that are jewish controlled that will not hire goy, or at least not promote them. Black-owned businesses do not hire white men, and the Asian tech companies in Silicon Valley require that you speak Chinese.

      But that’s okay with you, right?

      You have the hypocritical mentality of a libtard. Your views on life, race, culture, and society are damaging and dangerous.

      • Defoe

        I have the distinct impression that there exist “trolls” in this world.

      • JohnEngelman

        Can you name those companies? Can you document that “thousands” of Jewish owned companies do not hire Gentiles? Can you name one single Jewish owned company. I doubt even Manischewitz has a policy like that.

        How many Asian tech companies require the ability to speak in Mandarin? I have never read about one.

        How is my appreciation of two obviously superior racial groups “damaging and dangerous?” Your bigotry and xenophobia are evidence of a demented mind. The future does not belong to white Gentiles. It belongs to individuals with genius level IQs.

        • PesachPatriot

          I wouldn’t be so sure of that john…the future doesn’t belong to geniuses, no more than the past ever did…the future belongs to those who breed quickly and are willing to fight….I’m sure you’ve noticed america slowly turning into an idiocracy…intellect used to be respected here, we started heading downhill when we decided that the most important people should be the pretty ones with good hair and great smiles, instead of the smartest people.

          • JohnEngelman

            The present tendency toward dysgenics is a temporary wrong turn that is being corrected as Aid to Families with Dependent Children is being phased out, and as the prison population increases.

            Throughout history intelligent men were usually more prolific than stupid men because they made better incomes. Therefore they were better able to provide for their children. Computer technology reduces the economic value of jobs most people can learn while it creates careers for people of above average intelligence and enables geniuses to acquire fortunes.

          • David Ashton

            So long as the intelligent do not have to provide through tax or charity for the increasing proliferation of the stupid, and intelligent women decide to have children as well as or instead of careers, then there is less of a problem. There is nothing to cheer about in Britain or Germany at present.

          • JohnEngelman

            Mainly I think other countries should keep them out. I think we should also.

          • concernedcollegekid

            “the future belongs to those who breed quickly and are willing to fight”
            Indeed. This is the theory of evolution by natural selection. A smart person who had an amazing career might be considered a “success” by other people, but if that person left behind no children and some welfare mom left behind 15 then… yeah.

        • David Ashton

          “The future does not belong to white Gentiles.” Got that, Jared? Does that sound like a real friend of American RENAISSANCE? This is from someone who prefers Chinese females to whites, wants a Zero Population Growth policy for White people, and thinks the lands west of the river Euphrates belong exclusively to the Jews.

          • JohnEngelman

            David Ashton,

            You forgot to add that I think Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt are America’s greatest presidents, and that I voted for Barack Obama three times: once in the presidential primary, twice in the presidential general elections.

        • concernedcollegekid

          I agree with a lot of your comments John but I think it’s unfair of you
          to say that East Asians and Jews are “superior” to “white
          Gentiles” because of their higher IQs. I think that’s unfair to say because I think East
          Asians and Europeans just have different strengths. I think
          that Ashkenazi Jews are basically one especially smart subgroup of Europeans
          and I don’t doubt their superior average verbal intelligence over Gentiles but I think that in terms of Europeans vs. Asians, Europeans are essentially
          more verbally-oriented and less naturally conformist than Asians, and Asians are more
          conformist, less aggressive (maybe due to lower testosterone levels), and have
          higher nonverbal intelligence. I believe that Europeans’ traits have led
          them to invent more than Asians have, but I think that Asians’ traits serve
          them well in the modern world and are conducive to the formation of stable societies
          that use Western technology (like Japan). I really admire East Asians for their good work ethics,
          humility, and law abidingness compared to every other race including whites,
          but I also think that white males inventing almost everything associated with
          the modern world was not just an “accident of history”; it was
          because white males have certain qualities besides high IQ that are less
          present in white females and Asians. So I think it’s unfair of you to say that
          Asians are “superior” to whites. They’re just a little different, and
          yes their IQs are higher, but again I think the white male track record of
          inventing almost everything shows that something else besides just IQ is at
          play behind the awe-inspiring accomplishments of males of European ancestry (testosterone in combination with IQ, perhaps – Asians and women are lacking in the former while blacks are lacking in the latter).

          Have you read or heard of the book “Human Accomplishment” by Charles
          Murray? Before he wrote the book Murray intended to give a significant nod to
          Asian accomplishment but found during research that he could not justify

          (Note: When I talk about “white male accomplishment” I count Jews as white. I do believe Jews are an especially accomplished white subgroup due to high verbal intelligence.)

          John, I think you have the same complex liberals have where it’s emotionally difficult for you to praise your own race even when it’s warranted because my god, “Nordic Gentiles” are amazing and everyone knows it. They are beautiful and when left to their own devices create perhaps the best societies in the world. Would you really rather live in China or Japan than in a hypothetical, homogeneously white Sweden or Norway?

          • Lygeia

            Asians do skew 10 IQ points higher than whites. But they are not creative and have invented nothing. Their cultures and alphabets were created by white people who the Asians then wiped out through intermarriage or murder. They are very good at following precise instructions very carefully. This is useful. But everything has pretty much been invented by white people. It isn’t racist to say this, it is just true.

          • JohnEngelman

            From the fall of the Western Roman Empire to the beginning of the Italian Renaissance the two most advanced civilizations in the world were those of China and the Arab world. Both were crippled by the Mongolian conquests of the thirteenth century. The Arab world never recovered.

            Now China is recovering.

          • JohnEngelman

            If I was fluent in Mandarin I would probably rather live in Taiwan. It has a better government and economy than Communist China. However, it demonstrates what is possible on the mainland.

            China, Japan, Sweden, and Norway, unlike the United States, are well functioning countries that are safe to live in.

          • PesachPatriot

            The United States sure has some difficult issues right now, but I would prefer america’s problems to those of europe, china, india, the middle east, latin america or africa…The vast majority of guns in this country are owned by responsible, law abiding individuals, not rambos looking for glory and vengeance. Long term I think the US will be just fine compared to most of the rest of the world…to quote star wars…”I find your lack of faith disturbing”…just messing with you…I think you’re ok

          • JohnEngelman

            I think you’re ok too. 🙂

            The Scandinavian countries have been less effected by the Great Recession than the United States. They have lower rates of crime and unemployment. They have less public debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, and they retain AAA ratings with Standard & Poor’s and Moody’s.

            If they stop admitting black and Moslem immigrants, and if they find ways to deport many they have admitted, I think they will continue to be better places to live than the United States.

            If mainland China adopts a democratic government, and if it finds a better way to reduce its population than its coercive one child only policy, I expect China to dominate the world by the end of this century, and to maintain that dominance indefinitely into the future.

          • David Ashton

            China, Japan, Sweden and Norway are or until recently have been racially and culturally homogeneous, unlike the multiracial situation you welcome in the USA.

          • JohnEngelman

            I think that the different racial groups are different biologically, and they differ on average in their intelligence, and that’s, of course, why we never have this problem with Asians. Wherever you look, Asians outperform whites academically and financially…

            we have a considerably less than one standard deviation difference between Asian IQ — North Asian IQ — and white IQ. I think that, too, is a result of genetics, and I think that that is what explains the dominance of Asians in certain fields, and their lower rates of illegitimacy compared to whites, their lower crime rates, their better achievement in school, their higher average incomes…

            Asians have by and large done very well in contact with whites…

            I think Asians are objectively superior to whites by just about any measure
            that you can come up with in terms of what are the ingredients for a successful society…

            I think European Jews are Europeans, sure…

            I don’t think Jews, simply because they are Jews, are necessarily going to be not part of a European nation.

            – Jared Taylor Interviewed by Carol M. Swain, Editor, Contemporary Voices of White Nationalism in America, (Cambridge University Press, 2002); December 21, 1999

        • Triarius

          Lol, so now I am delusional for acknowledging ethnocentrism? As for Silicon Valley, you can start here:

          Check the tech forums, Indians do it too.

          And when, or if, you ever get to go to an elite recruiting event from banks, watch all the non jews and jews alike put on yamakas. Look who runs the banks in NY. YES, they normally do not promote gentiles, I went to school with several people that became investments bankers.

          Here are some more jewish controlled outlets:,0,4676183.column

          So do black companies, etc. Do you think that there aren’t Mexican businesses in the Southwest that only speak Spanish? Of course!

          It is you sir who is delusional. You are openly advocating the eradication of your own kind. And who says they are smarter? What has the Chinese invented that is of note in the last millenium, have you looked up the collective IQ is Israel?

          By your logic we should kill all sharks except great whites, and all big cats except lions, etc. until there is only one kind of everything let on the planet.

          Yes I’m delusional, in eyes of the demented.

  • HamletsGhost

    Niele nails it in his description of the liberal mind. It would be worthy of a book to explore the psychological motives for all manner of liberal attitudes.

    Whether modern liberalism is a modern disorder born of the wealth accumulated by modern capitalism or something more deeply rooted in the human psyche is worthy of serious discussion.

    Liberalism is secularized Christianity. They both talk about love of their fellow man and bringing about a kinder, more peaceful world. But there is ample room in their hearts for the most ferocious condemnation of anyone who doesn’t buy in or blows holes in their artificial myths. Both believe in Original Sin, whereby the sins of your long-dead ancestors still contaminate you, requiring the cleansing blood of the Lamb of God to wash away your sins. Only difference is that liberals refer to original sin as “White Privilege” and the Lamb of God as Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

    One other difference, Christianity is universal, while liberalism only applies to whites.

    • JohnEngelman

      The liberalism of an affluent and successful white person is only convincing if that white person makes sacrifices on behalf of those less well off.

      One of the most intelligent boys in my high school graduating class became a school teacher. He could have easily taught in an elite prep school like Choate or Hotchkiss. Instead he choose to teach at an inner city black public school. I feel honored to know him.

      • Mike Lane

        You do realize there are biological differences that make some “less well off”, right? I wouldn’t consider your friend a hero. I would consider him an idiot for wasting his talents. Have you not read about not casting your pearls before swine?

        • Garrett Brown

          He doesn’t read anything that isn’t Asian.

      • concernedcollegekid

        I don’t doubt his good intentions, but did you ever hear how that teaching experience went for him? It would be funny if that experience brought him to Amren and he saw your post. In high school I was appalled by how many of the black students treated white teachers as really less than human. They had no empathy whatsoever for someone just trying to follow rules and do his or her job. I hated high school too and I couldn’t stand some of my teachers, and yes there were some white students who behaved badly, but it was black students who seemed really incapable of empathizing with teachers in any way.

        Misbehaving white boys usually seem to feel at least some guilt. My brother (who is in high school) dislikes a lot of his teachers and many of them don’t like him because he is kind of a know-it-all slacker, but recently he shocked my mom by saying, out of the blue, “I think I owe some of my teachers letters of apology.” I think she almost cried, she was so shocked and proud of him.

        I bet the guy from your high school was not unchanged by that teaching position. Even if he did improve the lives of any individual students, I bet he encountered many that he sensed could not be helped. Although I have to say I have heard a number of horror stories about blacks from white liberals who “tutor” blacks and it is amazing how long some of them continue to explain it all away and keep trying to help. I sometimes think some of them, especially the women, would keep trying to “reach” the kids forever no matter what the kids did. I really think it’s an innate mental condition sometimes, not being able to consider certain explanations for what they see.

        • JohnEngelman

          I have another friend who also taught in a black public school. In high school my other friend did not hate blacks. Now he does.

      • Observer

        He doesn’t appear to be too intelligent, actually.

      • Djangotamer

        Then you’re a fool who just doesn’t get it JohnEngelman. You applaud your former classmate’s white guilt-induced actions as “convincing liberalism”. This is exactly the type of thinking process that’s led to the permeation of liberalism in Western society in the first place. We are NOT all created equal; the evidence of our senses and everyday experiences should be construed as ample proof of that assertion. Please wake up.

      • I knew a brilliant college grad who was going to move into an inner city area. He was originally from Minneapolis. He took his new profession to Washington DC to get down to helping people. He was murdered for an i-pad while waiting for a city bus. I felt truly if he were realistic based on our society today he made a foolish decision. Not just for himself, but he had a young family. Someone please tell me the moral of this story cause i’ll be dammned if i can figure it out.

    • Young Man

      The weak will always use guilt to try to manipulate the strong.

    • Jim G

      My theory is that that American Renaissance has a double
      Problem for the person that hates Christians and Christianity: How to post anti-Christian comments on AmRen.

      The AmRen family agrees that liberalism is a bad thing. But how to create the illusion that Christianity is a bad thing?

      Let’s see—make up some cockamamie comparisons between liberalism
      Christianity and see if anyone is dumb enough to lump the two together.
      But can we count on the AmRen editor to allow the anti-Christian
      comments to pass or will he be as diligent opposing anti-Christian posts
      as he is for anti-Jewish posts.

      Liberalism is like Jews in
      American society. They both talk about love of their fellow man and
      bringing about Tikkun olam, a kinder, more peaceful world. But there is
      ample room in their hearts for the most ferocious condemnation of anyone who
      doesn’t buy into or blows holes in their artificial myths of racism and anti-semitism.
      believe in Original Condition / Sin, whereby one party is the Chosen
      People and the other is the Inferior People with the sins of long-dead
      ancestors still contaminate you, requiring the cleansing blood of the
      Holocaust to wash away your sins. Only difference is that liberals refer
      to Original Condition / Sin as “White Privilege” and the Holocaust as
      Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.

      • David Ashton

        I am not a Christian but I know something about the positive contributions this religion has made to western civilization. We have to oppose anyone whatever their beliefs who support massive immigration, even of nominal Christians, from other races and cultures, and to oppose replacement of our own peoples who created our civilization, but it is not a good idea to wage a civil war over religion. Christians, Jews, Buddhists and Atheists who actively support our destruction through immigration and miscegenation are our opponents. Those of them who do not do so, or who actually support our main aims, are not.

      • Anna Tree

        A difference is that HamletsGhost used Christianity while you used Jews.

        But I think like David Ashton, I disagree with both of you: there are Christians and Jews who are race realists. So the common denominator to white traitors is not Christianity or Judaism, it is something else, another faith, not revolving around a god, a faith that is a mix of dogmas like globalism/liberalism/diversity lovers/white self haters or who don’t care/affirmative action supporters/pathological altruists etc (we should really come up with a terminology, it is easier when the enemy has a name we could all agree on).

        That said indeed the white traitors dogmas have similarities with those religions, as those religions don’t pay attention to the races of their followers, but as I was trying to say, they go further, as not only races are not important for them but the white race has less status than the others.

    • PDK

      Liberalism is the failure to mature. Immaturity denies reality and substitutes a preferred illusion in said reality’s stead.

  • JohnEngelman

    Corporations often pay lip service to affirmative action, but they know that if they go not hire the most capable employees their competitors will.

    If a university admits a black or an Hispanic instead of a more capable white or Oriental the university still gets the tuition money.

  • galtonian

    Attention AmRen editors

    Please correct the spelling of Russell Nieli’s last name. In the beginning of this article you spell it correctly as “Nieli” but then in the next several paragraphs is is incorrectly spelled as “Niele”.

  • Mike Lane

    Fighting discrimination and racial quotas by implementing racial laws. Makes sense.

  • LHathaway

    “The only thing that props up AA and all other anti-white discrimination is the power and purse of the federal government”.

    I’m not sure that is true, being that several states have banned affirmative action and yet whites are still discriminated against in those state. In those states private companies are still allowed to use ‘affirmative action’ to their hearts content, and do. That’s why it doesn’t matter if they are matched up to a school that is above their talents. Or rather, that’s why we need affirmative action in employment also.

    I know a liberal, he watches all those shows were the purpose of the show seems to be to make fun of conservatives, Cobert, Steward Daily show, Bill Maher, and he used to be upset at affirmative action too. He’s a college graduate and has two brothers who are college graduates, none of them could get university jobs. He felt it was because of affirmative action. He felt it was a huge deal/very omnipresent. Perhaps this is where the author is coming from.

    Personally, I come from a different place. I know of well-paying jobs such as city bus driver, where there are no whites, and they have an all-important diversity plan and ‘sensitivity’ training. Somehow that never means hiring even one white bus driver.

  • I’ll admit that a 17-year-old black boy with an IQ of 70 who is incapable of speaking comprehensible English, has never had a family structure, and is immersed in the brutal violence of his black community has a decided disadvantage in the job market.

    However, forcing me to hire this person at a wage comparable to a better qualified white employee requires what I call ‘direct taxation.’ My business has become a mandated welfare project.

  • whiteyyyyy

    He sounds like a confused man, he knows its all a scam but he can’t admit it. I actually dislike people like this, this clown has been part of the problem. If Whites are waiting for intellectuals to lead they could be waiting another 50 yrs. I’m thinking he was happy enough with the status quo until it bit him in the ass. He’s 20 yrs too late with his insights.

  • KenelmDigby

    Well, in this case, at least, the meek shall not inherit the Earth (or the USA at any rate).
    – The loudest-mouthed, the most aggressive and the most assertive will get the USA handed to them on a platter.

  • bigone4u

    Russell Niele is to be praised, not damned. Let us gently point out the error of his ways.

    According to the article, academic Niele is a lecturer at Princeton. The rank of lecturer does not carry tenure nor the promise of tenure. Lecturers can be fired for any reason or no reason. They work semester to semester for about $4000 a course in Texas. Perhaps the pay is higher at Princeton, but it will still less than half that of a new tenure track assistant professor, and possibly less than a new schoolteacher.

    All faculty that I knew in a 30 year career in higher ed were under enormous pressure to toe the line spouted by administrators. You could get your salary frozen permanently and be denied any recognition by administrators for straying from the line. You could be ostracized by your fellows, alone in a hostile world in which interaction with other thinkers, necessary for your intellectual development, would be denied you. I myself suffered greatly for defending heterosexuality, the traditional family, and masculinity, while condeming feminism. Not toeing the line leads to fear and paranoia, justified I might add.
    Mr. Niele, I can almost guarantee you, is as I write, being targeted by progressives for removal from their multicultural paradise.
    Let me add one more thing. The psychological pressure to conform can often lead a person to not be exactly sure of what he believes or what the truth is. When the big lies are repeated enough, and people believe them, you often question yourself for not believing them. Marching to the beat of your own drum is difficult. Bravo to Mr. Nieli for doing so.

  • IKantunderstand

    Our new party: White Dawn (if you have a better name, speak up), will have as part of our platform, the abolishment of affirmative action. This policy has been an abomination. Untold qualified White students have been passed over for minorities that not only did not score as well, but also were unable to complete their studies. And, as an aside, have any of you noticed that your local news programs now contain egregious spelling errors on the bottom captions of news stories? Actually, I don’t know if this a result of affirmative action, or the general dumbing down of all students.

  • In the 60’s anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white countries to open their borders to non-white immigrants. Then anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate” or face consequences for being “naziswhowantokill6millionjews.” Now anti-whites are counting down the days until ALL and ONLY white children become minorities and eventually extinct EVERYWHERE. It’s Genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.

    • newscomments70

      I know you mean well, but I’m not sure that repeating this over and over has the desired effect. Sometimes repetition can result in boredom and ridicule. The compound word, “”naziswhowantokill6millionjews”, should be dropped. That expression isn’t working and only invites ridicule. The rest of the message is clear. We all agree, of course, but I suggest changing the message each time. If Jared Taylor repeated the same lecture, over and over, his message would be greatly weakened. Every week or so, we hear something new and different….. something relevant to current affairs. I don’t mean any offense, it’s just a suggestion.

    • zionism

  • JohnEngelman

    The most prestigious corporation right now is probably Microsoft. Perhaps you could say it is Apple. IBM and AT&T have gotten stoogey. Let’s not even talk about General Motors or Walmart.

    If you walk through Microsoft offices you will find many non whites, and many who were born in other countries. This is not because Microsoft has a policy of looking for employees in Nigeria or Columbia. Microsoft does not encourage seniors in Detroit or Atlanta public schools to apply. It is because Microsoft hires the best computer programmers, engineers, and scientists in the world and pays them what it needs to in order to attract them.

    That is the kind of diversity I like. That is the kind that strengthens a corporation, a university, and a country. Diversity should be respected in every area but one: personal excellence.

    • David Ashton

      Did you mean to write that last sentence exactly as it stands?
      Immigration of Africans, Colombians and Indians for future technology INSTEAD of qualified whites?

      • JohnEngelman

        I changed two sentences to make my meaning clearer. Microsoft does not achieve diversity through affirmative action. Microsoft achieves diversity by hiring the best regardless of race, religion, or nationality.

  • Hal K

    “The problem—and Mr. Niele has covered this as well as anyone—is the
    contemptible mentality of white elites. Until that changes, no book or
    Supreme Court decision will make much difference.”

    This misses the mark. Mainstream conservatism is the problem. It keeps the lid on white solidarity by enlisting white conservatives to the cause of anti-racism directed towards white liberals. The notion that affirmative action harms blacks and Hispanics is a good example of this.

    There should be a new “Pro-White” party whose sole mission is to draw votes away from the GOP to hasten its collapse. It can make pro-white arguments against racial preferences and immigration along the way to educate the GOP and mainstream conservatives on what they ought to be doing.

  • Alexandra

    Seems to me liberals want to go against nature all around and deny reality, since it doesn’t fit in with their idea of utopia.

    They’re for abortion and a mother’s natural instinct is to protect her child.

    They’re anti-racism and it’s natural to prefer others of your own kind.

    They want animals to be considered equal to humans. They’re “anti-speciesism.” Watch, they’ll probably want to sit down with a pride of lions and explain to them why they shouldn’t attack that gazelle. LOL

    They want masculine women and effeminate men. Androgyny.

    Speaking in generalities here.

    BTW there are some of us Christians (I identify with independent fundamental Baptist) who believe that God split up “Pangaea” (“In the days of Peleg was the earth divided”), confused the languages (Genesis 11), and split mankind into the three major races (Shem, Ham, Japheth) for a reason.

    Acts 17:26 (KJV) – And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;

    Most people today focus on the “one blood” aspect…and ignore the last part–“bounds of their habitation.”

  • In the 60’s anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white countries to open their borders to non-white immigrants. Then anti-whites forced ALL and ONLY white people to “integrate” or face consequences for being “naziswhowantokill6millionjews.” Now anti-whites are counting down the days until ALL and ONLY white children become minorities and eventually extinct EVERYWHERE. It’s Genocide. “Anti-racist” is a codeword for anti-white.

  • tremendouscoast

    Egalitarianism is creationism for liberals!

  • John

    This is a very good review, but Jackson repeatedly misspells Nieli’s name. Nieli, not Niele.

    “Mr. Niele supports this view by pointing out that blacks do worse in school than their test scores suggest they should. Their grades are not as good as those of whites who get the same test scores, and the tougher the school, the wider the gap.”

    The fact that test scores overpredict black performance probably has nothing to do with them not trying as hard as whites. Rather, it’s because of regression toward the mean. The IQ mean of blacks is one standard deviation below that of whites, which means that a black student’s high test score is more likely to be a fluke than a white student’s. If you have white and black students with the same high SAT scores, their subsequent academic performance will tend to regress toward their respective racial averages.

  • “He claims that only losers identify with their nation or tribe”

    When Caucasians begin to realize that we are the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel we will have identified ourselves as The Tribes of Israel.

    Today if you mention this in almost any Christian Church they will ask you to leave. It’s happened to me both in person and via the internet. This information is not some knee jerk reaction for superiority or a need to be part of something.

    “For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye
    should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to
    Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.” Romans 11:25
    We will learn of our inheritance and the nations won’t like it but that’s to bad. The eclipse of the Sun, Moon and Stars is about to be lifted. See Revelations

  • Harvard Professor

    I think this review was quite unfair towards the book. If the author of the book was more honest, the book would not be punished. I think that the reviewer fails to consider this, and unfairly criticizes the author.

    Blacks do worse because they are genetically more stupid. They come from primitive tribes.