The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Donald Thoresen Archive
Jennifer Eberhardt’s BIASED
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Jennifer Eberhardt
Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do
New York: Viking, 2019

If one were to design the perfect vessel for the transmission of anti-racist dogma framed wholly at the embarrassing level of superficiality liberals have come to regard as adequately stimulating, it would look exactly like Jennifer Eberhardt. The black Harvard graduate is a professor of psychology at Stanford University, a winner of the Macarthur “Genius Grant,” was listed by Foreign Policy as one their 100 Leading Global Thinkers and, through her work as co-founder and co-director of Stanford’s Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions (SPARQ), provides implicit bias training in a variety of contexts and settings, including police departments. In her new book, Biased, she uses these credentials to maximum effect: the same things Americans have been told about stereotypes and prejudice for decades are reiterated, old deceptions are rewritten for a new audience, and whites are depicted as mostly ignorant, vindictive creatures who have a deep and serious problem with people with dark skin.

Not content with an America in which whites would rather give their country away to foreigners, let their cities rot, their best universities reject them, their elderly be abused, and their daughters be raped than be called racist, anti-whites must keep their knives sharpened and always held to Joe Six-Pack’s throat. Whites must be primed for total dispossession by being kept always on edge, made always to feel guilty, nervous, and submissive. This is the point of Biased. Eberhardt’s argument is very simple: in order to combat racism, we must confront our hidden racial biases. These biases, she admits, are natural but must be suppressed for the greater good of the inevitable — always inevitable — multiracial society. This process means confronting uncomfortable truths with courage, or so says Eberhardt who does nothing of the sort and, amusingly, all but explicitly calls for restrictions on free speech by the end of the book in her attempt to prioritize the emotional well-being of blacks and other non-whites over truth. Biased is filled with incomplete data, anecdotes from the black perspective that betray a child-like understanding of the world, the obligatory Holocaust stories, and tedious commentary on the state of contemporary American culture. It is sure to make her a lot of money. Presented as a path forward, as a way to solve problems it is nothing of the sort. Her goal is instead to create problems because a destabilized white culture, a culture in which whites are scared to be themselves and assert their interests, are anxious about even voicing commonsensical observations about reality provides an opening for the furtherance of non-white sociopolitical power.

White Nationalists and others interested in the real science of race (what people like Eberhardt call “scientific racism”) will recognize immediately the flaws in her flimsy arguments. Despite her constant reminders to the reader that she is a scientist this is nothing but a work of political propaganda. Eberhardt, like so many academics today, has no connection to any traditional conception of science and is merely appropriating the term in the same way that drag queens appropriate the mannerisms and pronouns of the opposite sex, except it is even worse because instead of being flamboyant and obvious she is using her appropriation as a cloak of respectability to deceive and distort. But the entire Biased project is a grotesque performance. The author herself is just doing a blackface routine on the cultural stage by reciting anti-white talking points on behalf of Jews who know that her blackness provides them cover by shifting the dynamics of potential criticism: whites are far more reluctant to call blacks stupid in public than they are their own people (or anyone else) because of years of social conditioning towards deference and collective historical guilt. To be sure, the ideas put forth in this book benefit blacks as well, but Eberhardt’s obvious mediocrity would have found no platform in academia or with a major publisher had she not aligned herself with the temporarily rewarding and profitable global forces of anti-whiteness. The meat of the book is not her banal and fraudulent “science” but rather her anecdotes and her commentary.

It is somewhat telling that the only honest character in this book seems to be her young son, whose innocent observations (if true) betray a common sense completely lacking in his mother. She opens the book with a story about the two of them on an airplane, when at some point the son sees another black man and observes that he looks like his father. Instead of agreeing and explaining that they are both black, Eberhardt is taken aback and cannot figure out how her son made the connection: “I checked the guy’s height. No resemblance there. He was several inches shorter than my husband. I studied his face. There was nothing in his features that looked familiar. I looked at his skin color. No similarity there either . . .” (p. 3). She claims to only have done this after looking at everyone else on the plane first before finally landing on the one black man. “I couldn’t help but be struck by the irony: the race researcher having to explain to her own black child that not all black people look alike” (p. 3). But, rest assured, Eberhardt’s son probably did not have to teach himself not to touch pots sitting on stovetops without making sure they are cool first. Eberhardt is not quite as jaw-droppingly thick as she makes herself sound here because in the very next chapter she explains exactly why her child’s reaction was natural, thus accidentally betraying the purpose of the inclusion of this anecdote: pure emotional manipulation.


As a child, her parents moved to a “nearly all-white suburb” (p. 11) in which she attended school. She does not say why they made this decision but one can guess. The “white students went out of their way to welcome me” (p. 11) but no matter how much they tried to include her, and no matter how much time they spent together, Eberhardt could not recognize their faces, whereas she could those of random blacks she would encounter. This phenomenon, known as the cross-race effect, occurs among all races, as she acknowledges. Race consciousness is foundational to our very being. To not see race isn’t just strange but is almost certainly impossible. Those who claim to think this way are simply lying, usually with a metaphorical gun to their heads. Her son’s reaction was perfectly normal, and she knew it at the time, and she knows it now. And at numerous points later in the book she takes issue with the “colorblind” approach to race so we can further assume that this anecdote was included strategically to transpose the delicate and restrictive real-world social conventions of race onto the pages of the book, leaving the black Eberhardt with the power to silence any naughty thoughts among white readers even before they occur.

Even when it would be very helpful to be able to recognize black faces, non-blacks often cannot. She mentions the case of Chinese women in Oakland, California who had been terrorized by black muggers for months but were unable to identify any suspects. The blacks became aware of this and behaved like shoplifting children in a candy shop on the streets of the city’s Chinatown until cameras were installed. For Eberhardt, however, the real problem — the one that deserves an entire book — is that “[t]he women didn’t know whether they were being robbed by Michael or Jamal; they knew only they were being robbed by a constant stream of young black men” (p. 23). She continues: “Each frightening encounter with a lone black youth amplified an ambient stereotype the women might have previously felt free to ignore: black men are dangerous. This is how toxic associations are born” (p. 23). Here we see again what will be the author’s regular pattern of emotional manipulation followed by sound (or supposedly sound) information in an attempt to establish her scientific credentials and lend validity to her political views. Even among those who want desperately to agree with her, finding an association between black muggers and black crime problematic is a tough pill to swallow, and even she realizes this.

Following her lamentation over the toxic association among Oakland’s Chinese community between blacks and getting mugged, Eberhardt reminds her readers that categorization is a way that the brain “brings coherence to a chaotic world; it helps our brains make judgments more quickly and efficiently by instinctively relying on patterns that seem predictable” (p. 24). But this categorization, she worries, can lead to stereotyping and thus prejudice. In other words, sometimes racial categorization hurts non-whites’ feelings. Even if the prejudice is grounded in truth, and the resulting attitudes and behaviors have a positive impact on the physical and mental health of whites, it must be curtailed so that minority races can feel more comfortable and wield even more social power.

The book deals quite a bit with Eberhardt’s work with police departments and state agencies involving bias issues in criminal justice, doubtless connected to her work with SPARQ. The reader is given decontextualized and superficial accounts of a few well-known officer-involved shootings of blacks intended to highlight how bias against blacks can lead to death. Juries that reach not guilty verdicts when officers go to trial after such incidents are also guilty of bias, of course. She spends a fair amount of time on the case of Terence Crutcher, a black man who was shot after not following orders from a policewoman to kneel and show his hands while on PCP. Crutcher is portrayed as having been mercilessly slaughtered by a scared white woman simply for being black. In an interview with Crutcher’s sister, he is described, like so many other black criminals, as a “big teddy bear” (p. 55). The author goes on to relate that Crutcher had just enrolled in community college. In fact, his first class was later that very day — an odd time to take PCP for someone who had “found a new sense of purpose” in life (p. 55). His sister, when informed by the chief of police that knowledge of the vial of PCP found in Crutcher’s car was not going to be made public so as to not “demonize” him, became upset because she felt that the use of this word suggested that her brother was a demon (p. 56). It should be noted that his sister is a doctor of medicine and to always choose one’s doctor wisely.

As is Eberhardt’s pattern, the narrative of the shooting contains emotional manipulation which is then followed by an attempt at scientific analysis that contains qualifying statements after the initial impression has already been formed in the reader’s mind. She writes, for example: “As I examined the circumstances of the shooting, it seemed clear to me that bias — implicit or not — could [italics mine] have played some role in the encounter, from beginning to end” (p. 57). She wonders whether the association of blacks with crime is what prompted the policewoman to rush to the scene of Terence Crutcher’s eventual death, why the police were called on him in the first place, why more than one officer had his gun drawn, and why even a helicopter had been on scene (p. 58). Certainly the association of this black with what appeared to be a crime and which at least one bystander and multiple police officers assumed was a crime — and assumed correctly — led to Crutcher’s death but that somehow is not what she means. Bias against large black men abandoning their SUVs in the middle of streets led to the death of a black man on PCP, but who knows how many people it saved from a black man driving around on PCP in the middle of the day?

In a study she conducted with a California police department, subjects who had been prompted to think of crime-related words prior to viewing images of a white and a black face looked more at the black face (pp. 59–60). In a sane world, any officer who did not look at the black face first would have been fired or retrained, but those who reacted naturally were, in Eberhardt’s mind, demonstrating the insidious nature of stereotypes on police work. Thus, it might not have been someone calling the police because a large black man abandoned his SUV in the middle of the street, blocked traffic, ran from it while smoking PCP, and then failed to follow orders from the police that got Crutcher killed. It might have been implicit bias. And, since we know he was a big teddy bear who was turning his life around, it probably was. But could it go even deeper? Is the “big” part of the “big teddy bear” phrase also a part of the problem?

Eberhardt informs her readers that the “police characterized [Crutcher] as if he were a giant, estimating his weight to be 300 pounds” despite the fact that he “actually stood at five feet nine and weighed 255 pounds” (pp. 60–61). This, she attributes, to the perception among whites that blacks are a threat and thus overestimate their size and strength, something that has been demonstrated by one particular study she references. Never mind that a five-foot-nine-inch, 255-pound man is not very tall and is quite overweight and so an estimate of 300 pounds is perfectly reasonable, especially in such a tense situation. The author believes that white perception of blacks as capable of doing more physical harm than perhaps they actually can is a result of bias rather than lived experience: anyone — especially, one would imagine, a police officer — who has regular interaction with blacks knows that they are far more likely to be aggressive than other races, and so they are always going to be perceived as more threatening.

If these experiences translate into slight overestimations of size, perceptions of black body movements as more threatening, heightened visual ability to detect weapons when wielded by blacks, and other similar things mentioned by the author then this is just an example of the usefulness of racial bias as a self-preservation mechanism. But such common sense is sure to escape — or, more accurately, be ignored by — someone who later voices her disturbance at the “constant refrain” of “MALE BLACK” by police dispatchers because it “forces officers as they patrol the streets to constantly pair blackness with criminal activity” (p. 80). Eberhardt, like all anti-racists, is in the business of bullying whites into denying reality, of shaming them into silence with regard to what is right in front of their faces.

Eberhardt’s understanding of her own subject is so confused, so contrary to reality, and rational thought that it is impossible for her to maintain any sort of consistency outside of her all-consuming faith in the negative aspects of racial bias. Consider, for example, these two quotes:

Many officers who patrol diverse, high-crime communities come to view the racial disparities in policing as the sole result of who commits the crimes. People who live in those communities view those disparities as a result of police bias, because they know that the majority of their neighbors are not criminals (p. 86).

This is followed not long after by a quote from a black police officer interviewed by the author about growing up in an Oakland ghetto: “Nearly every boy between fourteen and twenty-five was selling crack” (p. 88). No matter what the underlying reason for the crime, it would be ludicrous for any police officer to not blame crime on the perpetrator in the context of his job. And the notion that a majority of blacks might not be criminals but that, per capita, the majority of criminals are blacks is something that Eberhardt as a member of the black elite probably has an ethical obligation to explain to her community. But if “nearly every” young black male in this police officer’s particular section of Oakland was a criminal, how does this square with her assertion that people in diverse communities know that a majority of their neighbors are not criminals anyway? It doesn’t really. Surely, his was not the only neighborhood like that. What it actually indicates is a sense of racial solidarity. Blacks view the police as enforcers of “white supremacy” and resist them, even though the law-abiding among them have much to gain by allowing them to do their jobs in peace. By making this an asymmetrical bias issue, Eberhardt tries to shift this attitude from one of fundamentally positive racial in-group sentiment to one of a negative reaction to a racialized police insurgency and ends up making blacks look totally irrational.


Eberhardt’s next chapter begins with a story of how she was stopped before her graduation from Harvard for having expired tags on her car and managed to get herself arrested by a policeman who was “hell-bent on punishing [her]” (p. 111). She, of course, did nothing wrong like refusing to get out of her vehicle, and bias or racism was to blame for the police response. It is only a few pages later that we learn that the arresting officer was black. Emotional manipulation followed by a sneaky bit of honesty is the Eberhardt way. The reader is informed in this chapter that the cash bail system is unfair to blacks because it takes into account such things as arrest records and job stability, that analysis of traffic stops in Oakland determined that blacks are not treated with enough respect, and that the amount of black parolees in Oakland create “racial disparities [which] criminalize entire neighborhoods, encouraging indiscriminate law enforcement stops and keeping in motion the revolving door between freedom and prison” (p. 113).

In a chapter entitled “The Scary Monster,” Eberhardt, the scientist, the race researcher, provides the reader with a superficial and emotional glance at early race science. Those scientists of the past who found unflattering differences between blacks and other races exhibited “racial bias of the most vicious kind” (p. 134). Discussions in which black biological features were analyzed suggest to Eberhardt a comparison of blacks with “dogs and horses” rather than biological analysis (p. 135) in the same childish way that the word “demonization” suggested to Terence Crutcher’s sister that he was a demon. And Samuel George Morton was not interested in skulls for research purposes, he was “obsessed” with skulls (p. 135). She continues in such a manner for a few pages before arriving at the IQ test which was asserts was used only to demonstrate the inferiority of various peoples’ intellectual capacities (no mention of whether or not it did or continues to do so) before ending with this choice line: “For decades, IQ testing helped to map and tally supposedly inherent differences between ethnic groups — that is until Hitler’s “Final Solution” exposed the ultimate evil of sanctioned racism” (p. 143).

She ends the chapter with a discussion of the common association of blacks with apes, which, according to her research is even stronger than that of blacks and crime. When presenting this important work at scientific conferences she was disturbed by how her colleagues responded:

At almost every talk, I would take a question from a scientist — young, old, male, female — who would begin wondering out loud about whether our findings were simply due to the fact that blacks actually look more like apes than whites. “Couldn’t all of these race effects you’re showing simply be due to color matching” someone would ask. Blacks and apes are similar in color, they’d note. When people see a dark-skinned person, they are more likely to attend a dark hairy ape because they both look the same . . . They saw our results without the frame of stereotypes: what we were picking up on was a natural, rational association, not some lingering racial toxicity (pp. 146–47).

She was bothered that “people would be comfortable enough . . . to say such things in public at scientific conferences (much less think them in private)” (p. 147). The uncomfortable conversations about race that America is constantly being urged to have are always just excuses to shut whites up, whether they are in scientific conferences, universities, corporate meeting rooms, or even the privacy of their own minds.

But what of color matching, a theory undoubtedly posed by someone trying to tell her as gently as possible that she was completely wasting her (and their) time? The author notes correctly that there is no evidence of a black-squirrel association or a black-alligator association despite their dark color (p. 147) and that South Asians are not compared to apes despite their dark skin tone (p. 148). But she knows there really is a morphological basis to the black-ape association, and so does everyone reading her book, and so does everyone at those conferences pretending they don’t.

In her next chapter, Eberhardt relates an incident at a Target store in Palo Alto in which a young white child spotted her baby and ran off to her mother excitedly proclaiming that she had seen a brown baby. The author claims to have been delighted and was looking forward to interacting with the white child’s mother but, as one would expect, the white mother was horrified and hurried off (pp. 155–56). This is precisely the kind of world Eberhardt is helping to create and indeed desires, and yet she has the audacity to claim to be disappointed at this example of total multigenerational white submission. She writes: “Just a few steps earlier, I’d imagined that we were about to have this moment of bonding; she was part of the in-group of motherhood that I’d just joined, and I was as wide-eyed as her daughter about the wonder of that” (p. 156). Are we really to believe that this implicit bias trainer, this race researcher is so blind to race relations in America that she actually expected this interaction to turn out this way? Only if we really believe that she looked around an entire airplane before realizing that her son meant that the one other black person on board was the one that looked like his father.

The rest of the chapter is an attempt to call whites demons — or rather to demonize whites — for not wanting to live around crime and squalor. She begins by pathologizing the desire to avoid living in black neighborhoods and then connects this to immigration restrictions (after all, there might only be another year or so to cash in on the “age of Trump” craze). Unsurprisingly, the white desire for safety, security, and health reminds her of Nazis, and so she includes an interview with a student of hers whose grandfather survived Auschwitz simply by dressing well and bathing every day so the Germans didn’t view him as unclean (pp. 164–65), which, interestingly, is also how one prevents typhus. Non-whites seem to get very worried when whites get sick of living around filth and disorder. They also get upset when whites begin taking community safety into their own hands, even in the most benign ways, such as with social media apps centered around neighborhood information exchange like Nextdoor, which allows people to accurately relay their concerns about suspicious happenings and characters to their neighbors, many of which inevitably end up being “racist” rather quickly. She discusses the corporate hand-wringing over complaints about racism on this and other apps in which people have a modicum of freedom of speech and behavioral choice.

Considering the amount of complaining non-whites do, living among whites must be absolutely hellish. But, on the contrary, they seem to want more. Or at least they want to occupy our spaces, filled as they are with the bright and shiny things they believe appear magically through the system of white supremacy. They want, for example, integrated schools but then begin to “integrate” whites right out the door. Although Eberhardt believes that “[i]ntegrated schools promise to turn us into global citizens, appreciative of cultural differences, skilled at navigating diversity” and that exposure to other races can help “blunt or mitigate bias,” she is also concerned that these environments can “heighten the threat of becoming a target of bias,” and “being devalued because of your racial or ethnic identity can be a burdensome load for a student to carry” (p. 205). What is her point? She is not really saying anything. She is merely keeping the white reader on edge, incapable of finding solid conceptual ground, and providing the non-white reader with an open-ended excuse for any grievance he can concoct. At the same time, she is not referring to whites when she worries about racial identity being devalued. Whites are nothing. Whites are generic humans, lacking any positive identity or any meaning outside of the conceptual framework necessary for non-white victimhood. The white racial collective is only acknowledged when it is a target for the non-white world’s venom.

Can a book purporting to be about the science of racial bias include a chapter about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville? Indeed it can. But can Eberhardt herself explain the psychological motivation of the rally by describing one of the social consequences of contemporary universities? Indeed she can: “Idealistic young people — unchained from parochial views and exquisitely attuned to injustice — are not afraid to challenge authority and eager to change the world” (p. 228). The elites of the world and their lackeys really do seem to think that things will always stay the same, that their values are somehow permanent, that the knowledge of the past century is the final statement on truth and that history has truly ended. Theirs is not an enviable position: when the realization that their world was temporary hits them it will hit them very hard. They will likely regret having promulgated terms such as “social justice” among other things.

One always wonders when encountering the averagely intelligent minds that tend to make up the collaborator class whether they really believe that authority resides in the hands of whites, that white supremacy is indeed real or whether they simply know that they must maintain the lie so that their fraud goes unexposed. Authority is entirely on Eberhardt’s side, and certainly was in Charlottesville. But she doesn’t seem to think deeply about anything. For instance, she accuses those present at the rally who did notwant the statue of Robert E. Lee removed of sanitizing history. The bulk of the chapter doesn’t even contain her own thoughts on the events but is rather a collection of stories related to her by an anxious Jewess, a nervous rabbi and his fearful wife, a self-hating Southern “white boy” (p. 241) law student, and a feminist law professor at the University of Virginia named Anne Coughlin who was so traumatized by the rally that she was “startled” for weeks afterwards every time she saw a white man on campus (p. 248).

The chapter ends with Eberhardt’s not-so-subtle anti-free speech advocacy. Like so many who want to suppress speech, she first claims that she doesn’t want to: “. . . you can condemn what people say without condemning their legal right to say it” (p. 252). Then she pivots: “. . . many students felt there wasn’t enough support for those who resisted and tried to douse the marchers’ rhetorical fires” (pp. 252–53). And finally:

University administrators and leaders across the country are trying to find a balance, but often seem more concerned about emphasizing the value of legal standards than the value of the lives that are being diminished, demeaned, and dehumanized. There is a rush to protect the law but more foot-dragging when it comes to protecting egalitarian norms on their campuses (p. 253).

One cannot have it both ways. Either there is free speech or there isn’t, and clearly she values the feelings of non-whites over the long-standing white tradition of free speech and indeed of the feelings of whites themselves. This is understandable, of course, but she and her people should not expect perpetual compliance or future reciprocity. Whites are growing very tired of this racket.

In the last chapter of the book, Eberhardt deals with blacks in the workplace. As usual, lack of black economic success is blamed on whites. She focuses mostly on names: Tyrone will not get a job, but Brad will even with the same credentials because Tyrone sounds black. Whether or not this is true, it would be a perfectly rational decision on the part of anyone in charge of the hiring process. Most Americans have interacted with blacks and are aware of how affirmative action works. Blacks are, for example, offered enrollment in universities with grades and test scores that would cause doors to be slammed in the faces of whites. Remember that Terence Crutcher’s sister is a medical doctor. Anyone concerned with competency would be foolish to choose a supposedly equally qualified black over a white for any position unless forced to do so in some way.

Eberhardt notes that blacks often feel that they must hide their true selves in order to appeal to potential employers. She quotes one student: “In the real world I think people . . . want to have like an awesome black worker, but they want one who they feel like fits within a certain box . . . [Someone who] will conform and lay low and just kind of do what’s expected of them” (p. 267). Eberhardt comments that these “contortions” made in order “to comfort the white majority” bother her (p. 268). Of course, it is the nature of a business or indeed any organization to want its members to do what is expected of them without causing any disturbances. Blacks might just not be used to this type of behavior, especially in the contemporary cultural climate of regular indulgence in every black “social justice” whim. What the author is observing is a pocket of residual freedom of association, an implicit whiteness that she must work to quash. She writes that the workplace racial diversity is “supposed to reflect . . . a willingness to hear and accommodate previously marginalized voices” but “seems to have become a numbers game” (p. 269). This is because the entire concept is farce, unnatural at its very core, and rejected subconsciously by those without the intelligence or courage to reject it consciously. It is a numbers game because that was all it ever could be.

In the final part of the chapter she discusses her ideas about the lucrative business of implicit bias training. It is worth quoting her at length in order to get the full impact of her staggering sense of self-importance and amusing insistence that she really is engaged in science instead of a political racial power grab:

. . . the value of training, with all its variables, is often hard to quantify. The vast majority of implicit bias trainings are never rigorously evaluated, in part because measuring their worth is hard. There are no agreed-upon metrics developed by scientists for evaluating training effectiveness. Should the training lead to an immediate reduction in implicit bias? That’s a tall order considering that these implicit associations have been practiced over a lifetime. What would a reduction in implicit bias even look like? Should the training lead to better employee decision making? Should it lead to improvements in customer satisfaction? And how would we measure and parse blame or credit for any of that?

Although this is an area that seems ripe for scientific discovery, many researchers are hesitant to get involved. They are concerned that the trainings are not evidence based, that they overpromise, and that they could leave us even worse off. From this perspective, everyone needs to slow down until we can get the science right.

I have a different perspective. It’s not that social scientists are too fast to act, we are too slow. There is so much concern over the prospect of acting before we know enough about a phenomenon that we never get around to taking action. And because the scientific enterprise is iterative, we never seem to get to a point where we think we know enough. Social scientists fret so much about the purity and precision of science that we rarely throw ourselves into the messy problems of the world. From my perspective, engaging in the world, tackling thorny problems, can open the way to scientific discovery. If we don’t know enough as scientists to shed light on a problem, sometimes it is because we simply aren’t close enough to it (pp. 279–80).

From the perspective of someone who shares Eberhardt’s general view of the world, those who claim that these trainings “leave us even worse off” are certainly correct. Being hauled into a room and forced for an entire day or even a week to listen to some smug black woman with an affirmative action doctorate tell whites that they are racists is not a very good way to make them want to hire more blacks, appreciate them in any way, or even want to see them on the street. But from a White Nationalist perspective, such training should be welcomed because it forces deracinated whites to think again in terms of race and, for many of them, to think defensively and angrily about the subject. Even a shared groan with a coworker afterwards might spark a meaningful discussion about white racial interests and, if so, the entire ordeal would be worth the ridiculous amount of money drained from some woke capitalist’s wallet and the lost hours of actual productivity.

The amount of intellectual contortion, lies, force, and propaganda required to maintain the facade of what is supposedly our greatest strength — racial diversity — is truly mind-boggling. As is the amount of daily suffering said to be endured by non-whites in white societies. It has been asked many times by many different people, but it bears repeating: if it is so hard to live with whites, why don’t they leave, and why do they keep coming? But we know the answer. It is because whites are very easy to live with and are not currently doing much to stop their loss of power, and non-whites know it. The only ones who don’t seem to know it yet are average whites. But they will figure it out, and people like Eberhardt are helping to accomplish this. She believes that she is helping her people climb the ladder of power, but instead she is just being annoying, grabbing a stick like so many others and poking at the hornet’s nest. It really is not very smart.

(Republished from Counter-Currents Publishing by permission of author or representative)
Of Related Interest
The Professional Anti-Racist Advises Educating Black Women to Fight the Great Replacement
The Extraordinary Case of Macklin Fleming and Affirmative Action
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Rational says:


    Thanks for the interesting article, Sir. This woman is a total fraud, trying to fool the public, and present black men as just normal people, when experience tells us that there are 2 kinds of black men:

    Those who have raped or murdered somebody, and are looking for a prey and the second kind who have not yet raped or murdered somebody, and are looking for a prey.

    I stopped eating out, as I was vomiting in most places, as they have a big screen TV on, showing a black thug throwing a black thug a ball and the gullible white girls jumping up and down.

    They do this to brainwash white people that blacks are humans, and to desensitize our disgust and revulsion at seeing black faces, to make it easy for them to prey on us. Ads promote black rapists with white drug addicted female sex workers as a “family.”

    The real scandal is the amount of black crime that is NOT prosecuted., the theft and corruption and assault and drug raping of white women, etc.

    All black men belong in prison. Avoid them totally. Do NOT be fooled by the media. Turn off the TV. Boycott companies that show black men preying on white women. Avoid black sports.

    • Agree: Tusk, nokangaroos
    • Disagree: freedom-cat
  2. It never ends….the constant attacks on whites and Western Civilization. And it will never end until a race war starts I’m afraid. If it doesn’t happen civilization will collapse. This women is not a scientist. There is no such thing as a “Social Scientist.” Because you quantify something does not make it anymore scientific. Garbage is garbage no matter how you statistically masturbate it.

    This is the end of all academia in the America. Stanford use to be a top notch university. What Stanford and the great American universities have become is nothing more than Marxist indoctrination centers where dim witted idiots like this women publish nutbaggery under the guise of science. The saddest part of this is that any professor at Stanford that challenges this nut bag will be immediately attacked by the administration.

    I’m just so sick of this stuff because it’s a never ending daily game played by these idiots and main stream media. They just want to kill every white person in America and the world because they have been taught we are the problem. Blacks will never look in the mirror and think they might be the problem. This is the race that couldn’t figure out how to build a boat to get off the continent. This is the race that wants to rule the world because they all get along so well but most can’t play together without hating each other in the NBA and must constantly be traded to another team. This is the resultant of the constant framing by Magic Jews. Example—Susan Sontag—“The White Race is the Cancer of Human History.” This is embedded in just about every black in the America. The reason I’m not a rich superstar is because of whites.

    Typical mentally ill Jew….and they will lead the pack with the blacks to destroy us all.

  3. I wonder what is the ethnic makeup of Dr. Eberhardt’s alma mater? Or the ethnic makeup of the current neighborhood she lives in? Her workplace? Her children’s school?

    One thing is certain: her readership is by and large white. Having their knuckles rapped, then being lectured on their inherent evils by bloviating blacks (preferably females; the fatter, the better) seems to have outstripped baseball as the national pastime par excellence among the melanin-deficient.

  4. Whites are continually bludgeoned from all sides by this type of nonsense. It is a ceaseless din from so-called academia, from government, from the media, from corporations, from the churches. Proxies of (((the oligarchs))) are in full battle gear, lined up for their final victory. I can’t for the life of me imagine why there is no effective organized resistance against such insanity. Whites are paralyzed with fear that someone will use one little word to call them racist.

    Separation of church and state is a monumental lie. In most western countries today, the State Religion is the secular religious cult called leftism. The left requires us to sacrifice ourselves, our families, and our nations on the bloody altar of their holy narratives.

    Every day there are more stories of white children being raped, murdered, homosexualized, or transgendered. Looming up fast on the horizon is normalized pedophilia. Whites have lost their nations, their cultures, their heritage, and their future, and there is nobody to blame but themselves.

  5. Parfois1 says:

    When the author puts a PhD after the name on the cover, is probably trying to fool the readers and hiding behind a title to give credibility as expert on the subject matter of the book. One then wonders why such a need? Insecurity? And this leads to the next question: was the PhD deserved or given for reasons unrelated to academic merit?

    I wonder also why she did not put her mug on the front cover to show off the achievements of her race.

    And I hold this suspicions for no other reason than I am biased…

    • Replies: @PeterMX
  6. @Monotonous Languor

    The only way forward is for whites to be racist. The first step out of this madness is for whites to accept it and embrace it with pride, without shame. Racism is simply pattern recognition. Artificial Intelligence AI (as in, “I just loooove Science !!!”) is predicated on the same principles.

    Racism should be fully accepted by whites, not feared, not rejected. Only whites are fixated to the point of suicide by this word, mesmerized like a rabbit as the knife comes down to gut them. Every other race in the world is proudly racist, and they will never change because it is not in their best interests to do so.

    Long ago in the dim recesses of the mid-twentieth century, there used to be an anti-drug campaign called “Just Say No”. But that is exactly what whites should have been doing with the left and their incessant memes and narratives and fantasies. No more dialogue with the left, no more compromise with the left, no more assumptions that the left has some kind of moral authority with which they are allowed to lay moral guilt-trips on us… instead Just Say No.

    It is long past time that each white person believes, understands, and shouts out, “Racism is realism, and I’m proud to be a realist”. Time to fight, and fight for your lives.

    • Replies: @Al Liguori
  7. PeterMX says:

    A PHD does give credibility to her being an expert, just as flattering book reviews give historians credibility as experts, and both can conceal that someone is a poor or biased researcher. Some writers that also have PHD’s have written about how Jews have elevated people to star status, fellow researchers working on a subject and people in the media or authors that write a biography have heaped praise on someone. One such person is Sigmund Freud. I was taught and have read for most of my life how Freud was such an outstanding psychologist, but now most of his theories have no credibility any more and in fact he was an unethical doctor. He is just one of at least several Jews that have benefitted from such a strategy, and elevating someone leads to his theories being widely accepted, after all, he’s an “expert”. I’m not sure if Karl Marx will also fall from grace. So far the failure of his theories have not seriously affected his image,

    • Replies: @renfro
  8. Agent76 says:

    “The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.” Friedrich Nietzsche

    May 28, 2019 Stony the Road: Reconstruction, White Supremacy, and the Rise of Jim Crow

    In Stony the Road, Henry Louis Gates, Jr., offers a new rendering of the struggle by African Americans for equality after the Civil War and the violent counter-revolution that subjugated them. Journalist A’Lelia Bundles will moderate the discussion.

    • Replies: @anon
  9. Truth3 says:

    Truth… the concept of Truth as the epitome of all that is good, needs to be the foundation of all our thoughts, words, deeds, and activity.

    Hate might be completely rational and truthful. Hating bad behavior of all types is what civilised the planet… or at least the parts that became civilized.

    Bias? It’s natural that if there are groups that have characteristics, each new person met from that group is more likely than other groups to share the group feature. To deny this TRUTH one has to be working on the side of FALSEHOOD… and usually done by a perpetrator of evil… or defender of the guilty.

    PhD’s like this so called ‘Doctor’ holds are tickets to (((Gatekeeper))) rewards, nothing more.

  10. Wally says:

    “and so she includes an interview with a student of hers whose grandfather survived Auschwitz simply by dressing well and bathing every day so the Germans didn’t view him as unclean (pp. 164–65), which, interestingly, is also how one prevents typhus.”

    Another pathetic appeal to Jew dominance in the ‘academia’, a laughable ass kissing.
    What she haplessly does is provide even more proof that the claims about the so called “holocaust” are fraudulent. We have yet another of the multitudes of “survivors” who would have been killed if the narrative was factual.

    Of course the irrational fake scholar Eberhardt ignores these:

    Man Caught Spray Painting Swastika On College Campus Is Black:
    Police are more likely to shoot whites, not blacks:
    Black Officers More Likely than White Officers to Shoot Suspects:
    Stats show blacks more likely than whites to commit hate crimes:
    Gays, Blacks, cause of the massive increase in STDs says CDC:

  11. @niteranger

    The reason “social science” must be a fraud is very simple. Science is a limited field designed to test data based on identical initial conditions in controlled environments.

    A society of human beings just does not provide that kind of data.

    A PHD in social science is a PHD (piled higher and deeper) in fraud. I would give her an “A”. 🙁

    • Replies: @nokangaroos
    , @Anon
  12. @niteranger

    Yes, non-whites are only an issue because of the nose.

    The nose gives non-whites agency they would never have gotten on their own.

    The nose has weaponized non-whites against us.

    Not only are we headed for minority status, we are headed for HATED minority status thanks to the
    kindness of the NOSE.

    • Replies: @TKK
  13. Bring it on. Whites everywhere should be forced to listen to this shaved Harambe. We should be harangued by Dinduishas every day.
    Maybe then we’ll wake up.

    • Replies: @Lo
  14. @Justvisiting

    Now, now.
    Outside the US Boasist-Lysenkoist miasma there IS such a thing as serious sociology.
    (not my field, but I heard Roland Girtler too)

    But I admit as soon as I read “provides bias training” the filters snapped shut
    to protect my synapses 😛

  15. renfro says:

    Some writers that also have PHD’s have written about how Jews have elevated people to star status, fellow researchers working on a subject and people in the media or authors that write a biography have heaped praise on someone

    Yes, that’s how its done. What’s darkly comical is how they dig up dead famous gentiles and claim they were actually Jewish.

    ”Efforts to establish Jewish figures in positions of scientific, academic, artistic or cultural pre-eminence typically begin with the veneration by a group of Jews of a Jewish intellectual or artist, then followed by the creation of an authoritarian cult-like aura around his or her personality. The process reaches its completion, in some cases after the death of the guru figure, in an aggressive Jewish marketing effort to convince society at large that this figure, together with his or her ideas, is or was of national or international—if not cosmic—significance. It is predominantly by this process that the notion of “Jewish Genius” is perpetuated.”…..McDonald

    • Agree: Jacques Sheete
    • Replies: @PeterMX
  16. Al Liguori says: • Website
    @Monotonous Languor

    Is it possible you have mis-identified the state religion?

  17. Al Liguori says: • Website
    @Monotonous Languor

    The key benefit of race-baiting:
    Distraction from banksters and other Jewish’ crimes against humanity.
    The your-skin-is-your-uniform script that H✡llyw✡✡d has written for us distracts us from apprehending, prosecuting, and punishing all (((perpetrators))) and shabbos goy accomplices, every last one—even nonagenarian clerks and janitors!

    • Replies: @Parfois1
  18. Lo says:
    @Dr. Krieger

    Yo, it is kinda funny but gorillas are actually wonderful animals that will not be aggressive unless you threaten them. No gorilla ever hurt a human for profit or fun. Harambe too was an innocent, captive gorilla who was brutally murdered because an unattended black kid managed to fall into his cage. Even gorillas are not safe with blacks around them.

  19. TKK says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Blacks do not differentiate between whites and “Jews.” I am around them everyday- in court, in jail. If you ask them about Jews, they get a distant look and say, Yo those people from the Bible?

    Therefore, if Jews are so much smarter than Whites, why would they design their own demise? If the dam breaks, and marauding bands of blacks are coming for us (as they do now in South Africa) with their machetes, they are not going to ask:

    Are you a Goldstein or a Kennedy?

    Whites are the enablers of the Blacks. Whites are the biggest wimps on the planet for putting up with this crap.

    Some Jews are trouble makers, but no one can excuse whites for rolling over to these blacks: don’t listen to their crap music, don’t watch their shows and do NOT support any organized sports unless it is hockey. NEVER APOLOGIZE.

    Do not fire your white co-workers for some allegedly racist remarks. Don’t tattle on them like a b*tch, Stick together like the Jews and the Blacks, Asians and Latinos.

    If we do that, we might have a chance. Otherwise, all is lost.

  20. @TKK

    Yes, the dumb blacks probably do not know the difference between jews and white people.

    But the jews in media and academia deliberately fuel the anti-white hate. It is calculated, engineered, obvious, and well documented.

    The big jews don’t care if a few little jews pay the price. Black on jew violence is rare in any case.

    Organized jewry is also behind the muslim invasion of Europe. It seems counter-intuitive that jews would want radical muslims anywhere near them, but they do it because they hate whites more than they hate muslims.

    Muslim terrorism is good for the jews:
    Terrorists kill white people for the most part.
    Terrorism wrecks Christendom.
    Terror justifies the jewish police state.
    Terror justifies attacks on the first and second amendments.
    Terror causes hatred for muslims.
    Terror creates sympathy for israel.
    Sympathy for israel justifies wars for israel.
    And wars for israel cause the “refugee” invasion of Europe.

    The NOSE always wins and white people always lose.

    • Replies: @TKK
  21. Forbes says:

    Does it really take 5,800 words to review this book? Given the tenor, I’d read 1,000 words on it, but 5,800–no thanks.

  22. Psychology is one of numerous fraudulent ‘professions’. A PhD in psychology means nothing of value. It’s all just opinion masquerading as deep knowledge; essentially just BS dressed up in a suit and tie.

    As a society, we need to get rid of these fraudulent professions. No one should be able to get a PhD in something that has no basis in provable fact. Giving away PhD’s in opinions is what is leading the world astray from actual truth. Economics, Psychiatry, Psychology, huge portions of medicine, astronomy, law and many other degree programs are nothing more than opinions with no way to test their assertions.

    These people with fraudulent degrees spout their BS opinions and expect the rest of us to believe them. I don’t. Neither should you.

  23. Is there another place on Earth, where previously functional cities have been almost entirely abandoned? Are there equivalents to Detroit, Camden, Flint, Birmingham, Jackson, Baltimore or Newark in the rest of the world? There is something unique about American negroes. On the one hand, they seem to be worshipped. Maybe because they are so “cool” and edgy. They are certainly used in virtually every piece of advertising that I see. On the other hand, no one wants to live around them. A very odd situation.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
  24. Excellent commentary and a great introduction for the non-redpilled and non-blackpilled masses.

    Unfortunately, the two things that could prevent this ongoing disaster from becoming an existential catastrophe, restoration of the 10th Amendment and restoration of freedom of association, are the two things against which the “elites” will most fanatically fight. Readers should go to the source site (Counter-Current) and peruse the reader comments posted there as well.

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
  25. PeterMX says:

    That is where I learned this. From Dr. MacDinald’s website theoccidentalobserver. So many interesting articles there.

  26. @Rational

    Sports spectacles on TV serve the same purpose and have the same cast of characters as did arena events in Rome in which white men were pitted against lions, bulls and bears. Only today, the white men battle bestial, proto-human primates.

  27. Funny.

    This black woman rambles on whites- and most comments are on…. Jooz.

    • Replies: @Haxo Angmark
  28. These people with fraudulent degrees spout their BS opinions and expect the rest of us to believe them. I don’t. Neither should you.

    Pretty much everything in the Land of Mickey Mouse and Tinker Bell is a fraud. Prizes, titles, praise; all pretty much bullshit. I neither believe, nor believe in, any of it.

    • Replies: @Monotonous Languor
  29. @Jacques Sheete


    The more a society’s thoughts, words, and deeds reflect the Truth of the Logos, the more it will prosper in all aspects of life.

    Otherwise…. not so much.

  30. @TKK

    Yes, racial solidarity is the only safe path through this swamp. To set off on it with any hope of success though, the burden of constant self indulgence must be left behind, because that uber schidtty modern trait is one of the root problems that got us in to this mire in the first place. The self indulgence of virtue signalling and employing the advancement of “others” to harvest some social esteem etc are poor guides and got us lost to this degree.

    Also, if you are still a supporter of what organised sport can do to temper, mature and demonstrate what solidarity looks like to the young, watch Rugby Union (the 15 man version, rather than the 7 man one). The top teams internationally are either white (Ireland) or mostly white (New Zealand) with one of the most successful teams in the history of the game (South Africa) actually getting worse as they moved from being solely white to mixed. Even the nation that is the most dominant (New Zealand) has its top provincial and regional sides being mostly white, in a nation that has more Polynesians than all the rest of the world combined. Those same Polynesians engage in virtually no other sporting activity outside Rugby Union or Rugby League (the idiots version of the sport), yet at the top level they are still outgunned by white players who are able to cater better for the diverse demands of the game.

    Cast off self indulgent behaviour, play/support Rugby Union/Hockey as an assist to the construction of characters of substance and lets get out of this fuggin swamp

    • Agree: TKK
  31. Wally says:

    “Therefore, if Jews are so much smarter than Whites, why would they design their own demise?”

    If Jews were really so smart they would have conjured up a better, more believable story than their impossibly fake & stupid ‘6,000,000 & gas chambers’.

    • Replies: @TKK
  32. @Bardon Kaldian

    Eberhardt is a group-entitled she-boon whom the Jews pay to shit on Whites. Currently this Jew-coddled ‘boon is a high-priced Professorette @ UC Santa Barbara; and before that was the happy recipient of a million-dollar “MacArthur Fellowship”.

    • Replies: @Bardon Kaldian
    , @Parfois1
  33. @Haxo Angmark

    How do you know that noseys pay her? Most anti-white financiers have been whites, for instance Bill Gates:

  34. @TKK

    This is a difficult question & in my opinion, unanswerable.

    White (European) relatively weak in-group loyalties are to be expected; whites are too divided not only due to history (variants of Christianity, various ethnic origins), but also there is no “central magnet” or chief centripetal force to keep them together at the desired rate. Mind- this is still a Christian majority white country, and people usually get relaxed in such situations.

    Jews are homogeneous in some activities, but they’re not nearly as clannish. Most of them lost their religion; intermarriage is too high & they’re now mostly defined by two emotional anti-corrosives: Auschwitz & Israel. This may work for some, but many are simply tired of Israel & Auschwitz/Holocaust is coming to a saturation point (too many movies, too many testimonies, too many frightening stories so the net result if either boredom or paranoia). Jews of today are more “progressives” than Jews & this is visible in midterm elections-after all Trump had done for Israel (and Israelis are almost religious, North-Korea style Trump worshipers), ca.70% American Jews vote Democrat & 25% Republican. So,US Jews are generally SJWs & dogmatic “progressives” who don’t care for Israel as others may think.

    Asians are big & different (the Chinese, Vietnamese, Japanese, Koreans,..) but they seem to lose their edge rather soon. They want to blend in, mostly.

    Mestizo Hispanics are yet another story, and it would be too much to try to untangle various loyalties of different Central American &North American peoples…

  35. @Just another serf

    Instead of doing something about the decay of the cities, which would involve some solutions that your type wrongly call socialistic, your type prefer to just lay blame. Well, laying blame is all well and good. But it doesn’t get anything done. On the other hand, your type sometimes support sending the socialistic army in to just kill ’em all and let god sort them out.

    God have mercy on your evil souls.

  36. Anon[412] • Disclaimer says:

    Mainstream culture, and eminently mainstream social science, must be fraudulent. The reason is simple but it’s not the one you listed.

    • Replies: @Jacques Sheete
  37. Anon[412] • Disclaimer says:

    I’m just so sick of this stuff because it’s a never ending daily game played by these idiots and main stream media. They just want to kill every white person in America

    Or maybe there is such a number of whites in the USA with either unconscious death wish, addiction to narcissistic virtue signalin, or both, that they create a market for the production of white-bashing culture? A market that over time has grown to the largest market in mainstream culture?
    Any explanation that doesn’t take these factors as its starting point doesn’t, in my opinion, try hard to be serious.

    • Replies: @niteranger
  38. @Rational

    “All black men belong in prison.”

    I disagree. Negros belong in Africa, where they can be free of the minimal requirements of functional civilization and whites can be free from subsidizing their existence, in prison or otherwise.

  39. Parfois1 says:
    @Al Liguori

    The key benefit of race-baiting:
    Distraction from banksters and other Jewish’ crimes against humanity.

    Indeed, that is the crux and epicentre of the counter-culture movement’s sharp turn to PC: to divert the masses’ thinking towards the immutable human differences (sex, race) to hide the glaring inequality of capitalism and its police state apparatus.

    And it is working. If anyone here questions the sordid record of capitalism and its domestic and external wars of aggression against the working class everywhere (i.e. the people who have to work to survive) is laughed at as the dumb oddball brainwashed by Judeo-Bolshevism. In this type of PC environment it is permissible and encouraged to brand Jewry as a racist excrescence but one cannot say anything offensive against the source of the Jewish power: capital and capitalism.

    No wonder they are winning.

  40. Parfois1 says:
    @Haxo Angmark

    Thanks Haxo, that answers my question, as I suspected.

    I’m about to believe they are omnipresent as well as omnipotent, whence omniscient as well.

    And the “American” whites are their main enablers! Slaves is coming to mind.

  41. TKK says:

    But it’s working for them – as you have noted.
    To even question the history of the events has been criminalized.

  42. TKK says:
    @Robert Dolan

    Those are solid points. You are right- the ruling Elite Jews have no regard for the minions, white or Jewish. We are grist. They will be in a bunker in Davos as we fight off Da’ Quan and Co.

    It does appear hopeless.

    But I do have a severe case of Negro fatigue. When I do try to watch television, if I see one more black family portrayed as having indoor pets they treat like gold in an immaculate house with an intact family- but sassy and smarter than whites , I might shoot out the TV.

  43. @Anon

    Do you think the average white American reads this site or reviews of books by these Black Communists? They are too busy trying to make a living because middle class whites are getting killed economically since Obama came in and it’s not that much better under Trump.

    They are totally getting squeezed. I know men who work double shifts when they can get it and work 7 days a week to pay the bills. These folks don’t watch CNN, MSNBC, or even Fox. Most whites don’t pay attention to most of this stuff they are just trying to live. Many believe that when it starts they will just get their guns out and that’s how it’s going to end.

  44. @Rational

    There’s an older black man where I work who has been with the company about 20 years. He has been married to the same woman since his 20s and they have 2 grown kids and one grand child.

    I can assure you, he is completely human and does not belong in prison.

    Painting all black people with the same brush is no different than Mainstream media demonizing all whites 24/7. Obviously there is an agenda that has picked up speed since 2008 with Advertising blatantly promoting miscegenation, etc. But geez, we don’t need to submit to animalism.

  45. @Anon

    I think you’re both correct, but your suggestion probably gets closer to the root of the matter if you mean what I think you mean.

  46. @freedom-cat

    “Animalism”…. what a laugh, yet another thinly-veiled attempt to lay guilt-trips on the innocent, with that atomic bomb word “racism” lurking in the background, guaranteed to strike fear into stupid whites.

    It’s more unprovable feelzgood anecdotes from leftists and their useful idiots, a blunt instrument to bludgeon whites so that they will continue to put up with endless black degeneracy, dystopia, and destruction, all because some mythical black exception is ostensibly a model citizen.

    It’s predictable, vapid, and full of lies. After decades of such nonsense, any objective observer would expect leftists to come up with a new tactic. But, hey, leftists figure it’s worked so far to paralyze witless whites into mindless contrition for their very existence, who have been brainwashed into believing that the left is some kind of pristine moral authority, and that perfect equality is the zero’th commandment.

    But no longer. Pattern recognition is real. HBD is real. Gaussian distributions are real. The races of mankind are real. Racial identity is real. The Truth is grounded in Reality, not moral fantasy. Differences in IQ, emotional restraint, and long-term time-preferences are provable by genetics and empirical science, not the confirmation bias crap spewed by politicized academia. Within those categories, blacks are decidedly inferior to whites, and no blank-slate egalitarian fantasy is going to make it go away.

    Laughable attempts by leftists to baffle with BS are exposed by one genetic truth:
    Racial differences are not described by the range of variation of any specific attribute, instead they are described by groups of alleles. It’s not about variation, it’s about correlation.

    No longer will whites put up with ignoring 99.9% of black behavior because of some fictional exceptions. No longer will we tolerate the destruction of everything that whites have created, maintained, and loved, just to satisfy the pseudo-morality of sanctimonious leftist egalitarians. No longer will we sacrifice ourselves, our families, and our nation on a bloody altar of holy fantasies.

    Segregation is the only moral solution. Be glad that traditional white Christians have true morality that prevents us from doing far worse to those who unequivocally deserve it.

    Good luck with all that, chuck-0.

  47. @freedom-cat

    In this hologram of ours exceptions always exist–I know and have known a few “good blacks”.

    They are called “Uncle Toms” by the other blacks–and are the subject of ridicule.

    This is supposed to give us comfort?

  48. Wally says:

    Yes, they exist.

    But exceptions prove the rule.

  49. @freedom-cat

    Painting all black people with the same brush is no different than Mainstream media demonizing all whites 24/7. Obviously there is an agenda that has picked up speed since 2008 with Advertising blatantly promoting miscegenation, etc. But geez, we don’t need to submit to animalism.


    But, this is one site & many people simply want to vent off. It’s one, perhaps 2-3 sites vs. virtually all MSM.

  50. Well, I agree totally in the idea of venting, as it fits perfectly into Freedom of Speech, but even those who vent are subject to objections to their ideas of what should be done.

  51. anon[345] • Disclaimer says:

    Your Civil Rights movement is a disaster and Negroids do not belong in the same society as Honkies absent of segregation

  52. “why do they keep coming?” Why do dogs lick their balls?

  53. Sunshine says:

    Yay, the “I know a good one”! Another magical negro trope. They’re always so exciting!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Donald Thoresen Comments via RSS