The Renaissance of Intellectual Racism

JahFocus CS

Get It How You Get It
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
20,462
Reputation
3,780
Daps
82,433
Reppin
Republic of New Afrika
The Renaissance of Intellectual Racism
How institutions gift a veneer of respectability to white nationalists who promote racist pseudoscience.
By Nicole Hemmer | Contributing Editor for Opinion

April 18, 2017, at 12:00 p.m.

Intellectual racism, in its cultural and pseudoscientific guises, is having a bit of a renaissance of late. At least, it's receiving more attention than at any time since the debut of "The Bell Curve," the 1994 book by Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray about race and IQ. Murray himself is back in the news, triggering protests as he tours college campuses. Andrew Sullivan, who published excerpts of Murray's work as editor of The New Republic, recently went out of his way to make a case against the persistence of racism and for black pathology at the end of a much-read piece about Hillary Clinton. Within the last year, white nationalist sites like VDARE, American Renaissance and Radix have become part of the political landscape.

I've written elsewhere about the trap of intellectualized racism, which cuts against the common assumption that racism is rooted in ignorance and provincialism, that it can only be crude and passe. Thus when Richard Spencer, the face of the alt-right, shows up in a natty suit, he is treated as an unusual curiosity. When Charles Murray shows up brandishing a Ph.D. and some regression tables, he is treated as a sober-minded scholar.

But it's not just journalists who make this sort of mistake. Academics do, too. In the February issue of the American Historical Review, one of the history profession's flagship journals, Raymond Wolters reviewed Ansley Erickson's new book, "Making the Unequal Metropolis: School Desegregation and Its Limits." Wolters seemed to have the right credentials to review Erickson's work on desegregation and busing in Nashville: emeritus professor at the University of Delaware, author of several books on race and education.

Oh, and also an active proponent of racist pseudoscience.

The list of white nationalist publications Wolters has written for is extensive: American Renaissance, VDARE, the Occidental Quarterly, Taki's Mag, the National Policy Institute (Richard Spencer's organization). He credits John Derbyshire and Jared Taylor for influencing his transformation to a "race realist" (that is, "racist"). Taylor is the founder and editor of American Renaissance. A taste of his "race realist" analysis of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina: "Blacks and whites are different. When blacks are left entirely to their own devices, Western civilization – any kind of civilization – disappears." For his part, Derbyshire was booted as a contributor to National Review after publishing "The Talk: Nonblack Version," in which he advised his children not to "act the Good Samaritan to blacks in apparent distress" (but to cultivate an intelligent black friend as "an amulet against potentially career-destroying accusations of prejudice").

Derbyshire and Taylor have provided Wolters with an intellectual framework for his racist analysis, but he had settled on the underlying sentiment much earlier. His most famous work, published in 1984, was "The Burden of Brown: Thirty Years of School Desegregation," which argued that desegregation was a failure and that the legacy Brown v. Board was mostly negative. In the book, he placed the blame for desegregation's failure not on white racism but "the ignorance and uncivilized behavior of many blacks." The book generated a good deal of controversy, though it also garnered some awards.

In 2015, Wolters described how he came to write about busing and to conclude that desegregation was a failure. The story was not one of intellectual discovery, but something much more personal, "a profound sense of grievance." His children had been attending a predominantly white school in Newark, Delaware, and a desegregation order meant that they would soon be going to a school "with sizeable numbers of black students from Wilmington." So they participated in the age-old tradition of white flight, enrolling their children in private schools to evade desegregation. Wolters explained that at the time he stuck mainly to cultural explanations for black inferiority; later he would turn to more biological ones.

This is not someone who should be reviewing books on desegregation for academic journals.

The surprising thing here is not that a college professor would advocate for racist ideas – well-credentialed people can have racist belief systems – but rather that a respected journal would solicit him to write a review. So why did one? When the editor of the AHR,Robert Schneider, apologized for the review, he explained that Wolters had all the markings of a legitimate scholar. He had a university webpage, a "long and solid" list of publications and had published in credible venues.

Indeed, he had. Perhaps even more surprising than the AHR's decision to publish Wolters is that he had been published in other leading journals, including a 2012 review in the Journal of American History of another book on race and education.

So why is Wolters getting so much attention now? Like the outlets he writes for, he is receiving renewed attention because of the rise of Trumpism, which elevated white nationalist groups like the alt-right to political prominence.

But there are some bigger lessons to draw here. First, we need to pay more attention to the institutions, organizations and publications that provide a veneer of respectability to people who promote racist pseudoscience and hold them accountable for that role. Second, at a time when universities are constantly portrayed as hotbeds of intolerant liberalism, especially in humanities and social science departments, people like Wolters remind us that such a view is ultimately a caricature, that universities often tolerate ideas that are not only deeply offensive but factually untrue.

Wolters also serves as another reminder that racism is about power, not ignorance. It is infinitely adaptable. It comes in fitted suits as well as flowing sheets, in well-appointed faculty lounges as well as smoke-filled dive bars. And just because more people are now paying attention to the extent of its influence and the perniciousness of its power doesn't mean that intellectual racism is something new. It just means that more people are starting to notice and to combat it.
 

Rakim Allah

Superstar
Joined
May 26, 2012
Messages
11,919
Reputation
2,008
Daps
19,660
Reppin
Los Angeles
American Renaissance post propaganda like this...

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law
Robert Hampton, American Renaissance, August 30, 2019

In 2013, a black man named Terry Wilson shot and killed a man. Mr. Wilson claimed self-defense, but a jury convicted him of first-degree murder. However, Mr. Wilson’s defense convinced Macomb County Michigan Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Faune, a white woman, to overturn the conviction. Other jurors complained that during deliberations, juror Harvey Labadie had called Mr. Wilson “just another ni**er off the streets.”

“I have never said racist comments in my life. I am a Democrat,” Mr. Labadie later told a local news station. He was shocked to hear that Mr. Wilson’s conviction was overturned. “He must have had a good lawyer,” he said.

Even if Mr. Labadie did use a slur, it didn’t change the facts in the case or the views of the 11 other jurors. Yet a conviction was overturned because one juror—allegedly—used a forbidden word.

A black death-row inmate in a 1999 murder case in Oklahoma appealed to the Supreme Court to review his conviction because a juror—according to an allegation made 18 years later—said during deliberations, “Just take the ni**er out and shoot him behind the jail.” Surprisingly, this year, the Supreme Court denied his request.

Throughout America, lawyers and activists are trying to subvert justice in the name of anti-racism. Convictions can be overturned if juries are not diverse. Black jurors refuse to convict other blacks. Non-white attackers can claim self-defense if they say they heard their victims use a slur. Judges are swayed by identity politics and fashionable attitudes.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that insufficiently diverse juries are unfair to non-whites. In an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court overturned a black Mississippian’s murder conviction because the prosecutor struck potential jurors who were black.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing that the majority opinion’s only “redeeming quality is that it allows the state to convict Curtis Flowers again.” “Otherwise the opinion distorts our legal standards, ignores the record, and reflects utter disrespect for the careful analysis of the Mississippi courts,” he wrote. “Any competent prosecutor would have exercised the same [jury] strikes as the State did in this trial.” Justice Thomas said the Supreme Court succumbed to media pressure just by taking the case. “[A]lthough the Court’s opinion might boost its self-esteem, it also needlessly prolongs the suffering of four victims’ families,” he wrote.

It was the Court’s sole black justice who ignored nonsense about “racial bias” and focused on the case itself.

Georgetown Law professor Paul Butler, who is black, argues that blacks should use jury nullification to help their co-racialists. “Confronting the racial crisis in criminal justice, jury nullification gives jurors a special power to send the message that black lives matter,” he argued in a 2016 Washington Post op-ed. “If they think that the police are treating African Americans unfairly—by engaging in racial profiling or using excessive force—they don’t have to convict, even if think the defendant is guilty.”

Ironically, Mr. Butler told Vox he first became aware of jury nullification when he worked as a prosecutor: “I was warned by the experienced prosecutors that there would be cases involving nonviolent drug offenses in which no matter what my evidence was or no matter how good my trial skills were, the jury would acquit. And the reason they would is because they didn’t want to send another young black man to jail or prison.” Mr. Butler eventually decided these juries were doing the right thing.

Above the Law executive editor Elie Mystal goes further. In 2016, he urged black jurors to acquit all defendants tried for any crime against whites or “white institutions”—including murder.

Mr. Mystal wrote that refusing to punish crimes against whites “will choke the system until it is willing to change,” and give justice to blacks. To the extent that blacks agree with Mr. Mystal, prosecutors are justified in keeping them off juries.

The system is already choking. In 2017, the state of Florida dropped charges against a black man who admitted to killing a white man. Joni Donley said he beat his white math tutor to death after the tutor insulted him with a racial slur. The state said it didn’t have enough evidence to bring Mr. Donley to trial because a key witness had left the country.

In 2015, a black Kentucky judge gave a black man convicted of home invasion no jail time after he heard that the young daughter of the victim’s family now fears black men. Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Olu Stevens admonished the victims instead of the criminal: “I am offended. . . I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men.”

Judge Stevens was later suspended for 90 days without pay because of misconduct in this case and others. He had dismissed several juries because they were too white, and refused to give jail time to a black career criminal who frequently violated his probation.

This is the justice system we can expect as whites become a minority. Non-white criminals will go free; white victims won’t get justice. :duck:Race will triumph over the rule of law.

:mjtf::what:
 

EndDomination

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Jun 22, 2014
Messages
30,915
Reputation
6,976
Daps
108,494
Hadn't heard of any of these racist publications (other than the National Review) until now, but I was aware of the Charles Murray resurgence. But this American Renaissance shyt is lunacy.

The conservative backlash against academia has been brewing for decades, and will only get worse the longer students are exposed to the racist orthodoxy.

Especially with Republican governmental administrations hiring right wing students and faculty, thereby giving them more legitimacy.
 

IrateMastermind

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Jul 6, 2013
Messages
5,108
Reputation
1,086
Daps
9,733
American Renaissance post propaganda like this...

Blacks Are Increasingly Above the Law
Robert Hampton, American Renaissance, August 30, 2019

In 2013, a black man named Terry Wilson shot and killed a man. Mr. Wilson claimed self-defense, but a jury convicted him of first-degree murder. However, Mr. Wilson’s defense convinced Macomb County Michigan Circuit Court Judge Jennifer Faune, a white woman, to overturn the conviction. Other jurors complained that during deliberations, juror Harvey Labadie had called Mr. Wilson “just another ni**er off the streets.”

“I have never said racist comments in my life. I am a Democrat,” Mr. Labadie later told a local news station. He was shocked to hear that Mr. Wilson’s conviction was overturned. “He must have had a good lawyer,” he said.

Even if Mr. Labadie did use a slur, it didn’t change the facts in the case or the views of the 11 other jurors. Yet a conviction was overturned because one juror—allegedly—used a forbidden word.

A black death-row inmate in a 1999 murder case in Oklahoma appealed to the Supreme Court to review his conviction because a juror—according to an allegation made 18 years later—said during deliberations, “Just take the ni**er out and shoot him behind the jail.” Surprisingly, this year, the Supreme Court denied his request.

Throughout America, lawyers and activists are trying to subvert justice in the name of anti-racism. Convictions can be overturned if juries are not diverse. Black jurors refuse to convict other blacks. Non-white attackers can claim self-defense if they say they heard their victims use a slur. Judges are swayed by identity politics and fashionable attitudes.

The Supreme Court recently ruled that insufficiently diverse juries are unfair to non-whites. In an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the Court overturned a black Mississippian’s murder conviction because the prosecutor struck potential jurors who were black.

Justice Clarence Thomas dissented, writing that the majority opinion’s only “redeeming quality is that it allows the state to convict Curtis Flowers again.” “Otherwise the opinion distorts our legal standards, ignores the record, and reflects utter disrespect for the careful analysis of the Mississippi courts,” he wrote. “Any competent prosecutor would have exercised the same [jury] strikes as the State did in this trial.” Justice Thomas said the Supreme Court succumbed to media pressure just by taking the case. “[A]lthough the Court’s opinion might boost its self-esteem, it also needlessly prolongs the suffering of four victims’ families,” he wrote.

It was the Court’s sole black justice who ignored nonsense about “racial bias” and focused on the case itself.

Georgetown Law professor Paul Butler, who is black, argues that blacks should use jury nullification to help their co-racialists. “Confronting the racial crisis in criminal justice, jury nullification gives jurors a special power to send the message that black lives matter,” he argued in a 2016 Washington Post op-ed. “If they think that the police are treating African Americans unfairly—by engaging in racial profiling or using excessive force—they don’t have to convict, even if think the defendant is guilty.”

Ironically, Mr. Butler told Vox he first became aware of jury nullification when he worked as a prosecutor: “I was warned by the experienced prosecutors that there would be cases involving nonviolent drug offenses in which no matter what my evidence was or no matter how good my trial skills were, the jury would acquit. And the reason they would is because they didn’t want to send another young black man to jail or prison.” Mr. Butler eventually decided these juries were doing the right thing.

Above the Law executive editor Elie Mystal goes further. In 2016, he urged black jurors to acquit all defendants tried for any crime against whites or “white institutions”—including murder.

Mr. Mystal wrote that refusing to punish crimes against whites “will choke the system until it is willing to change,” and give justice to blacks. To the extent that blacks agree with Mr. Mystal, prosecutors are justified in keeping them off juries.

The system is already choking. In 2017, the state of Florida dropped charges against a black man who admitted to killing a white man. Joni Donley said he beat his white math tutor to death after the tutor insulted him with a racial slur. The state said it didn’t have enough evidence to bring Mr. Donley to trial because a key witness had left the country.

In 2015, a black Kentucky judge gave a black man convicted of home invasion no jail time after he heard that the young daughter of the victim’s family now fears black men. Jefferson County Circuit Court Judge Olu Stevens admonished the victims instead of the criminal: “I am offended. . . I am deeply offended that they would be victimized by an individual and express some kind of fear of all black men.”

Judge Stevens was later suspended for 90 days without pay because of misconduct in this case and others. He had dismissed several juries because they were too white, and refused to give jail time to a black career criminal who frequently violated his probation.

This is the justice system we can expect as whites become a minority. Non-white criminals will go free; white victims won’t get justice. :duck:Race will triumph over the rule of law.

:mjtf::what:

I couldn’t finish the read. Nothing but juelzing.

We can’t even be racist when convicting blacks of crimes anymore was where I stopped :heh:
 
Top