Why is race such a “thing” in modernity?

May 27, 2014 § 42 Comments

I propose two possible reasons:

1) For liberals race is a natural group distinction – an inequality – which cannot be washed off in the shower or changed at will.  So it represents a constant personal intimate nagging reminder that we are not atomized free and equal individuals self-created through reason and will: a reminder that liberalism is in conflict with reality.

2) For neoreactionaries race provides a center of putatively illiberal ‘loyalty’ which, unlike traditional centers of loyalty such as family, church and country, does not require anything of us personally and therefore does not encroach upon our unfettered freedom.

§ 42 Responses to Why is race such a “thing” in modernity?

  • CJ says:

    I suppose this would apply to gendersex (as my Constitutional law professor used to say) as well. It probably took the advent of the pill to allow it to become a “thing” because presumably the biological reality of child bearing was just too much for most people to ignore.

  • nickbsteves says:

    Is race, indeed, such a “thing” in modernity? I don’t purport to know but ngrams aren’t showing much in the way of any trend for the word “race”.

  • Ita Scripta Est says:

    This post hits the nail on the head. Race-based ideologies were an attempt to recapture the unity lost with the break up of Christendom. More broadly one could argue that racialism’s roots originate with the general collapse of traditional religious societies in the face of modernity, especially the effects of capitalism.

  • Bonald says:

    People don’t like to feel ashamed. That’s not hard to understand.

    I have the sense that many of these neoreactionaries are young, and the humiliating experiences of freshmen orientation and new employee diversity training are fresher. They probably believed what they were told for a long time, that they, and their families and neighbors, are inferior to the blacks and the Jews, that their country and their religion are shameful because white and hence racist.

    After years of internalized shame and self-loathing, an idea enters the future neoreactionary’s head–what if it’s all just a scam? He looks around, and he sees indeed that the idea of racism is used exclusively to promote the interests of some ethnic groups at the expense of others. Our moral betters seem to be profiting very well from their supposed humanitarianism, and at others’ expense. Anti-racism itself is racist! All those years of accepting the guilt, his disgust with his own people, his secret jealousy of minorities in their moral preening–what a sucker he’s been!

    How does he respond to this realization? A natural response would be for his shame to transform into anger and a desire for revenge against his PC tormenters. But the budding neoreactionary is, if not morally above this, at least of too intellectual a temperment to find the position of moral outrage–a mirror image of the anti-racists–satisfying. His victory shall be one entirely of the mind. He will see through PC, analyse it from without, dissect it from a posture of disinterested superiority. He will not dignify it with an ethical critique; he will reduce it in his theories to a mechanical outworking of sociological forces, to mere status competition. He will reduce it, as Marx did religion, to an epiphenomenon, without even the substance or agency of genuine evil.

    I’m not a neoreactionary, so this may just be my imagination, but I don’t think you can sensibly talk about the importance of race today without taking into account the institutional humiliation of gentile whites. Yes, it’s not a big deal. We laugh it off. We go on with our lives. If we’ve got the idea that our history is shameful, we just avoid thinking about history. The individual minorities we meet are friendly to us and don’t seem to be holding a grudge against us as individuals. And yet, we never totally forget.

  • Zippy says:

    Bonald:

    They probably believed what they were told for a long time, that they, and their families and neighbors, are inferior to the blacks and the Jews, …

    Are you exaggerating for effect, or is it really your contention that modern liberals actually teach and believe that blacks and Jews are superior?

    If you are serious I think you’ve fallen into the trap of thinking that liberals don’t genuinely and sincerely believe in equality. I realize that that is the traditional way for modern conservatives to intellectually disarm themselves, but I advise against it because it is false.

    He will not dignify it with an ethical critique; he will reduce it in his theories to a mechanical outworking of sociological forces, to mere status competition. He will reduce it, as Marx did religion, to an epiphenomenon, without even the substance or agency of genuine evil.

    If that is right then it really is just a postmodern catastrophe remix. Meet the new crap, same as the old crap, with apologies to the Prophet Townsend.

  • Race is such a crucial question because utilitarianism + White supremacy = genocide (my link), and after all, moderns are still human and have a conscience, and are dimly aware that murder and oppressing the weak are sins that cry out to heaven for vengeance.

    They can calm down when the lose the utilitarianism. Are the proud heretics going to give up on their heresy? Nicholas Wade’s new book puts that much more pressure on them. At some point, it’s either commit genocide, or admit that we don’t know the mind of God.

  • Catholic Economist says:

    Are you exaggerating for effect, or is it really your contention that modern liberals actually teach and believe that blacks and Jews are superior?

    I don’t want to speak for Bonald, but I think he is referring to *moral superiority*, i.e. the fetishization of victimhood our culture currently possesses. In this sense, certain minorities are perceived to be morally superior since they are victims of oppressor that left-liberal rail against.

  • Zippy says:

    Catholic Economist:

    but I think he is referring to *moral superiority*

    If that is so then I think liberalism is still being mischaracterized in a way that intellectually disarms ‘conservatives’, because it immediately follows that the problem with liberalism is not intrinsic to liberalism but is that it isn’t really liberal; from which it further follows that the solution to the problem is a more ‘authentic’ liberalism.

    The reason a Final Solution to the intractable problem of the oppressor must be found is because everyone is supposed to be equal, not because blacks and Jews are superior.

    In any case it is simply false to propose that liberals believe and teach, in some straightforward manner, that blacks and Jews are superior to whites.

  • Catholic Economist says:

    The reason a Final Solution to the intractable problem of the oppressor must be found is because everyone is supposed to be equal, not because blacks and Jews are superior.

    Certainly. However, if all are to be equal, then the only way for inequality to exist is if something (e.g. Nature) or someone (e.g. the “oppressor”) is creating or maintaining the imbalance. Thus, in the liberal mindset, one way of eliminating this inequality is to exalt the oppressed and to shame the oppressor.

    From my perspective, this seems to square with the available evidence: (i.) Individuals and institutions openly vie for the sainted position of victim (see point iii), (ii.) the “oppressors” of our society are actively encouraged to make public confessions for sins against the pantheon of man-made gods such as Equality, Diversity, etc., and (iii.) the “oppressed” of our society are often told that they are entitled to recompense for prior sins.

  • Zippy says:

    Peppermint:

    I agree with your basic premise: in my own words, that modern utilitarian materialists are terrified of abandoning the mythology of ‘zero group differences’ precisely because – from their point of view – once you abandon that myth you automatically become a genocidal Nazi.

  • Bonald says:

    I do indeed refer to moral superiority, and while liberals will not straightforwardly state that blacks and Jews are morally superior to white gentiles, this most certainly is the impression everyone under the diversity regime comes away with. After all, nobody else has a “shameful history of…”, or at least not enough of one that they need to have it rubbed in their faces like we do.

    What’s more, liberals can justify this apparent inequality because whites and Christians are identified as oppressive and violent more-or-less by essence. So, for instance, according to “whiteness studies”, the white race is a fiction made up by some people to justify banding together to oppress everyone else. Of course, we don’t have the option of just dropping the facade and ceasing to identify as white. Whites must own up to our privilege and our guilt; these things define us as white. Similarly, oppression and persecution are often made out to be the essence of Christianity.

    This is not what’s intrinsically wrong with liberalism, in the sense that liberalism would still be a noxious falsehood even without the white-bashing. But the white-bashing does explain the resentment it causes in some quarters (as well as the popularity it enjoys in others).

  • Zippy says:

    Bonald:

    while liberals will not straightforwardly state that blacks and Jews are morally superior to white gentiles, this most certainly is the impression everyone under the diversity regime comes away with

    That’s a feature not a bug, because it leaves ‘conservatives’ with the impression that liberals just aren’t authentically liberal enough.

    So when supposedly “red pill” folks who supposedly understand what is really happening go around saying – falsely – that liberalism teaches “that [whites] are inferior to the blacks and the Jews”, they are simply feeding the beast and castrating opposition to it.

  • The “red pill” folks are also borrowing from the liberal playbook by arguing that hurt feelings supersede facts and data when it’s their hurt feelings.

  • kelp says:

    Whiteness Studies, a component of Critical Race Theory, is an academic discipline that is influential at most universities and is woven throughout the humanities and social science curricula. It would be hard to be exposed to this and not come away with the idea that whites are morally inferior.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiteness_studies

  • Marissa says:

    Are you exaggerating for effect, or is it really your contention that modern liberals actually teach and believe that blacks and Jews are superior?

    From my personal experience, it’s moreso that whites and Christians are taught to believe they’re inferior and wrong in some way (to unnamed other groups, though my personal experience tells me Native Americans are the most superior of all groups according to my public school teachers). I’m surprised you think this is an exaggeration, Zippy. It seems most universities and left-liberals (and self-flagellating right-liberals) are dripping with poisonous “white privilege” philosophy. This is what happens when the notion of original sin is twisted and finally abandoned–people go on to find it elsewhere.

  • Zippy says:

    Marissa:
    Perhaps my ego is unusually strong, but the message I’ve always gotten from leftist diversobrownshirts has been that as a white man I am unusually and arbitrarily privileged, that everyone on earth wishes they were me, and that I should give up or compensate for my privilege so that all can be equal.

  • I don’t think you two are necessarily disagreeing. There’s some doublespeak going on here. If white people don’t acknowledge that they have magical privilege then they are horrible bigots and are far inferior to the Noble Savage fighting for their rights (but they won’t actually use that phrase because offensive).

  • josh says:

    I am a high school teacher. There is literally a consensus among students that white men are *the* historically evil demographic. I have had multiple students make comments to the effect that white men have never contributed anything positive to the world. The way history is taught, students wind up believing that Mali was a more advanced civilization than Christian Europe. Bonald is absolutely not exaggerating the message is received loud and clear.

  • JustSomeGuy says:

    Keep in mind the difference between DeFacto and DeJure.

    DeJure is just about all that matters when you’re trying to argue political philosophy, because any argument against the DeFacto situation results in appeals like “Liberalism is just not being enforced properly, you perfectionist bastard. Account for human error. Give us time to work out the kinks, and there shall be utopia.”

    DeFacto Liberalism makes Übermench of some (perhaps Blacks, Jews, or Native Americans) and Untermench of others (perhaps Whites) while DeJure professing it’s not. I don’t like approaching the topic “Disprove Liberalism” from this angle, because the only way you’ll ever convince a Liberal that Liberalism always DeFacto divides us into Über and Unter is if you’ve already convinced them of Liberalism’s internal self-contradictory nature. Otherwise you’ll just get “Free and equal rights aren’t being enforced properly.” (hahaha irony)

    In other words, you need to convince people of the DeJure flaws of Liberalism before they’ll ever acknowledge the DeFacto flaws as legitimate flaws. Furthermore, Rights and Lefts will point at the DeFacto flaws and shout “These flaws exist because true Liberalism is being oppressed by the other guy.”

    As Zippy pointed out, this is a feature. When you put Liberalism at war with itself, it can’t recognize that it is itself the problem. It’s too busy trying to purify itself – an impossible endeavor – to even think about other political philosophies.

    The point: Liberalism (at this time and in this country) does exalt some races above others, but it will never admit it. You have to wake someone up from Liberalism before they have any hope of realizing that fact.

  • vishmehr24 says:

    In my experience it has been the Conservative who is loudest voice for Jewish superiority.
    Liberals do not care for superiority of anybody. In this, I think Zippy is correct that liberals are sincerely for equality.

  • Bonald says:

    I’ll grant you that. I’ve been stunned by how thoroughly even my fellow Christian reactionaries accept Jewish moral superiority.

    Liberals sincerely believe in the equality of individuals, but Christians being equal to Jews doesn’t mean that Christianity is equal to Judaism, and I don’t fault liberals for not thinking it should have to. Given their worldview, it makes sense they should consider Jewish culture as superior to Christian culture. I just don’t share their worldview.

  • Elspeth says:

    I do indeed refer to moral superiority, and while liberals will not straightforwardly state that blacks and Jews are morally superior to white gentiles,

    I vehemently disagree with the part about Jews. Liberals are virulently anti-Semitic from what I can tell.

    I do agree that liberals tend to fall into the trap of presenting blacks as morally superior. It’s like they willfully ignore the cesspool that much of black culture has become. Nothing morally superior about it.

    The sage black woman is a particular favorite of theirs. I have white friends (good, godly people who mean no harm), whom I suspect have inadvertently imposed that onto me, and I actively shoot it down. I hate it.

  • Zippy says:

    For many liberals the Jews are “untermensch classic”: both traditional oppressor and less than human. For other liberals they are a transcendent oppressed victim.

    As Larry Auster once told me, the Jews are like everyone else only more so.

    While not denying their various historical roles, I think the Jews are now basically irrelevant and could probably disappear without altering the present course of liberalism one way or another.

  • King Richard says:

    Yesterday a young woman wrote and asked me about voting in Edan; she was rather upset that women cannot vote in Edan.
    I replied,
    “You are asking the wrong question. The question is – In Edan, what is the purpose of voting”
    Last week I received about the 50th request asking me “Who should I vote for in [x nation’s] election?”
    I replied,
    “You are asking the wrong question. The question is – why is it that no matter who I vote for things never get better?”

    I get the same sense here.
    ‘Do Liberals think Whites are privileged or inferior?’
    ‘Are Jews seen as untermenschen?’
    Wrong questions. The real questions are;
    Why are we even discussing race at all?
    and
    Why are we using terms like ‘untermenschen’?

    The idea of ‘race’ is ridiculous and an obvious outgrowth of Modernity. As the Enlightenment and its associated Modernist movements rejected legitimate authority and hierarchy they were left with a number of problems.
    1) They held fast to the concept of equality yet the wealth that made their leisure lives possible was fueled by slavery
    2) They claimed that ‘the state of nature’ was better and more perfect than civilization, yet civilized people were demonstrably better off than people living in a state of nature
    3) They retained emotional distaste for geo-political rivals while insisting that nations meant nothing
    and more, besides.

    The answer? The rather ridiculous idea of assigning races to various groups and insisting that ‘race’ was the reason some people ‘deserved’ to be slaves, or poor, or ignorant, or hated, or whatever did not fit into their egalitarian pipe-dream.

    Prior to the 18th Century such ideas were not really seen. While Greeks were pretty insular and parochial that was more about city, language, and culture. The Romans frankly didn’t care what your skin or hair looked like, they divided the world into Romans, Allies of Rome, Enemies of Rome, and Everybody Else. Catholics didn’t care about race, as is well attested, they just cared if you were a Catholic or not. Same with Jews. Same with Muslims. And Buddhists. In most of Europe the differentiator was to which king you owed allegiance (of course, this is when borders weren’t lines on a map, but where people stopped being loyal to this king and were loyal to that king)

    Reject hierarchy, authority, religion, and allegience and you need something to explain why things are the way they are, some excuse for why you like or dislike people.

    Enter race, the ludicrous idea that the color of your skin and texture of your hair is more critical than your honor, duty, loyalty, religion, and experience.

    Don’t think race is funny? Go to the forums of some racialist group and start asking if Irish are ‘White’, if Syrians are ‘Black’, etc. Post a picture of Kidada Jones and ask if they can tell what ‘race’ she is. Post a photo of a blue-eyed, pale skinned natural blonde, ask her race, then state (whether true or not) that she is a Slav.
    Trust me, it is hilarious.

    As Chesterton said [paraphrase] ‘The problem with Modernists isn’t that they believe nothing, it is that they will believe in anything’. In the absence of an understanding of natural law, true hierarchy, and legitimate authority they fill in the gaps with race, Nietzsche, and the ‘alpha/beta’/etc.’ silliness.

    So stop asking the wrong questions and start asking yourself – why am I using such obviously ridiculous ideas?

  • KR, I totally disagree. There are obvious and important differences between the races we should take into account. For starters, if blacks are more likely to commit violent crimes, then it might actually not be a bad idea for me to cross the street if I see a group of blacks coming towards me.

    And there are obvious differences in cognitive ability. If you want some outstanding and convincing information on this topic, try theeducationrealist.wordpress.com. The long and short of it is that black people, and I believe hispanics, score lower than white people in pretty much every measure of academic ability we have available to us – and this is controlled for wealth, class, location, and so on.

    We shouldn’t be sticking our heads in the sand about this. Recognizing differences between races is not racism.

  • No, it’s not controlled for those factors. Like is actually never compared to like because it’s confound city all the live long day. In any case, differences between ethnic groups (oh yeah, they exist between WHITE ethnic groups too, and the variances are quite large, as a quick perusal of American history will show) are generally used to ignore authority, hierarchy and natural law in favor of partiality and false consciousness.

    Some ethnic groups are highly social and this just might impact other areas of life without necessarily being a net negative. That would be a difference worth exploring. So would the difference between ethnic groups whose crimes are put into police reports and those who are not. Note, this is different than “what gets printed”.

    I always find it interesting that the same people who claim to be so realistic about race matters take as unassailable gospel data produced by the very people they claim are unrealistic about race and everything else in life. The “science is settled” indeed.

  • King Richard says:

    Malcolm,
    Again, you are asking the wrong questions or, in this case, answering one that both was not asked and has no meaning.
    “People are different” is obviously true
    But you are ignoring the ridiculousness of the very idea of ‘race’ while trying to use it to prove some sort of point, somehow.
    [Yes, yes – I am an educator and can speak at great length about the Flynn effect, the narrowing gap, the details and variability of the various types and tools of determining general IQ, the Rushton and Jensen meta-analysis, etc.]
    [Ever notice how they don’t go into great detail about the *genetics* of the test takers?]
    But\what are you appearing to *do* with your discussion of race? What is it that neoreactionaries, ‘race realists’, and stormfront members ALL trying to do with “race”?
    Create a hierarchy. Imbue yourself and others with a tag that allows you to mentally and emotionally classify everyone by value, status, importance, etc. all relative to you and to each other.
    This is akin to those atheists that repeat over and over again that atheists have higher average IQs than religious people, a very misleading statement (while the mean IQ of atheists is a touch higher than in religious people, the *distribution* of atheists is heavily skewed to LOW IQs).
    Now, why would an atheist care about the IQs of religious people? Because the atheist wants to place himself higher in the chosen hierarchy, obviously.

    ‘Race’ is a shibboleth, just like ‘privilege’, ‘environmentalist’, ‘equality’, ‘democracy’, etc.

  • No, it’s not controlled for those factors.

    Did you actually check out the website I link? Read what he wrote? You can’t just say “No, it’s not controlled for these factors” if you haven’t looked into it. Yes, it is. The reason this guy is good is because he does NOT just accept the standard view on things. Here are a few things to get you started:

    http://educationrealist.wordpress.com/encylopedia-of-ed-part-i-things-voldemortean/

    Oh hey, look, low income whites outscore high income blacks on the SAT consistently.

    http://www.jbhe.com/features/49_college_admissions-test.html

    http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/2999198?uid=3739808&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21103807389971

    http://books.google.com/books?id=b25VQklHaY4C&pg=PA199&lpg=PA199&dq=sat+scores+%22low+income+whites%22+%22high+income+blacks%22&source=bl&ots=eAQo4QH2tw&sig=79zePqTLz9jxk7S9O4DpfOJ3Hzo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BDTgT6nwKYPi2QXV9OX0CQ&ved=0CNwBEOgBMAA#v=onepage&q=sat%20scores%20%22low%20income%20whites%22%20%22high%20income%20blacks%22&f=false

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/01/19/study-finds-east-asian-americans-gain-most-sat-courses

    And yet, they still score consistently lower on the SATs! Man, white privilege is powerful, huh? I mean, it can cause low income whites to consistently perform at a higher level than high income blacks AND overcome less test prep! How amazing is that?

    But oh Malcolm, come on! The SAT is a bad test, you know that!

    All right then, let’s just look at IQ itself then. Oh look, significant differences. But hey, if you read the articles, as it turns out it’s the fault of white privilege! How about that?

    http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/04/26/9530.aspx

    Oh no, they don’t have access to test prep, right? It’s too bad that hispanics and blacks use test prep more than whites:

    http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2012.01326.x/abstract

    http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/social_forces/summary/v089/89.2.alon.html

    But hey! All of this information doesn’t cut because it’s very uncomfortable, right?

    I know you think this guy is racist because, surprise, he mentions race as an actually relevant factor. Oh well. What’s true is true.

  • But\what are you appearing to *do* with your discussion of race? What is it that neoreactionaries, ‘race realists’, and stormfront members ALL trying to do with “race”?
    Create a hierarchy. Imbue yourself and others with a tag that allows you to mentally and emotionally classify everyone by value, status, importance, etc. all relative to you and to each other.

    So your theory is that the reason I’m pointing all of this out is in order to put myself higher up on a hierarchy that allows me to judge people?

    And you believe that pointing out racial differences has no relevance in society?

    Nonsense. I judge people as individuals and certainly don’t consider any humans inferior to me on the basis of IQ – there are many people who I’m sure have a lower IQ than me who have done far more good in the world than I have.

    I’ll point to the Education Realist again: So many people read the previous statement [that IQ correlates with race] and say, “Well, this is of course nonsense. Everyone with any understanding of biology knows that race is a social construct, not a biological one. So only ignorant bigots would argue that race is genetically linked to IQ.”

    To which I ask, with considerable irritation, where does the View mention biology? Or genetics? You will see no mention of actual science here in this blog.

    I’ll tell you why acknowledging all of this matters: Because liberals have made it that way. They are perpetuating an illusion that the real problem is that blacks and hispanics are disadvantaged socially and environmentally in regards to schooling in ways whites aren’t, and this is the result of the achievement gap. This leads to things like affirmative action, and letting people into colleges that simply don’t deserve to be there and can’t live up to those standards. This is something we can’t ignore because it’s uncomfortable.

    Look, I’ll back off, because I’m sure I’m coming off hysterical here with all of my links. But it miffs me when somebody comes in and says “No, you’re wrong!” with no evidence why…not you, KR, but The Unreal Woman.

  • sunshinemary says:

    Perhaps my ego is unusually strong, but the message I’ve always gotten from leftist diversobrownshirts has been that as a white man I am unusually and arbitrarily privileged, that everyone on earth wishes they were me, and that I should give up or compensate for my privilege so that all can be equal.

    The strength of your ego notwithstanding, the message is that you are privileged not because you are superior but because you *stole* your privilege (or your parents/grandparents) stole it for you. So the message is that you are not in anyway superior but are morally inferior because of your privilege-thieving ways.

  • I promise, my last word: It is only fair to admit that Asians score consistently higher than whites – just so I don’t leave out something relevant.

  • Zippy says:

    Sunshine:

    the message is that you are privileged not because you are superior but because you *stole* your privilege

    The message is that because everyone is equal, my advantages are (though not my own personal ‘fault’) either the result of accident or malice-of-ancestors, sure.

    But the liberal perspective still inherently pedestalizes me as a superior white male.

  • Marissa says:

    But the liberal perspective still inherently pedestalizes me as a superior white male.

    It’s reminiscent of feminism’s chauvinism. The virtues of femininity and the vocations of motherhood and childrearing are inferior to male virtues and (professional, air-conditioned) labor. But if I were to try and explain to a feminist that she thinks men are better than women, she would probably not agree.

  • […] So on Zippy’s blog poster King Richard (who, I will hasten to add, is intelligent and a guy who I agree with quite often and mostly makes good points) wrote this: […]

  • King Richard says:

    Malcolm,
    “And you believe that pointing out racial differences has no relevance in society?”
    Yes, I am certain that pointing out racial differences has no relevance to society. Why aren’t you?

    ” I judge people as individuals and certainly don’t consider any humans inferior to me on the basis of IQ – there are many people who I’m sure have a lower IQ than me who have done far more good in the world than I have.”
    Then why did you spend so much time and energy posting links to a discussion grouping people together by vague notions of skin color and hair type to examine their IQs?

    “I’ll tell you why acknowledging all of this matters: Because liberals have made it that way. They are perpetuating an illusion that the real problem is that blacks and hispanics are disadvantaged socially and environmentally in regards to schooling in ways whites aren’t, and this is the result of the achievement gap.”
    And you are participating in and promoting this very view.
    Yes, really, because you are accepting the core premise that *race exists in a real sense*. Rejecting their conclusions doesn’t matter because you start by accepting their premise.

  • Zippy says:

    Marissa:

    It’s reminiscent of feminism’s chauvinism.

    Yes, like that — and since we are in the domain of what people implicitly learn rather than what liberalism explicitly teaches, I expect that it strikes different people (who have different psychological predispositions) differently.

  • King Richard says:

    Marissa,
    What is interesting is that in many patriarchal soceities feminine women have a higher place in the hierarchy than men; Modernism started by erasing hierarchy, lowering the status of women, and continued by then trying to get women up to a previously-inferior place.

  • Andrew E. says:

    Lawrence Auster spent years at his blog explaining exactly why exploring racial differences was a worthwhile endeavor for contemporary American and Western society. And he was right.

  • Andrew E. says:

    If Lawrence were still with us he almost certainly would have blogged about Towson State’s recent debate competition victory. A shining example of Black Run America. Be sure to see the second embedded video.

    http://thepunditpress.com/2014/05/05/college-wins-us-debate-championship-by-repeating-the-n-word-over-and-over-speaking-incomprehensibly/

  • CJ says:

    Yes, those debate videos are all the rage on NRx/HBD sites. Not surprising since they confirm the prevailing beliefs about blacks on those sites. Still, it’s plain silly to claim that a couple of debate competitions prove anything.

  • […] something. KR responded to me again on that thread, so in keeping with my stated promise on the thread itself I will respond […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Why is race such a “thing” in modernity? at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: