Category Archives: Anti-White Racism

Immigration Increasingly Squeezing Whites Out of College, Even If Affirmative Action Ends

By Robert Weissberg via VDare

The Supreme Court’s recent Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision striking down racial preferences at Harvard and the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, exposed how the admission process has become politicized. But will the Court’s decision end the role of politics in college admissions? The answer is “no” even if Affirmative Action vanishes. Affirmative Action is only one of many political factors influencing college acceptances and rejections. Equally important, though rarely acknowledged: the federal government’s immigration policies—since they determine the overall pool of college applicants, and this pool can be just as important as the applicant’s record or racial/ethnic identity.

The quality of the competition dictates how applicants play the college admissions “game.” Entering Harvard would be far easier if, for example, the deteriorating schools dumbed down most of your fellow applicants. Within a weak field, middling SAT scores and a so-so class rank would suffice. If the opposite were true, however, admission might require hiring tutors and working harder. So the stiffer the competition, the more effort necessary. At some point, even the very bright might skip applying to an Ivy League school as too much of a long shot.

The applicant pool has special significance for white applicants who face tough competition from groups who scarcely entered college back in the 1970s, namely blacks, Hispanics, and Asians. Until quite recently, whites almost entirely competed with other whites. In fact, the previous pool of rivals was even smaller for men since they often competed exclusively against other males to enter male-only schools, while females often only competed against females to enter female-only schools.

The expansion of the applicant pool, absent a corresponding increase in slots, is highly consequential. While brains were always necessary to be admitted to a top school, a smaller pool of brainy rivals also increased the number of “safe” school slots. You took their shot at Harvard, but simultaneously hedged bets by applying to Boston University. Back then it was unthinkable for parents to pay huge sums to “counselors” get to Junior admitted to a second-tier school like the University of Southern California.

Matters changed with the 1965 Immigration Act that opened the door for millions of Asians. The impact of this influx has been enormous. In 1960, for example, there were less than a million Asians in America but by 2000, this figure had reached 11.9 million, 22.4 million in 2019. The predicted number will reach 34.8 million by 2040.

Key facts about Asian Americans, a diverse and growing population, by Abby Budiman and Neil G. Ruiz, Pew Research, April 29, 2021

These Asian immigrant children have done exceptionally well in American schools. Recall that Asian students were the ones who challenged Harvard’s race-based admissions policy, with Harvard openly admitting that absent Affirmative Action, Harvard would become a predominantly Asian.

Derb: If Harvard were to select from just the top one-tenth of applicants—which is in fact what Harvard most likely would do—then Asian Americans would be 51.52 percent, Whites 36.54, Hispanics 2.69 percent, blacks 0.76 percent.

— VDARE (@vdare) July 1, 2023

The numbers are astounding despite efforts to keep them out, At the merit-only Cal Tech, the proportion of Asians is 39.9%, 35,1% at University of California, Berkeley, 27.6% at MIT and at the University of Texas, Austin 21.9% and so on. This domination would undoubtedly be even greater if one disregarded fluff majors such as Gender Studies.

At the other end of the intellectual ability continuum are blacks and Hispanics who owe their campus presence to Affirmative Action, not immigration or brain power. While this black influx has ebbed and flowed over time, blacks have become a sizeable presence on campus [Black Collegiate Education in the United States (1828-2019), by Christina Hudson,, January 25, 2022]The heavy thumb on the scale in their favor is particularly noteworthy at Ivy League schools. Blacks are typically around 7 % to 8% of all undergraduate students [The Demographics of the Ivy League,, July 9, 2023] (However, these proportions still fall below blacks’ overall proportion in the population.

Meanwhile the Hispanics presence in the US population has dramatically risen from 9,6 million in 1970 to 62.5 million in 2021 thanks to both legal and illegal immigration. This has brought a corresponding increase in college enrollment from 1.5 million in 2000 to 3.8 million in 2019 [Hispanic enrollment reaches new high at four-year colleges in the U.S., but affordability remains an obstacle, by Lauren Maura, Pew Research, October 7, 2022 ]

Like African Americans, Hispanics now even have a sizeable presence at Ivy League schools, averaging between 10% and 16% of all undergraduates—well below their population percentages, but still notable.

Put concretely, a recent Yale undergraduate class was about 37% white, so if you removed all Asians (24%), all Hispanics (15%), all African Americans (8%) and the tiny miscellaneous racial/ethnic admits, the white percentage would almost triple, Moreover, in 2022 the number of females slightly outnumbered males (3160 men, 3315 women), so if Yale restored its earlier male-only rule—its abolition was not government-mandated but nevertheless reflected public pressure—white males would double their odds of admission.

The endlessly-expanding pool of applicants has, naturally, shrunk the acceptance rates at top schools, Yale, for example, in 2007 accepted 11.4% of applicants and by 2017 the percentage had fallen to 6,7%. In 2022, it was 6.3%. [Ivy League Acceptance Rates and Admissions Statistics,, 2023 ]

Particularly revealing is that the same pattern holds at very good but non-elite schools that were once the “safe” schools for those rejected by the Ivy League.. New York University, for instance, has gone from a 36,7% acceptance rate in 2007 to 12.8% in 2021.

Prior to the Fair Admissions decision, native-born whites were trapped by a pincer movement. On the one side: less academically-qualified blacks and Hispanics who benefited from Affirmative Action. On the other side: Asians, typically from immigrant families, who out-performed whites academically.

White applicants thus experienced two distinct biological disadvantages. First, their race allowed them to be passed over in favor of less qualified blacks and Hispanics, Second, they simultaneously were passed over in favor of smarter Asians.

In both instances, the source of this twin genetic liability was political.

But will the Court’s ban on racial preferences “free up” space for white applicants? Conceivably, but as per Professor Peter Arcidiacono’s analysis, probably not, since most of these new beneficiaries will be Asian males.

More generally, however, there will be an uptick in white females to replace blacks and Hispanics. This change is just an ongoing trend in which the proportion of males on campus has been dropping. Schools regularly demonize men for “toxic masculinity” [The war on men continues on campus, The College Fix, July 7, 2023]. So college-age men shun higher education and become an endangered species on campus.

Affirmative Action may wither away, but immigration policy will continue to shape college admissions. As a veteran academic, I have argued elsewhere that American college students are growing dumber—see my American Students—Dumber and More Woke, American Thinker, February 4, 2023. My prediction: at some point, desperate schools will target smart youngsters from abroad for admission to US colleges.

Importing intellectual talent has long existed for graduate students, particularly in the hard sciences. The same policy could easily be extended for undergraduate admissions. In fact, 31% black immigrants from Africa and the Caribbean now have a BA or higher [One-in-Ten Black People Living in the U.S. Are Immigrants, Pew Research, January 20, 2022]. Higher education is directly or indirectly subsidized in many ways, So the American taxpayer will now help educate the world.

Result: American universities may soon be peculiar institutions, with the hard sciences and engineering disproportionately dominated by Asians, Indians, and Eastern Europeans males, while the “soft” side will be overwhelmingly female, probably disproportionately feminists.

Many campuses will thus resemble collections of apartheid-like ethnic/gender enclaves.

One can only imagine how the mandarin social engineers will try to fix this alleged imbalance.

Robert Weissberg [email him] is Professor of Political Science, Emeritus, University of Illinois, Urbana and formerly Adjunct Professor of Politics (Graduate), New York University. He is author of Bad Students, Not Bad Schools (for Steve Sailer’s review, click here). His archive is here; his American Thinker archive here.

Our Chinese Beats Our Americans


American born freestyle skier Eileen Gu competing for China in the 2022 Winter Olympics
American born freestyle skier Eileen Gu holding a medal she won competing for China in this year’s Winter Olympics.

Our Chinese Versus Their Chinese

​A few years ago, the political scientist Charles Murray related a quip about how Americans needed not fear the brainpower of the Chinese: our (ethnic) Chinese would beat China’s. 

The tweet he quoted there illustrated the academic prowess of Asian Americans. The freestyle skier Eileen Gu, who has been accepted by Stanford University (her mother’s alma matter), would seem to be a shining example of “our Chinese”. Except, like at least eight other American-born athletes, she is competing for China in these Olympics, where she won a gold medal on Tuesday (when question on TikTok about why she was competing for China, Eileen Gu responded, “Cry ab[out] it”).  As “Kostya Zoo” quipped on Twitter, “our Chinese beat our Americans”. 

Monoculture Versus Multiculturism 

China’s embrace of Eileen Gu highlights one way in which our two countries have different views of race, nationality, and the perceived benefits (or lack thereof) of ethnic diversity. It’s an important enough topic that the Pentagon commissioned a formerly secret report on it in 2013 that has recently come to light. The journalist Steve Sailer detailed the report’s findings and also sketched out what it suggests between the lines in an essay this week. I’ve posted it in full below. First, a quick note on investing in China. 

Investing In China 

As regular readers may remember, Portfolio Armor analyzes all securities with options traded on them in the U.S. and ranks them according to its estimates of their potential returns over the next six months. That universe of securities includes some Chinese stocks that trade in the U.S. as ADRs (American depository receipts). As of Tuesday’s close, there were two Chinese names in our top twenty: Li Auto, Inc. (LI) and, Inc. (JD). 
Of course, given the risk, readers who decide to buy these names ought to consider hedging them. They can use our website or our iPhone app to scan for optimal hedges on them. 
Now on to Steve Sailer’s excellent post. 
Authored by Steve Sailer at Taki’s Magazine

The Unicultural Edge

A formerly secret 2013 Pentagon report, The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism: A Strategic Asymmetry for the United States, argues “China is a racist superpower.” It makes for eye-opening reading on how both the Chinese people and the American deep state think.
This book-length paper, which was posted online as the result of Freedom of Information Act litigation and then discovered by Twitter user @s_decatur, is by an author whose name remains redacted. But we know for sure that it was commissioned by the legendary nonagenarian strategist Andrew Marshall.
This shadowy mandarin started his career as a machinist in Detroit during WWII, then joined the RAND Corporation in 1949 to do Dr. Strangelove-like nuclear war planning. Henry Kissinger brought him into the Nixon White House and in 1973 Defense Secretary James Schlesinger created the enigmatic Office of Net Assessment for Marshall to think deep thoughts like a terrestrial Hari Seldon about the future of superpower rivalries.
He served as Director of Net Assessment in a windowless suite of Pentagon offices for 42 years under thirteen secretaries of defense until his retirement in 2015 at age 93, when he was said to be the oldest federal worker ever. A Chinese general considered Marshall perhaps China’s wisest foe and referred to the ancient seer as “Yoda.”
Nobody outside the Pentagon knows all that much about his views—not even secretaries of defense were allowed to keep copies of his highest-level write-ups known as “net assessments.” Only one copy of each was printed and when the cabinet officer finished reading it, Marshall put it back in his safe.
But it is said that in the 1970s Marshall debunked the CIA’s contention that the Soviet Union was an economic dynamo and argued for bankrupting the USSR through defense spending competition. Then in the mid-1990s, he contended that Middle Eastern terrorists were a relatively minor distraction while America’s great rival in the 21st century would be China.
Marshall seldom spoke to the press, so his name went largely unknown. On the other hand, over his four decades in office, he commissioned something like $400 million in studies by national security intellectuals, many of whom enthusiastically testify to Marshall’s brilliance at asking the important questions.
Whether Marshall represented an exception to Cochran’s Rule that “There is no Inner Party”—that in modern America there’s no all-knowing O’Brien in 1984 or Mustapha Mond in Brave New World who understands how everything works—remains obscure. But this study of Chinese racism he ordered is at least more interesting than our usual discourse.
Delivered at the time of the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” this 254-page report on how America should expose and exploit China’s deep-seated racism to win the competition for global influence, especially in Africa, cost taxpayers $262,600. The author’s name is blacked out, but is likely political scientist Bradley A. Thayer, currently at the U. of Texas, San Antonio.
Whoever wrote it, the Pentagon’s analysis argues that throughout Chinese history:

China sees itself as the center of the universe, all others are inferior, with varying degrees of inferiority. That is not an attractive model of winning allies and influence.

On the other hand, who needs friends when you have family? There are, as the document emphasizes, over a billion intelligent, industrious, and close-knit Han.
Still, the Chinese are not subtle about their sense of racial and cultural superiority:

Other peoples and groups are seen to be inferior, with a sliding scale of inferiority. The major Chinese distinction is between degrees of barbarians, the “black devils,” the savage inferiors beyond hope of interaction and the “white devils” or tame barbarians with whom the Chinese can interact…. Lamentably, modern Chinese views on race are no better than they were in the past.

The redacted author contends:

First, virulent racism and eugenics heavily inform Chinese perceptions of the world. United States decision-makers must recognize that China is a racist state, much closer to Nazi Germany than to the values upheld in the West…. The Chinese are comfortable using race to explain events and appealing to racist stereotypes to advance their interests. Most insidious is the Chinese belief that Africans in particular need Chinese leadership.


Most often, the Chinese do not even recognize their racism as a problem…. The Chinese are never going to go through a civil rights movement like the United States.

In fact, the Chinese don’t understand that diversity is our strength. To the Chinese:

The United States used to be a strong society that the Chinese respected when it was unicultural, defined by the centrality of AngloProtestant culture at the core of American national identity aligned with the political ideology of liberalism, the rule of law, and free market capitalism. The Chinese see multiculturalism as a sickness that has overtaken the United States, and a component of U.S. decline.

In this study of Chinese prejudice, the Chinese tend to get the best lines. (Hopefully, Andrew Marshall won’t be posthumously canceled when somebody finally figures that out.)
But Chinese racism doesn’t stop the Chinese from playing the race card against us:

The Chinese will make appeals to Third World states based on “racial solidarity,” that is, the need of non-white peoples to unite against Western imperialism and racism.

Antiwhite racial resentment combined with amoral commercial dynamism make China a daunting competitor:

The essence of the Chinese message to Third World states is a straightforward rhetorical query: Has the United States or the Europeans ever treated you as equals? In contrast, China portrays itself as an apolitical rising superpower that does business in your country, pays a fair price for your commodities, and builds your infrastructure with no strings attached.

And at home, ethnocentrism makes the Chinese state powerful:

United States defense decision-makers must recognize that racism is a cohesive force for the Chinese…. As lamentable as it is, Chinese racism helps to make the Chinese a formidable adversary. There are three critical consequences that result from this. The first is the sense of unity the Chinese possess. Second, it allows the Chinese to have a strong sense of identity, which in turn permits them to weather adversity, and to be focused and secure in confidence that the rest of the nation is with them. Third, China is not plagued by self-doubt or guilt about its past.

(The prose style could have used a copy editor, but where would you find one with a high enough security clearance?)
The Chinese just like being Chinese:

Knowing that one is not alone, but is backed by over a billion others who share the same thoughts, cultural references, and attitudes is reassuring for each Han Chinese. In truth, they are a society with considerable social capital that Harvard sociologist Robert Putnamidentifies as central to the prosperity of a community. It makes it far more likely that they will respond to government entreaties to support the nation as it advances or when it is challenged by domestic social or economic problems or by other states. Huntingtonidentified the importance of this, and lamented its loss in the United States.

It’s almost as if diversity is divisive…
In fact, it’s probably hopeless for the U.S. to try to undermine China by selling the sacredness of diversity to the Chinese:

China does not face a “culture war” like the one currently taking place in the United States. There is no fundamental debate about the identity of the country, the principles it embodies, who belongs and who does not, and the direction in which the country should move. This gives the Chinese government a considerable advantage as a unicultural state in competition with the multicultural United States. In sum, it will be hard to cause a loss of confidence with the Chinese.

Fortunately for Washington, in the struggle for the hearts and minds of nonwhites, especially Africans:

Chinese racism retards their relations with the Third World…. [The] racial stereotypes of the Africans commonly found within Chinese society suggest that this population is backward and dirty, and prone to crime, particularly violent crime…. [These] beliefs, coupled with clannish and ruthless Chinese business practices, generate enormous resentment in the Third World.

Therefore, to challenge China in the Third World, America should adopt a policy of calling attention to Chinese bigotry. After all,

Chinese racism provides empirical evidence of how the Chinese will treat other international actors if China becomes dominant.

The report suggests Washington emphasize questions such as:

“Why do the Chinese refuse to change their racist views of the rest of the world?”… “Why don’t the Chinese like black people; or Indians; or South East Asians; or Latin Americans?”… “Why do the Chinese support eugenics generations after it was discredited in the West?”

In contrast, America should proudly laud its own half century of anti-racism:

“The West confronted racism and developed a strong culture of anti-racism. China has not, nor is it likely to do so.”

The author explains that in America:

The primary and secondary educational system has been completely remade since 1970s to emphasize the contributions of racial minorities and the dangers of racism. The students receive instruction about the evils of prejudice and bigotry from K-12, while positive education about minorities is heavily emphasized. For the American student today, anti-racism and minority history months are as much a part of his primary and secondary education as instruction in mathematics, government, or physical education.

Maybe our kids aren’t as good at math as the Chinese, but at least they’re A-students in Ibram X. Kendi Thought!
But that’s not all Washington should do. For instance, the U.S. should trumpet abroad its massive non-white immigration and the striking fact that it gives affirmative action to immigrants:

First, the United States seeks the best from around the world, and will permit them to come to the country so that they may prosper, fulfill themselves as individuals, innovate, and, in turn, aid economic growth and innovation in the United States. Second, the United States opens its society, educational system, universities, military, and economy to immigrants as countless examples demonstrate. Third, it has in place Affirmative Action policies as a matter of state policy that benefits immigrants from racial minorities and/or those who are women.

Basically, for America to remain the global hegemon, Americans have to give away the advantages of being an American. In fact, to make the rest of the world like us enough to let Washington lead them, we need to not just let them move here but subsidize them when they arrive.
And Americans still won’t get any credit for it. As @s_decatur points out:

The 2013 report argued that the U.S. had a significant “soft power” advantage in that “it is not a racist state.” Unfortunately, the U.S. ruling class spent most of 2020–2021 proclaiming that the U.S. definitely *is* a racist state—so this advantage may have been lost.

It’s important to note that giving away the country to make friends abroad is an old American strategy. For instance, when researching the Obama family history, I learned that Barack Obama is the living embodiment of a Cold War effort to counter Moscow’s Patrice Lumumba University for Third World revolutionaries by inviting young foreign elites to study in paradise at the U. of Hawaii, where Obama’s mother met both her Kenyan and Indonesian husbands.

Journalists and media opinion-makers frequently share a multiracial and multicultural vision of their societies as well. Yet, thus far, they have not treated the problem of Chinese racism with the attention it deserves….

But the problem with getting the press to focus on Chinese racism is that the Chinese aren’t white, and the Great Awokening’s anti-racism isn’t against racism, it’s against whites.
Hence, antiwhite racists in America don’t have to look to the government of China for support when they can get billions from American corporations.
The Chinese seem to sense that they aren’t good at positive propaganda, like the British or the Israelis are, so they concentrate on discouraging criticism in the Saudi manner, such as by buying off Hollywood and the National Basketball Association to not say anything bad about China.
The American press would rather instead obsess over Russia as a dreaded white country, even though Putin runs an enthusiastically multiethnic empire. For example, his defense minister Sergey Shoygu is an East Asian from Tuva, home of the throat-singers, and Putin promotes mass immigration from ex-Soviet Muslim nations in Central Asia.
As The Strategic Consequences of Chinese Racism makes plain, the great Chinese advantage over both the United States and Russia is that it’s less of an empire and more of a nation-state.
In summary, it’s not clear whether the wily Marshall intended this document more as a guide to how to exploit China’s faults or as a disguised warning of America’s increasing self-destructiveness.

Biden Wants To ‘Woke’ Up Your Doctor

Authored by Wesley Smith, op-ed via The Epoch Times,

The Biden Administration wants to pay doctors to create office “anti-racism plans” that could soon bring full blown critical race theory into your examining room…

What’s that you say? You didn’t hear about Congressional legislation to that effect? That’s because there is no such law. Rather, the idea was pushed quietly into implementation by the blob-like federal bureaucracy that exercises primary control over the details and minutia of federal law.

Despite what you may have been taught in high school government class, federal statutes do not provide the specifics that will apply once a bill becomes law. Instead, legislation merely establishes a skeleton outline, usually directing the Secretary of this or that Department to write the details after the bill has passed through the arcane rule making process. In other words, the contemporary administrative state run by the executive branch has substantial quasi-legislative authority never dreamed of by our Founding Fathers.

There are few limitations to rule making other than that the regulation must be relevant to, and consistent with, the governing statue. But laws are often so vaguely written, that isn’t difficult. Moreover, the promulgated rules are where the devil in the details of federal law is to be found.

How do we know what has been proposed or promulgated by the bureaucrats? All rules—whether preliminary or finalized—are published in a gargantuan volume called the Federal Register.

Oh good. That means we can just look them up, right?

Well, sure: In theory. But good luck trying. Each year more than 70,000 pages of very small print are published in the FR. Imagine digging through that eye-glazing text! Talk about needles and haystacks.

Yes, there is a modicum of societal input in rule making. But it is very indirect. When a new rule is proposed, time is allowed for public comments that—in theory and sometimes in fact—influence the bureaucrats who write and promulgate the rule. Bureaucrats may also attend meetings with “stake holders” about the contents of proposed rules.

But like everything else in Washington, D.C., this administrative process is highly political. Whether commenters have any impact on the final rule usually depends on their political clout and/or whether they are allies of the sitting administration, not policy acumen. Needless to say, individual citizens rarely know what is going on, much less, have a meaningful chance to directly participate in the process.

Alright, enough dismal civics.

Here is what the new rules on Medicare payments to doctors—that begins on page 64996 of the 2021 FR and ends on page 66031—states about the anti-racism plan bonus: In Appendix 2—are your eyes rolling back in your head yet?—doctors are offered a percentage of their Medicare income “to create and implement an anti-racist plan.”

Among other consequences, this means establishing an anti-racist bureaucracy within physicians’ offices (my emphasis):

“The plan should include a clinic-wide review of existing tools and policies, such as value statements or clinical practice guidelines, to ensure that they include and are aligned with a commitment to anti-racism and an understanding of race as a political and social construct, not a physiological one.”

In other words, the rule states quite specifically that the plan isn’t about medicine. And it isn’t about science. Rather, it furthers naked ideology and insinuating very woke politics into the clinical setting.

That isn’t all:

“The plan should also identify ways in which issues and gaps identified in the review can be addressed and should include target goals and milestones for addressing prioritized issues and gaps …. The … eligible clinician or practice can also consider including in their plan ongoing training on anti-racism and/or other processes to support identifying explicit and implicit biases in patient care and addressing historic health inequities experienced by people of color.”

Think of the money to be made by leftist anti-racist trainers and organizers, which is part of the point.

Moreover, the call for “anti-racism” could be interpreted as calling for discrimination in medical settings against people who are not of color. For example, Ibram X. Kendi, the intellectual leader of the Anti-Racist Movement wrote in his book “How to Be an Anti-Racist,” “The only remedy to racial discrimination is antiracist discrimination.”

This invidious thinking has seeped into the medical establishment. Consider a relevant advocacy column entitled “Advancing President Biden’s Equity Agenda,” published last April in the New England Journal of Medicine. “To promote equity,” psychiatrist Neil K. Aggarwal wrote, “the Biden administration should distribute resources differentially in order to benefit groups that are persistently disadvantaged.”

That would be to pit some of us against others of us in our own doctor’s office. This obsession with differences—ever more thinly sliced—isn’t healthy. And it isn’t right.

All patients should be treated equally. No patient should be considered “favored” or “disfavored.” Everyone should receive optimal care. But such equality isn’t within the value system that “anti-racism” generally—and the new rule, specifically—promotes.

It is no surprise that the Biden administration has gone woke. But the real danger against true equality isn’t in the president’s speeches but in the power of the bureaucracy swamp. Indeed, what other “equity” landmines are being laid quietly within the hundreds of thousands of pages of the Federal Register?

Today, the bureaucrats are offering doctors a bonus to enlist in the “anti-racism” cause. Tomorrow, they may make critical race theory mandatory in the medical office. And we probably won’t know until the deed is done. This much is sure: Pushing “equity” in healthcare is a prescription for tearing this country apart.

In Defense of the White Nation


The White genius George Boole

Globohomo is the vast system of anti-White, minority-worshipping leftism that wants to control and suffocate the entire world. And if you want a good example of the “globo” in globohomo, just consider this. At school in the UK, White British students are taught all about the Black American non-entity Rosa Parks (1913–2005) and nothing about the White British genius George Boole (1815–64).

Whites as oppressors and exploiters

In other words, British leftists import globohomo propaganda from America to instil guilt in White children and resentment in non-White children. At the same time, they suppress the huge achievements of the White British. Leftists don’t want White children to feel pride in their ancestry, but shame. They want children to see Whites only as oppressors and exploiters, not as innovators and inventors. That’s why they plug Parkes and ban Boole, even as children inhabit a world shaped by his genius:

Boole’s legacy surrounds us everywhere, in the computers, information storage and retrieval, electronic circuits and controls that support life, learning and communications in the 21st century. His pivotal advances in mathematics, logic and probability provided the essential groundwork for modern mathematics, microelectronic engineering and computer science. (Who is George Boole? The mathematician behind the Google doodle, Sydney Morning Herald, 2nd November 2015)

Boole has had a “Google doodle,” but Google and other leftists celebrate him only as an isolated and exceptional individual, not as an exemplar of White genius and the heir to millennia of separate and special evolution on the European continent. Leftists certainly do not acknowledge that he contributed more to mathematics and technology in his short life than all Blacks who ever lived. If White children were taught about him in that light, they would begin to question minority-worship and the colonization of Britain by non-Whites who over-achieve only at crime, corruption and nation-wrecking.

Knights and knaves

Even worse, from the leftist point of view, is that learning about Boole can be a lot of fun. Imagine White children enjoying themselves as they learn about a White world-shaper! Leftism wants Whiteness to be associated with pain, not pleasure. And so, when leftism is defeated, pro-White education ministers should ensure that children learn about knights-and-knaves, not about Rosa Parks. Not only are knight-and-knave logic puzzles an enjoyable introduction to Boolean ideas about truth-values and logic, they’re also a good way to understand leftism.

Some Boolean logic
Some Boolean logic

You can learn the truth from leftist lies if you apply Boolean ideas. To see how, let’s start with one of the knight-and-knave puzzles invented by the Jewish mathematician Raymond Smullyan (1919–2017). The puzzle is set on an island inhabited by two kinds of native: knights, who always tell the truth, and knaves, who always lie. Suppose you visit the island and decide to take a walk to the beach. Soon you come to a fork in the road where two natives of the island are standing. You want to ask them how to get to the beach, but you don’t know whether they’re knights or knaves. And there’s no point asking them directly, because, as you quickly realize, all natives will claim to be knights.

However, suppose you ask each of the two natives what the other one is. And suppose that each of them replies: “He’s a knave.” Now you know that one of them must be a knight and one must be a knave. If they were both knights or both knaves, both would reply: “He’s a knight.” But when both claim that the other is a knave, you know a knight has truthfully identified a knave and a knave has falsely identified a knight. But you don’t still know who is who. However, you can now learn the right way to the beach by asking either of the natives a simple question. What do you ask?

The logic of leftist lies

You use an indirect question and ask one of the natives to tell you which way the othernative would point if you asked him the way to the beach. Suppose the righthand fork in the road leads to the beach. If you asked the knight directly which fork led to the beach, he would point to the right; if you asked the knave directly, he would point to the left. So a direct question is no good to you. But if you ask the indirect question of the knight, he will truthfully point left, because this is the way the knave would indeed point. And if you ask the indirect question of the knave, he will lie and also point left, because this is not the way the knight would point. Therefore, whether you ask the indirect question of the knight or the knave, you will learn the wrong direction to the beach. And if you know the wrong direction, you automatically know the right direction.

If the sinister Jewish leftist Merrick Garland opposes “white supremacy,” it must be a good and essential thing
If the sinister Jewish leftist Merrick Garland opposes “white supremacy,” it must be a good and essential thing

Knight-and-knave puzzles are a lot of fun to solve, but there are serious and important mathematical and logical ideas behind them. Boolean ideas, because they come from the work of George Boole. Using Boolean logic, you can learn the truth from falsehoods. And that’s I want to do to leftist ideas. We know that leftism is an ideology built on falsehoods, so we can apply Boolean logic to understand what leftists really mean when they use terms like “white supremacy” and “white privilege.” Leftists are liars, so what they pretend to mean and what they really mean are different things. Indeed, entirely opposite things.

So let’s examine how leftists use the term “white supremacy.” Merrick Garland, the sinister Jewish Attorney-General in Biden’s Bolshevik cabinet, has said that“Domestic violent extremist groups, particularly white supremacists, pose a growing threat to the United States.” Carol Anderson, a Professor of African American Studies at Emory University, has said that “American democracy’s most dangerous adversary is white supremacy. Throughout this nation’s history, white supremacy has undermined, twisted and attacked the viability of the United States.” And Jennifer Ho, a Professor of Asian American Studies at the University of Colorado, has responded to Black violence against Asians by blaming it all on Whitey. She says that “White supremacy is the root of all race-related violence in the US.”

The power of propaganda #1: ever-increasing use of the term “white supremacy” (from Google Ngrams)
The power of propaganda #1: ever-increasing use of the term “white supremacy” (from Google Ngrams)

So what do leftists mean by the term “white supremacy”? You have to start by recognizing that leftists are liars, so their language inverts the truth. If leftists say that “white supremacy” is “a growing threat to the United States” and “American democracy’s most dangerous adversary,” they must mean that “white supremacy” is the opposite of a threat to the United States and the opposite of an adversary to American democracy. Therefore they must mean that the United States and American democracy depend on “white supremacy” in some way. So what can “white supremacy” mean but “white autonomy” and “white achievement”? That is, when leftists condemn “white supremacy,” they are condemning the civilization built by Whites and the ability of Whites to act in their own interests and possess their own nations, institutions and property.

The power of propaganda #2: ever-increasing use of the term “white privilege” (from Google Ngrams)
The power of propaganda #2: ever-increasing use of the term “white privilege” (from Google Ngrams)

But it gets worse. Leftists don’t merely condemn “white supremacy”: they want to overturn and abolish it. But if they want to abolish “white supremacy,” that is, White autonomy, this can only mean that they want to destroy White civilization and enslave ordinary Whites. If you don’t have autonomy, can’t act in your interests, and don’t possess your own nations, institutions and property, what are you but a slave? “Abolishing white supremacy” can only mean enacting White enslavement.

Leftism is doomed to die

The same reasoning applies to the leftist concept — and condemnation – of “white privilege.” If “white privilege” is a bad thing to leftists, it can only be a good thing in reality. And it is: “white privilege” means the entirely natural and just way in which the White creators and sustainers of White nations act in their own interests to maintain those nations for the benefit of themselves and their children. When leftists say that they want to abolish “white privilege,” they really mean that they want to take White nations away from ordinary Whites. As before, “abolishing white privilege” means enacting white enslavement.

In effect, leftism presents us with a simple knight-and-knave puzzle. We know that leftists always lie, so we simply turn what they say on its head to discover the truth. From leftist lies we can learn the truth about leftist intentions. When leftists say “Abolish white supremacy!”, they mean “Enact white enslavement!” Leftists don’t want to end injustice but to impose it on ordinary Whites in ever-harsher ways. And at the heart of that anti-White leftism are genuinely “supremacist” Jewish organizations like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). If we apply leftist-lie logic to the name of the ADL, we can see that it must really be the “Anti-Description League.” The ADL campaigns against the objective and truthful description of reality, which is why it wants truth-tellers like Tucker Carlson to be silenced:

The Anti-Defamation League has called for Fox News to fire prime-time opinion host Tucker Carlson because he defended a white-supremacist theory that says whites are being “replaced” by people of color. In a letter to Fox News CEO Suzanne Scott on Friday, the head of the ADL, Jonathan Greenblatt, said Carlson’s “rhetoric was not just a dog whistle to racists – it was a bullhorn.”

The civil rights group listed numerous instances Carlson has used anti-immigrant language. Those include saying immigration makes the U.S. “poorer and dirtier” and questioning whether white supremacy is real. Greenblatt said that “given his long record of race-baiting, we believe it is time for Carlson to go.”

The white-nationalist “great replacement theory,” otherwise known as “white genocide,” says people of color are replacing white people through immigration in the Western world, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center [SPLC]. Some white supremacists also say that Jews and progressive politicians are furthering this change, the civil rights group says. (ADL: Fox should fire Carlson for white-supremacist rhetoric, WSBTV, 9th April 2021)

The ADL and SPLC are supreme practitioners of the Jewish-leftist principle of inverting reality and morality. They claim that truth is lies and that lies are truth, that good is evil and evil is good. Accordingly, you can learn the truth by reversing what the ADL and SPLC say. If they deny that “immigration makes the U.S. ‘poorer and dirtier’,” you can be sure that immigration does exactly that. If they deny that “Jews and progressive politicians … are replacing white people through immigration in the Western world,” again you can be sure that this is exactly what is happening. And if they oppose “white supremacy” and claim that it is a dire threat to Western civilization, you can be sure that “white supremacy” is a good thing and essential for the survival of Western civilization. Leftists live by lies, which is why leftism is doomed to die.

(Republished from The Occidental Observer)

FBI Says: “Vocal Parents” Are “Domestic Terrorists”

by Robert Bridge

A whistleblower has revealed the FBI has been targeting parents critical of the curriculum in schools. This shocking overreach of power by authorities threatens the freedom of all Americans.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has gone on some wild goose chases in its time – from pursuing imaginary communists in Hollywood under the McCarthy era, to searching for proof that the Kremlin put Donald Trump in the White House. None of these flights of fancy, however, have been crazier than agents tracking suburban moms and dads, all for the ‘crime’ of being increasingly vocal at school board meetings across the country.

Yes, you read that correctly. The G-men have been activated to track parents who’ve had the audacity to exercise their First Amendment right to free speech ever since public schools started looking more like indoctrination camps than educational facilities. Not long ago, parents could rest at ease knowing their children were receiving a wholesome education by instructors who checked their political beliefs at the door of the schoolhouse. Those days have taken a long recess.

Today, parents are struggling to wrap their brains around the fact that their kids are receiving an ideological brainwashing on wildly misinformed ideas, like Critical Race Theory, which teaches, in a nutshell, that all white people (the very people, by the way, who supported passage of the Immigration and Naturalization Act of 1965) are natural-born racists. And then there’s transgenderism, which preaches that the easily observable biological classification of ‘male’ and ‘female’ are mere figments of the imagination; every person, the theory goes, is able to determine their ‘true’ gender identity, of which there are said to be over 100 varieties. 

Should anyone apologize that many parents are vociferously opposed to their children being educated on such unconventional subjects? This mounting frustration has turned once monotonous school board meetings into electrically charged shouting matches.

In response to this outpouring of public criticism, did school officials show some humility and rethink the curriculum being taught in the classroom? Did they consider the possibility that the views of the parents just might deserve some consideration? Dream on; ideologues rarely admit they are wrong. What happened instead is that the National School Boards Association called on the Biden administration to protect teachers and schools from the threat of – are you ready for it – “domestic terrorism.”

When asked to testify before the House Judiciary Committee last month over the reckless rhetoric, Attorney General Merrick Garland said that he “could not imagine any circumstance” under which parents complaining about their children’s education would be “labeled as domestic terrorism.” It appears that either Garland lied to Congress, or he is grossly unaware of madness happening on his watch.

This week, an anonymous FBI whistleblower released an email from early October, showing that the FBI’s counterterrorism and criminal divisions created a “threat tag” to “track instances of related threats… against school board administrators, board members, teachers, and staff.” To say that sends a chilling message to all Americans, who simply wish to have a say over what their children are learning, would be an understatement. But it gets worse.


In the very same week that the FBI email was made public, Jann-Michael Greenburg, the president of the Scottsdale Unified School District board, was allegedly found to have access to a dossier on school parents who had criticized the board and protested mask mandates. The file, which made a brief appearance online, contained the social security numbers, divorce records, financial data, Facebook comments, and photos of children of the targeted parents.

This sort of Stasi mentality makes one wonder what strange virus has contaminated the American mind? At what point in history, aside from our current cancel culture dark ages, has a meeting between parents and teachers – no matter how testy it got – ever been identified as a potential terrorism risk? Do these fragile wallflowers forget that democracy was never intended to be pretty? In fact, only a fool would be surprised if it occasionally resembles two fat guys mud-wrestling at the carnival fairground. Each individual has a unique way of looking at the world, so raw emotions will naturally rise on occasion. And here is where the situation takes on dark connotations.

The very fact that some parts of society are accusing others of being the equivalent of Timothy McVeigh for not wanting ‘White Fragility’ on the reading list does not bode well for the future of American democracy, nevermind school board meetings. Worse, it shows exactly how unrepentant and entrenched the left has become in its thinking, and I use the word ‘thinking’ loosely.

These ‘Cultural Marxists’, as these radicals have been called, view the political opposition not as fellow citizens worthy of debate and possibly even compromise. Rather, they see the other half of America as an enemy that must be identified, vilified, and liquified. These dedicated ideologues will do anything they can, even if it means enlisting the FBI, to impose their weird, cultural experiments on everyone, including schoolchildren. The only good news is that a whistleblower inside the agency spilled the beans, meaning there is still hope. Not everyone has been brainwashed by the radical progressive creed that would go so far as to deny parents the freedom of speech. 

Blatantly Racist: AT&T’s ‘Racial Re-Education Program’

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

Details of AT&T Corporation’s ‘racial re-education program’ have leaked in which the company asserts “American racism is a uniquely white trait” and announces, “white people, you’re the problem.”

The documents were obtained by investigator and Critical Race Theory exposer-in-chief Christopher Rufo.

“CEO John Stankey launched the program last year and, subsequently, has told employees that private corporations such as AT&T have an “obligation to engage on this issue of racial injustice” and push for “systemic reforms in police departments across the country,” writes Rufo.

[ZH: Critical race theory is a Marxist-based philosophy that suggests society is a class struggle between oppressors and the oppressed, labeling white people as the oppressors and all other races as the oppressed.]

Predictably, the re-education program was launched in response to the police killing of career criminal, drug addict and arrest-resistor George Floyd.

“According to a senior employee, who agreed to speak on condition of anonymity, managers at AT&T are now assessed annually on diversity issues, with mandatory participation in programs such as discussion groups, book clubs, mentorship programs, and race reeducation exercises.

White employees are mandated to confess their “systemic racism” and enjoyment of “white privilege” or face penalties (they’re so “privileged,” they get to enjoy one of America’s biggest corporations openly discriminating against them for their skin color).

White staffers are also asked to sign a loyalty pledge indicating their submission to the brainwashing while also vowing to ‘challenge others’ if they hear ‘hateful language’.

“If you don’t do it,” the senior employee says, “you’re [considered] a racist.”

On the first page of AT&T’s Listen Understand Act internal portal, the company encourages employees to study a resource called “White America, if you want to know who’s responsible for racism, look in the mirror.” The article claims that the United States is a “racist society” and lays out its thesis plainly:

“White people, you are the problem. Regardless of how much you say you detest racism, you are the sole reason it has flourished for centuries.”

The author, Dahleen Glanton, writes that “American racism is a uniquely white trait” and that “Black people cannot be racist.”

White women, she claims, “have been telling lies on black men since they were first brought to America in chains,” and, along with their white male counterparts, “enjoy the opportunities and privileges that white supremacy affords [them].”

Employees are also forced to take a ’21-Day Racial Equity Habit Challenge’ during which they have to perform yet more self-hating white guilt trips while also “promoting fashionable left-wing causes, including “reparations,” “defund police,” and “trans activism,” with further instruction to “follow, quote, repost, and retweet” organizations including the Transgender Training Institute and the National Center for Transgender Equality.”

This is yet another example of how institutionalized racism lives on, only its exclusive target is now white people.

It’s not only acceptable but openly encouraged, in the media, government, academia and within the corporate world, to discriminate against white people, particularly white men, because of their skin color.

As we highlighted yesterday, a sign that this may be starting to change is the fact that an executive who was fired for being a white male and replaced by two women, one of whom was black, was awarded a $10 million dollar discrimination payout.

Walmart Claim the U S is a “White Supremacy System”

by Christopher F. Rufo via City Journal

Walmart Inc. has launched a critical race theory training program that denounces the United States as a “white supremacy system” and teaches white, hourly wage employees that they are guilty of “white supremacy thinking” and “internalized racial superiority.”

According to a cache of internal documents I have obtained from a whistleblower, Walmart launched the program in 2018 in partnership with the Racial Equity Institute, a Greensboro, North Carolina, consulting firm that has worked extensively with universities, government agencies, and private corporations. The program is based on the core principles of critical race theory, including “intersectionality,” “internalized racial oppression,” “internalized racial inferiority,” and “white anti-racist development.” Since the program’s launch, Walmart has trained more than 1,000 employees and made the program mandatory for executives and recommended for hourly wage workers in Walmart stores. When reached for comment, Walmart confirmed that the company has “engaged REI for a number of training sessions since 2018” and has “found these sessions to be thought provoking and constructive.”

The program begins with the claim that the United States is a “white supremacy system,” designed by white Europeans “for the purpose of assigning and maintaining white skin access to power and privilege.” American history is presented as a long sequence of oppressions, from the “construction of a ‘white race’” by colonists in 1680 to President Obama’s stimulus legislation in 2009, “another race neutral act that has disproportionately benefited white people.” Consequently, the Walmart program argues, white Americans have been subjected to “racist conditioning” that indoctrinates them into “white supremacy,” or the view “that white people and the ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions of white people are superior to People of Color and their ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and actions.”

Following the principle that “diagnosis determines treatment,” the Walmart program seeks to create a psychological profile of whiteness that can then be treated through “white anti-racist development.” Whites, according to the trainers, are inherently guilty of “white privilege” and “internalized racial superiority,” the belief that “one’s comfort, wealth, privilege and success has been earned by merits and hard work” rather than through the benefits of systemic racism. Walmart’s program argues that this oppressive “white supremacy culture” can be summarized in a list of qualities including “individualism,” “objectivity,” “paternalism,” “defensiveness,” “power hoarding,” “right to comfort, “and “worship of the written word”—which all “promote white supremacy thinking” and “are damaging to both people of color and to white people.”

The training program recommends that “discussions about racist conditioning” should be conducted in racially segregated “affinity groups,” because “people of color and white people have their own work to do in understanding and addressing racism.” Walmart employees who are racial minorities, in the framework of the training program, suffer from “constructed racist oppression” and “internalized racial inferiority.” Their internal psychology is considered shattered and broken, dominated by internal messages such as “we believe there is something wrong with being a person of color,” “we have lowered self-esteem,” “we have lowered expectations,” “we have very limited choices,” and “we have a sense of limited possibility.” Minorities thus begin to believe the “myths promoted by the racist system,” develop feelings of “self-hate,” “anger,” “rage,” and “ethnocentrism,” and are forced to “forget,” “lie,” and “stop feeling” in order to secure basic survival.

The solution, according to Walmart’s program, is to encourage whites to participate in “white anti-racist development”—a psychological conditioning program that reorients white consciousness toward “anti-racism.” The training program teaches white employees that ideas such as “I’m normal,” “we’re all the same,” and “I am not the problem” are racist constructs, driven by internalized racial superiority. The program encourages whites to accept their “guilt and shame,” adopt the idea that “white is not right,” acknowledge their complicity in racism, and, finally, move toward “collective action” whereby “white can do right.” The goal is for whites to climb the “ladder of empowerment for white people” and recreate themselves with a new “anti-racist identity.”

Walmart’s training program seems a study in opportunism. For years, activists have attacked the company’s business practices; the critical race theory program helps the giant retailer shift blame to forces beyond its control. As the company denounces “white supremacy culture”—with components including “objectivity,” “individualism,” and “hoarding”—its entire nine-member top executive leadership, except technology chief Suresh Kumar, is white, and its top six leaders made a combined $112 million in salary in 2019. Chief executive officer Doug McMillon, whom the whistleblower described as a “true believer” in critical race theory, hopes to export woke ideology to every Fortune 100 company through his role as chairman of the Business Roundtable.

The formula is clear: American executives, among the most successful people on the planet, can collect accolades and social status by promoting fashionable left-wing ideologies. Meantime, their hourly workers, making between $25,000 and $30,000 yearly, are asked to undergo dishonest and humiliating rituals to confront their “white privilege” and “white supremacy thinking.” McMillon gets the social justice credit; his workers pay the price.

Christopher F. Rufo is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor of City Journal.

Teaching National Values is Racist

A London private school has added to its curriculum a module on “white privilege” that includes lessons ranging from public reaction to Meghan Markle’s Royal racism allegations, to why James Bond is always played by a white man.

The curriculum’s new element, which has reportedly been inspired by the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement, also questions why British prime ministers to date have been white. It also discusses “microaggressions” – apparently referring to actions that can marginalise people from minority backgrounds. Examples include touching a black student’s hair and not learning how to properly pronounce someone’s name.

The white privilege lessons start from Year Nine – when students are aged between 13 and 14 – at St Dunstan’s College in Catford, southeast London. The school, which charges up to £19,068 ($26,110) a year in tuition and fees, takes students from nursery on up.

Noting that the lessons were not intended to “engender a sense of guilt amongst our white community,” school headmaster Nicholas Hewlett told The Times that they would “help all our young people… to unpick and better understand the complexities and sensitivities of a real and live issue that matters to them and to so much of the society they occupy.”

According to Hewlett, teachers would “explore with students the difficulties faced by both Meghan Markle and Kate Middleton when they joined the Royal Family,” but would also learn that Markle “faced additional challenges based on social speculations associated with her race”.

During their now-infamous interview with Oprah Winfrey in March, Markle and husband Prince Harry revealed that an unnamed royal family member had asked about the skin colour of their then-unborn son, Archie. She also referenced questions about whether the child would receive a title and security like other royals.

In an unaired clip of the interview, later released by CBS, Markle also said her experience was “not the same” as that of Middleton, who was dubbed “waity Katie” by the British press in the years prior to marrying the heir to the British throne, Prince William. “Rude and racist are not the same,” she said. 

Other real-life examples reportedly referred-to in the school’s new course include an instance when Labour MP Dawn Butler, who is black, was apparently told by a fellow House of Commons member that the lift she was using was not for cleaners. It will also reportedly include an incident from last week, in which Tory MP James Gray was reported as saying that UK cabinet ministers Nadhim Zahawi and Sajid Javid, who are both of Asian ethnicity, “all look the same to me.”

However, Hewlett told the Daily Mail that the school’s addition to its curriculum had a “far more important” objective than determining what “white privilege is or isn’t.” Citing the risk of an “increasingly polarised society where different generations become entrenched in their positions of difference,” he said schools needed to tackle these issues by “helping young people hear different viewpoints and articulate their own thinking.”

The new lessons will also reportedly examine issues like “toxic femininity” and look at statistics comparing the stop-and-search rates of black and white people by law enforcement.

Last week, Tory MP Jonathon Gullis branded the term ‘white privilege’ as “racist” and “extremist.” He also called for teachers using the term to face a disciplinary hearing. Earlier in the year, Equalities Minister Kemi Badenoch had noted that the phrase was “unnecessarily antagonistic” and should not be taught at schools.

In NYC ‘Gifted and Talented’ Program Is Canceled by the Woke Mob

Brendan Heard is an author, op-ed writer, painter, blogger, and designer who has worked in international media.

New York’s educational program for talented children is under threat, as it is said to promote racial segregation. But ending it will simply mean that gifted pupils, whatever their background, are discriminated against.

Irrational woke activism is working hard to dismantle the American education system. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has unveiled a plan to phase out the ‘Gifted and Talented Program’, effectively denying talented poor kids a special curriculum and opportunities for advancement. The ‘reasoning’ behind this is that the program is a ‘glaring symbol of segregation’ in NYC public schools, due to the perception that the gifted students are disproportionately white and Asian.

While 70 percent of all students are black or Latino, about 75 percent of the gifted class students are white or Asian. However, the language associated with de Blasio’s new plan sounds angry and misleading. The suggestion is that the gifted program has contributed to “racially segregated” classrooms.

This sounds quite accusatory, with the amazing concocted association with ‘segregation’ suggesting it is nothing at all to do with objective academic tests, which are a colour-blind merit-based competitive system. Entry to the program is via an exam, with no other prejudicial factors.

This is yet another example of a frenzied neo-liberal hysteria, a rallying of henpecking busybodies wishing to blot out reality itself. Any truth they come across which they deem to be ‘not nice’ must be made an un-truth.

This is the unspoken credo of our new hard-left activism, which has nothing in particular to do with communism or socialism or anarchism, or even capitalism, but is something we might call ‘authoritarian neo-liberalism’. It is a unique and deeply irrational quasi-religious worldview which can do nothing but tear apart existing functional structures.

It has no creative or working power of its own, but is comprised of a rallying of pointless complaining by attention-seekers hooked on the thrill of discovering an ‘oppression grievance’. It does not matter how trivial or false the grievance is, the point is the do-gooder’s rush they get.

Special education for the talented is a concept as old as civilization. Plato wrote about providing specialized education for gifted young men and women, and throughout the Renaissance – a time specifically known for its special contributions to history – government and private patronage was provided for students who exhibited outstanding talent.

The truth is simply this: there are certain fields which are less subjective than others, and exam performance – by way of testing – at school is one of them. You can have subjective opinion in painting, or in music, but you are either good at math, or you are not.

As with anything truly merit-based, there must be that hard foundation in truth, and a measured limit where we might define, objectively, the exceptional from the average. It is a working system. To whine about it – or worse, to toss it all away – out of crocodile tears for the average-performing does not ultimately do anybody any good, neither the exceptional nor the average.

The group disparity in gifted programs is what it is, and applying any attempts to ‘equalize’ results will amount to actual discrimination against the gifted, who are often smart kids from less-than-privileged backgrounds. We give them these opportunities in order that we all might benefit from their future brilliance. Believe it or not, there was a time when Western society sought to nurture and encourage its best and brightest, and not out of ‘meanness’ for those who couldn’t make the cut – as there is a place for everyone – but out of giving a chance to those with best potential to benefit the human condition.

We might presume this new plan, which if implemented is likely to see imitation (blossoming outwards from neo-liberal centres like New York and California), will result in a gradual loss of potential: a brain drain, a failure to nourish aptitude which leaks into leadership and mass culture. In a nutshell, increased incompetency.

Minor committees on the advisory school board have already refused to renew the program, which is slated to be replaced by a misguided ‘expanded learning’ initiative for all students. This will be a massively expensive undertaking which, like all such emotion-driven or egalitarian schemes, will likely fail to achieve much.

Mayor de Blasio had been criticized in the past for not tackling so-called ‘inequality’ in public schools. Obviously, this very concept is nonsense, a kind of bizarre social voodoo where everyone and everything is expected to be magically ‘equal’ – which would suggest identical to the point of being interchangeable. It is a childishly ill-conceived approach to education, or anything else.

There are at least five schools across the city which currently still cater exclusively to gifted children, who have no clear idea what this initiative will mean. De Blasio, rather typically for an authoritarian neo-liberal, has not solicited feedback from parents, parent groups, or officials over his plans to scrap the gifted classes.

However, he did receive pushback on an earlier attempt to eliminate the admission exam for the most elite high schools. This plan failed because of the enormous backlash from Asian American parents, whose children would be among the most affected. We must assume that this only succeeded because the objecting parents were Asian, as the concerns of the white parents involved are likely not considered admissible criteria by Mr. de Blasio. That is the dark, unspoken heart of neo-liberalism.

What will be the result of dismantling special programs to avoid hurt feelings? Over time, a forced egalitarianism will destroy excellence, and a great ‘equalising’ will ensure no one surpasses a certain level.

Chicago Art Museum Fires Unpaid Volunteers For Being White

Authored by Paul Joseph Watson via Summit News,

A prestigious art museum in Chicago fired hundreds of unpaid volunteers and replaced them with paid workers because they were too white.

Yes, really.

The Art Institute of Chicago had been able to depend on the help of 122 highly skilled volunteers, mostly older white women, to act as guides to the Museum’s collection of 300,000 works, which they explain in great detail to visitors.

The volunteers also acted as “school group greeters” to help children understand the importance of what they were seeing.

Training requirements for the position were intense, and the volunteers were apparently doing a great job.

But now they’ve now all been dismissed for not being “diverse” enough.

“Many of the volunteers—though not all—are older white women, who have the time and resources to devote so much free labor to the Museum,” reports the Why Evolution is True blog.

But the demographics of that group weren’t appealing to the AIC, and so, in late September, the AIC fired all of them, saying they’d be replaced by smaller number of hired volunteers workers who will be paid $25 an hour. That group will surely meet the envisioned diversity goals.”

“Paying the replacements will not result in more knowledgeable docents. But they won’t be Caucasian; that’s the important thing,” writes Dave Blount.

Unfortunately for the volunteers, a lack of “diversity” is only apparently a problem at one end of the spectrum.

A similar thing happened last month when the English Touring Opera (ETO) kicked out half of its orchestral players in an effort to prioritize “increased diversity in the orchestra.”

The act of musical ethnic cleansing was carried out in the interests of following “firm guidance of the Arts Council,” which is a government-funded body.

Once again, this all underscores the fact that the only form of institutionalized racism that remains not only acceptable, but something to be encouraged, is against white people.