The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 James Kirkpatrick Archive
SLATE and the Beltway Right—Partners In Narrative Policing
partnersinpolicng
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Strings  Include Comments

The modern purpose of journalism is to police the Narrative. In a society where power is defined by who controls access to mass media (what Steve Sailer terms The Megaphone), journalists serve the same role and fulfill the same purpose as commissars did under the Soviet system that so many of them eagerly defended in years past: to silence viewpoints who pose a threat to the System that provides these smear merchants with a livelihood.

And unfortunately, they are enabled by the Beltway Right. American patriots can never hope for any progress until they stop looking to Leftist journalists for permission about what can and cannot be discussed within the movement.

Which brings us to Osita Nwanevu armflapping about VDARE.com in SLATE. As VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow has noted, Nwanevu doesn’t actually attempt to refute anything but simply points at the people he doesn’t like and screams for someone to stop them.

The spectacle of an Osita Nwanevu (pictured left) lecturing Americans on the authors they shouldn’t be allowed to read proves our whole point. Once you replace the actual nation with a conglomeration of random Third Worlders and pretend Affirmative Action mediocrities are public intellectuals instead of rent-seeking parasites, you will lose the political culture and the traditional liberties which made the country a good place to live.

But really, Nwanevu is not the core problem. Nor are Main Stream Media journalists generally, broadly speaking. As the low rungs of the managerial class, we can’t be upset at MSM journalists doing what it is in their nature. You don’t blame an animal when it escapes from a zoo and starts attacking people. The blame lies with those who let it out of its cage.

And that’s National Review itself. After all, as Nwanevu says, National Review now claims to be horrified by the rise of the Alt Right and wants a pat on the head from Leftist journalists for defying it. Thus National Review has granted these journalists moral authority. But they promptly turn around and quite correctly point out that National Review has published, and to some extent, continues to publish, figures who defended the kind of America First immigration policies championed by VDARE.com, Pat Buchanan, Donald Trump etc.

Nwanevu writes:

Despite the magazine’s disavowal of the alt-right, the platform it provided for these writers and its elevation—throughout its history—of ideas that have become central to the movement tie National Review to the alt-right’s intellectual origins. In truth, National Review can no more disown the alt-right than it can disown its own legacy.

How National Review Helped Build the Alt-Right| The magazine laid the foundations for the movement it now opposes, Slate, March 23, 2017

Of course, this is the exact same case the Alt Right itself has been making. (For years–see Buckley Fesses Up (Finally): National Review Has Caved On Immigration! by Peter Brimelow, August 23, 2000, and The Decline of National Review, American Renaissance, American Renaissance, September 2000.)Indeed, one could define the Alt Right as those dissident conservatives who take ideas to their logical conclusion instead of turning their brains off in order to keep a job as a political hack.

Thus Nwanevu excerpts Ian Tuttle’s astonishingly ignorant condemnation of the Alt Right in National Review:

“These men have not simply been ‘accused of racism,’” [Tuttle] wrote. “They are racist, by definition. Taylor’s ‘race realism,’ for example, co-opts evolutionary biology in the hopes of demonstrating that the races have become sufficiently differentiated over the millennia to the point that the races are fundamentally—that is, biologically—different.

This is embarrassingAs a gimmick to promote its stale brand, Slate recently began shilling hats with the word “FACTS,” the most cringe-inducing piece of headgear since John Oliver was trying to push “Drumpf” [Manufacturer of ‘Make Donald Drumpf Again’ Parody Hats Files For Bankruptcy, by Katy Stech, The Wall Street Journal, November 18, 2016]. But as we see here, both National Review and Slate essentially believe certain facts—and psychometric and behavioral differences between the races are facts, no matter how caused—simply cannot be uttered.

Weirdly, Nwanevu’s article is basically an unacknowledged, Left-spun rehash of Gregory Hood’s American Renaissance refutation of Tuttle last April. And Hood himself identified the core problem with Tuttle’s approach:

One can’t help pitying anyone who puts scare quotes around the word “scientific.” It is more likely that the world is 4,000 years old, or that the Prophet Mohammad split the moon, or that Odin built the world out of the bones of a dead giant, than that different populations didn’t become biologically different over the millennia. In his eagerness to demonstrate his orthodoxy, Mr. Tuttle took the most implausible position possible, one repudiated by his own magazine and one that even the mainstream media is slowly backing away from.

[The Intellectual Rot at the Heart of the Beltway Right, April 9, 2016]

Naturally, Nwanevu has a different purpose with his piece than Hood. As an MSM journalist, which is to say, a Political Correctness commissar, Nwanevu complains that “the purges seem to have been incomplete.” His apparent objective: to get National Review to stop publishing even more hate-thinkers. His targets: Victor Davis Hanson, Jason Richwine and Charles Murray. He proclaims:

Victor Davis Hanson, a current writer for National Review and a frequent critic of multiculturalism, for instance, published a National Review piece about race and crime a year after Derbyshire’s firing that loudly echoed his offending column without similar repercussions, right down to the paternal recommendation to avoid black people. [VDARE.com Note: We noticed this ourselves at the time. See John Derbyshire Wonders: Will NATIONAL REVIEW Derbyshire Victor Davis Hanson? and Is Victor Davis Hanson`s Column Racist? Of Course It Is—He`s White!] Jason Richwine, a researcher who left the Heritage Foundation after the discovery of his doctoral dissertation, in which he’d argued “the low average IQ of Hispanics is effectively permanent,” currently writes for National Review on, among other issues, Hispanic immigration. Charles Murray, whose 1994 book The Bell Curve promoted the idea of inherent racial differences in intelligence to wide controversy, wrote a defense of Richwine for National Review in 2013 and was a contributor as recently as last year. [Links in original]

Nwanevu’s approach is likely to be effective because National Review, and, more broadly, the Beltway Right, have already conceded defeat.

If “racism” is a core threat to the Conservative Movement, how can National Review justify publishing these men?

As this is written, there has as yet been no pushback from the National Review to Nwanevu’s attack. Nor could there be. After all, if “free speech” is the defense, why did they purge Derbyshire or Brimelow?

Once the essential ground in a debate has been conceded, there’s no systematic defense possible. It’s like allowing an enemy to flank a fortified position, making a rout inevitable, regardless of what resources you have.

Noam Chomsky may be a Leftist, but he identified a core truth about the nature of modern politics when he said:

ORDER IT NOW

The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum – even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.

I wouldn’t be surprised if the old Communist would be willing to violate his rule to shut people like us up, but his point is still correct. And the accusation of “racism” is the most effective means of policing the debate.

There were some predictions that the election of Donald Trump would open up new space for the debate of critical issues. [Media Self-Destruct over Trump, by Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, October 28, 2016] But instead, Trump’s election seems to have served as a signal for a coordinated MSM offensive to shut down as many outlets as possible. The iron fist which always lay under the velvet glove of “diversity” is becoming more and more apparent.

The Beltway Right will not be spared in this process.

Conservatives, of course, do have a way out. They could simply returning to what their tradition actually entails. David French’s weepy invocation of a “a politics of universal human dignity” is incompatible with Edmund Burke’s warnings against movements rooted in universal moral appeals rather than traditional institutions and concrete historical experience. If only on the classical conservative ground of prudence, no real conservative could ever be an enthusiast for mass immigration, which threatens to dissolve a social order painstakingly constructed over centuries. Nor does some evidence-free claim of racial egalitarianism deserve our respect.

But even more than a recommitment to truth and tradition, conservatives need a modicum of courage. As Nwanevu’s Slate article shows, even after they obediently punch to their right, Leftist journalists demand still more concessions from them. Why continue going along with this endless, slow-motion retreat?

It’s about time conservatives ignore Leftist journalists instead of taking their orders.

And if the Beltway Right isn’t capable of that small act of courage, well, remember there’s a reason we call them cucks.

James Kirkpatrick [Email him] is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.

(Reprinted from VDare.com by permission of author or representative)
 
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
[]
  1. To say there are no differences between races besides skin color is absurd, but that doesn’t mean one race is superior to another overall. Each race has its relatively strong and weak attributes. What is not proper is to judge an individual on this or that attribute based on his or her race. For example, one should not conclude that because a person is black, they must be a good boxer because they have longer arms for their height than other races, and have better coordination. That would be the very definition of being prejudice.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Michelle
    Pardon me for repeating myself, humans are comparable to big, and little, cats.. No cats are alike in social structure, hunting methods, etc.. Lions are different from leopards, who are different from cheetahs, who are different from tigers, who are different from pumas. Each has evolved for a specialized environment. So it is with humans.
    , @iffen
    What is not proper is to judge an individual on this or that attribute based on his or her race.

    Actually you are incorrect in part of what you say. If two groups differ in the frequency of certain characteristics, it is logical to "guess" that an otherwise unknown representative from one group will be more likely have the characteristics of the group from which it is drawn rather than have the characteristics of the other group. However, since the subject is group differences, you are correct that when dealing with an individual from the group, we should keep an open mind. At least my commitment to individualism tells me that I should.

    , @SMK
    Blacks as a group are far superior to whites in football and basketball because they're faster and quicker and better jumpers. They're superior on average because they're superior animals from the waist down. Their superiority is wholly in the legs. Europeans and Asians and Jews as groups are far superior to blacks in abstract reasoning and mathematical intelligence. What's more important?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    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 once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    http://www.unz.com/article/slate-and-the-beltway-right-partners-in-narrative-policing/#comment-1815707
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Slate and National Review have one important thing in common. They both suck.

    Read More
    • Replies: @DanFromCt
    Photos of their writers suggest they also were recruited from the same college glee clubs.
  3. @gdpbull
    To say there are no differences between races besides skin color is absurd, but that doesn't mean one race is superior to another overall. Each race has its relatively strong and weak attributes. What is not proper is to judge an individual on this or that attribute based on his or her race. For example, one should not conclude that because a person is black, they must be a good boxer because they have longer arms for their height than other races, and have better coordination. That would be the very definition of being prejudice.

    Pardon me for repeating myself, humans are comparable to big, and little, cats.. No cats are alike in social structure, hunting methods, etc.. Lions are different from leopards, who are different from cheetahs, who are different from tigers, who are different from pumas. Each has evolved for a specialized environment. So it is with humans.

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Each has evolved for a specialized environment. Each has evolved for a specialized environment.
     
    You took the words out of my mouth. Just like the sickle cell affords protection against malaria to sub-Saharan Africans in the tropical African climate, it is a disadvantage in the temperate climates of Eurasia and N. America.
    , @animalogic
    True about the cats. Trouble is, they belong to different species. So the analogy with humans breaks down on that fundamental difference.
  4. @gdpbull
    To say there are no differences between races besides skin color is absurd, but that doesn't mean one race is superior to another overall. Each race has its relatively strong and weak attributes. What is not proper is to judge an individual on this or that attribute based on his or her race. For example, one should not conclude that because a person is black, they must be a good boxer because they have longer arms for their height than other races, and have better coordination. That would be the very definition of being prejudice.

    What is not proper is to judge an individual on this or that attribute based on his or her race.

    Actually you are incorrect in part of what you say. If two groups differ in the frequency of certain characteristics, it is logical to “guess” that an otherwise unknown representative from one group will be more likely have the characteristics of the group from which it is drawn rather than have the characteristics of the other group. However, since the subject is group differences, you are correct that when dealing with an individual from the group, we should keep an open mind. At least my commitment to individualism tells me that I should.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    Yes, and this is especially true to the extent that discovering the content of someone's character or the extent of their abilities is a lengthy and costly process (as it surely is, in most circumstances) and to the extent that group-specific differences are large (as black-white differences surely are).
  5. @Michelle
    Pardon me for repeating myself, humans are comparable to big, and little, cats.. No cats are alike in social structure, hunting methods, etc.. Lions are different from leopards, who are different from cheetahs, who are different from tigers, who are different from pumas. Each has evolved for a specialized environment. So it is with humans.

    Each has evolved for a specialized environment. Each has evolved for a specialized environment.

    You took the words out of my mouth. Just like the sickle cell affords protection against malaria to sub-Saharan Africans in the tropical African climate, it is a disadvantage in the temperate climates of Eurasia and N. America.

    Read More
  6. @Michelle
    Pardon me for repeating myself, humans are comparable to big, and little, cats.. No cats are alike in social structure, hunting methods, etc.. Lions are different from leopards, who are different from cheetahs, who are different from tigers, who are different from pumas. Each has evolved for a specialized environment. So it is with humans.

    True about the cats. Trouble is, they belong to different species. So the analogy with humans breaks down on that fundamental difference.

    Read More
  7. This article itself is a fine example of what Chomsky was talking about. As a non-American, my reaction is, “Who on earth cares?”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Chomsky, a Zionist propagandist, definitely "cares".

    He and those like him go to great lengths to ensure the ludicrous narrative of '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers' is preserved, policed at all costs.

    There will never be real freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to defend euro-whites as long as the utterly impossible 'holocau$t' storyline is the required religion. It is the proverbial 'gorilla in the room'.

    "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
     
    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com
  8. @WorkingClass
    Slate and National Review have one important thing in common. They both suck.

    Photos of their writers suggest they also were recruited from the same college glee clubs.

    Read More
  9. His apparent objective: to get National Review to stop publishing even more hate-thinkers. His targets: Victor Davis Hanson, Jason Richwine and Charles Murray.

    When Jason Stoerts drove Mark Steyn away from National Review for making the fruit cordial joke, the reader response was more than they were expecting. I think Lowry started to understand the readers were losing patience with where NR was headed and he started to triangulate. He knew he couldn’t sacrifice any other writers for violations of political correctness.

    Peter Brimelow claims the Never Trump issue was forced by a major donor to National Review and that Lowry wouldn’t have done it on his own. After failing to purge Trump and the Alt-right it appears National Review may have finally given up on the purging mentality. Jim Geraghty tried to downplay the “Unpatriotic Conservatives” cover story by David Frum in December like it was a simple disagreement and not effort at purging. They are still trying to occupy some sort of middle ground where they please their big donors and still hang onto their readership, it doesn’t appear to be working.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442971/conservatives-political-correctness-alex-nowrasteh-wrong

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill
    For me, National Review has gone from a must-read to something I rarely think about unless someone else brings it up. That happened over the course of a bit under ten years.
  10. @Tom Welsh
    This article itself is a fine example of what Chomsky was talking about. As a non-American, my reaction is, "Who on earth cares?"

    Chomsky, a Zionist propagandist, definitely “cares”.

    He and those like him go to great lengths to ensure the ludicrous narrative of ’6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers’ is preserved, policed at all costs.

    There will never be real freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to defend euro-whites as long as the utterly impossible ‘holocau$t’ storyline is the required religion. It is the proverbial ‘gorilla in the room’.

    “Truth is hate to those who hate the truth.”

    [MORE]

    The ‘holocaust’ storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    How is Chomsky a "Zionist"? Provide proof. And bear in mind that Chomsky defended your prophet Faurisson
    , @Mulegino1
    True. The fake Holocaust story as well as the myth of the "good war" is the foundation of kosher conservatism and is a curb to the rebirth of the nation's soul, which lies in the embrace of its European heritage and organic connections to Christianity. As long as the cuckoisie continues to embrace these nightmarish, culturally suicidal narratives, it will advance further into irrelevancy and pitiable decline.
  11. The Republican Party began, by its second national election in 1860, as the party of Abolitionists; northeastern college professors and their midwestern version; liberal northern journalists; liberal Protestant pastors and congregations from Boston to Iowa City; virtually all recent German immigrants who came after the Revolution of 1848 and were uniformly violently Liberal (The Communist Manifesto was written for that Germanic revolution, which failed, sending many of its people to the US); the preponderance of the Know-Nothing movement; and the preponderance of Wall Street, which financed the party.

    From the start, the Republican Party was owned by the biggest big businesses and leaned well left on religious and cultural matters. From the start, the Republican leadership, intellectual as much as monetary, absolutely despised two groups of white Americans: Southerners (including the vast majority of them who did not own any slaves) and Catholics, especially the Irish. From the start, the Republican leadership was more than happy to romanticize, and then ally with, blacks in order to wage culture war against the 2 groups of whites it despised.

    Read More
  12. It comes down to the fact that science both biology and mathematics has destroyed the tabula rasa foundation of liberalism, all liberalism including classical liberalism.

    Behold the Dark Enlightenment- All Men are neither Created nor Equal.Its not the culture stupid, culture is but an umbra of genetics.And the implication of HBD is darkness, horror, its multiculturalism is doomed, is in fact in its death throes. Nietzsche was a prophet, leftism is Judaism is Christianity extrapolated, a slave morality, a death cult.

    Democracy is a leftist ideology that will always decay to fascism, then anarchy, In a multicultural nation the process is almost instant.

    Gender is even more horrible, we can not expel our women, we can not yet breed stepford wives. But we can not even reproduce the next generation, or find the political will to defend ourselves from invading barbarians while women are free.

    So of course they cant face this, its the end of the world as we know it, either in a racial armageddon or some global realignment that’s refutes the past 500 years at least. Its the antithesis of the essence of leftism, equalism.

    Read More
  13. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Chomsky, a Zionist propagandist, definitely "cares".

    He and those like him go to great lengths to ensure the ludicrous narrative of '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers' is preserved, policed at all costs.

    There will never be real freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to defend euro-whites as long as the utterly impossible 'holocau$t' storyline is the required religion. It is the proverbial 'gorilla in the room'.

    "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
     
    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    How is Chomsky a “Zionist”? Provide proof. And bear in mind that Chomsky defended your prophet Faurisson

    Read More
    • Replies: @Wally
    Here you go:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/02/jimmyvnoam/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/07/noam-chomsky-the-cleverest-zionist/

    There's tons of stuff, if you look for it.

    Shalom.

    , @joe webb
    I exposed Chomsky about 12 years ago as a zionist. I simply read his Fateful Triangle and on about page 39 he states that he is a zionist. Joe Webb
  14. @iffen
    What is not proper is to judge an individual on this or that attribute based on his or her race.

    Actually you are incorrect in part of what you say. If two groups differ in the frequency of certain characteristics, it is logical to "guess" that an otherwise unknown representative from one group will be more likely have the characteristics of the group from which it is drawn rather than have the characteristics of the other group. However, since the subject is group differences, you are correct that when dealing with an individual from the group, we should keep an open mind. At least my commitment to individualism tells me that I should.

    Yes, and this is especially true to the extent that discovering the content of someone’s character or the extent of their abilities is a lengthy and costly process (as it surely is, in most circumstances) and to the extent that group-specific differences are large (as black-white differences surely are).

    Read More
  15. @Barnard

    His apparent objective: to get National Review to stop publishing even more hate-thinkers. His targets: Victor Davis Hanson, Jason Richwine and Charles Murray.
     
    When Jason Stoerts drove Mark Steyn away from National Review for making the fruit cordial joke, the reader response was more than they were expecting. I think Lowry started to understand the readers were losing patience with where NR was headed and he started to triangulate. He knew he couldn't sacrifice any other writers for violations of political correctness.

    Peter Brimelow claims the Never Trump issue was forced by a major donor to National Review and that Lowry wouldn't have done it on his own. After failing to purge Trump and the Alt-right it appears National Review may have finally given up on the purging mentality. Jim Geraghty tried to downplay the "Unpatriotic Conservatives" cover story by David Frum in December like it was a simple disagreement and not effort at purging. They are still trying to occupy some sort of middle ground where they please their big donors and still hang onto their readership, it doesn't appear to be working.

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/442971/conservatives-political-correctness-alex-nowrasteh-wrong

    For me, National Review has gone from a must-read to something I rarely think about unless someone else brings it up. That happened over the course of a bit under ten years.

    Read More
  16. anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment

    National Review Magazine. Isn’t that the reputedly CIA funded rag that has always been ready to censor or steer away any discussion of whether there might be a “deep state” that actually was in control.

    I had a subscription to TNR back in the 1970s. At the time I found it curious that such a well-known and widely distributed magazine was able to exist and survive, year after year, despite having little or no advertising. Its principal sources of funding seemed to be several shadowy nonprofits like the Bradley and Olin Foundations along with support from other equally shadowy but apparently very generous individuals and maybe William F. Buckley himself.

    The indication that TNR wasn’t what it appeared to be, occurred way back in 1993 when then-editor Joseph Sobran wrote (undoubtedly with Willaim Buckley’s encouragement and approval) an article that was mildly critical (by today’s online standards) of Jewish influence on American political politics.

    We all the know story. The sh-t absolutely hit the fan. Antisemitism was claimed and a truly terrified Buckley was given two orders: fire Sobran immediately and then make an absolutely groveling apology which included the publishing of an article in TNR claiming that there was far too much anti-Semitism among conservatives which he did. Despite the claim that Buckley wrote the article , it was probably put together under the very careful supervision of Neocon godfathers Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.

    It was at this point that I realized that the claims about the sources of TNR’s funding were almost entirely phony. Its operating budget was, in fact, coming from entirely different sources.

    Joseph Sobran was utterly blacklisted for his transgression to make him an “example” out of him as these people love to do. (Once prominent but eventual “non persons” and ex US senators Charles Percy and J. William Fulbright were other examples of this process). He lost all access to the mainstream media. He disappeared from CBS radio and television where he had been a frequent and well-paid contributor. He lost all his paid speaking engagements. As he sunk further and further into poverty even the supposedly independent right wing news source The American Conservative Magazine suddenly withdrew an employment offer given to him because of a phone call and a threat the magazine had received, most likely from the ADL or the SPLC. The magazine claimed that the recission of the job offer was made because it had been discovered that the now destitute Sobran gotten into the habit of speaking before non PC audiences, which were, incidentally, the only ones willing to pay for him speeches. (Years later, the similarly purged veteran reporter Helen Thomas was accused of similar behavior when she spoke before “unacceptable” groups, only because they were the only ones willing to let her speak because of her blacklisting).

    People still don’t seem to realize just how dangerous to the very existence of the CIA is to American democracy. The long existing rumors that the CIA routinely subsidizes numerous media sources (like TNR) and reporters has now become proven , in part thanks to Wikileaks.

    The CIA corrupts everything it touches. It is both out of control and inherently uncontrollable because it has increasingly become self-funding and subject to foreign influence. (Friends of mine jokingly label it the Mossad West).

    Dean Acheson was virtually alone in warning about the potential for abuse when the CIA was being formed out of the wartime OSS. He must have noticed how the British secret service was prone to routinely ignore the control of British politicians and operate on its own, often under the control of people like outright spies Kim Philby and friends.

    Stalin apparently realized this same sort of unaccountable parallel government had been formed in the USSR very early in his reign in form of the secret police group initially called the CHEKA. Despite this knowledge and his being virtually an absolute dictator, it still took him until the late 1930s to feel that he had consolidated power enough to start purging its members from his government.

    Let the purges begin!

    Read More
    • Replies: @annamaria
    Lets connect the dots:
    1. "Despite the claim that Buckley wrote the article, it was probably put together under the very careful supervision of Neocon godfathers Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz."
    2. "Joseph Sobran was utterly blacklisted for his transgression [wrote an article that was mildly critical of Jewish influence on American politics] to make him an “example” out of him as these people love to do."
    3. "People still don’t seem to realize just how dangerous to the very existence of the CIA is to American democracy. The CIA is both out of control and inherently uncontrollable because it has increasingly become self-funding and subject to foreign influence. (Friends of mine jokingly label it the Mossad West)."
    Seems right: the CIA has become a branch of Mossad. This explains, for instance, the US (CIA) support for ISIS/Al Qaeda in the ME. The US is playing/living a role of a hapless host controlled by parasitoid.
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627
  17. The time has come for the kosher cuckoisie to disappear from the field of political battle. Its publications serve no purpose other than to satiate its own adherents’ ethnic and spiritual masochism. They appear to enjoy spitting on our collective Euro-Christian past and apologize and be chronically hectored for being white, for being Christian, for not being members of the tribe.

    WF Buckley Jr., decades before his death, sold his soul to the Zionists and the neocons, the enemies inside our gates.

    Read More
  18. @Wally
    Chomsky, a Zionist propagandist, definitely "cares".

    He and those like him go to great lengths to ensure the ludicrous narrative of '6M Jews, 5M others, gas chambers' is preserved, policed at all costs.

    There will never be real freedom of speech, freedom of association, and the right to defend euro-whites as long as the utterly impossible 'holocau$t' storyline is the required religion. It is the proverbial 'gorilla in the room'.

    "Truth is hate to those who hate the truth."

    The 'holocaust' storyline is one of the most easily debunked narratives ever contrived. That is why those who question it are arrested and persecuted. That is why violent, racist, & privileged Jewish supremacists demand censorship. What sort of truth is it that denies free speech and the freedom to seek the truth? Truth needs no protection from scrutiny.
     
    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    True. The fake Holocaust story as well as the myth of the “good war” is the foundation of kosher conservatism and is a curb to the rebirth of the nation’s soul, which lies in the embrace of its European heritage and organic connections to Christianity. As long as the cuckoisie continues to embrace these nightmarish, culturally suicidal narratives, it will advance further into irrelevancy and pitiable decline.

    Read More
  19. @Anon
    How is Chomsky a "Zionist"? Provide proof. And bear in mind that Chomsky defended your prophet Faurisson
    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    The Barrett article is ridiculous, amounting to the argument that, if someone believes that al Qaeda blew up the WTC, then he is a Zionist. There are plenty of anti-Zionist Arabs and Iranians who would beg to differ. We shouldn't even need to discuss it, although Chomsky makes an excellent point, which is that, if Israel or Bush or anyone else wanted to get a war with Iraq based on 9/11, they should blame it on Saddam Hussein, not 19 Arabs from other countries.

    The OR article's argument is similar but more nuanced. Regarding M&W, Chomsky does nothing to defend Israel; he only indicates that he disagrees with their thesis. That's not Zionism; that's disagreement. If the argument is that any person who doubts that Zionists are supernaturally powerful above all other interests, then I guess it's Zionist. That's not how most people define the word.

    Regarding BDS, Chomsky supports it but not the academic part of the boycott because leftists in Israel are amenable to ending the occupation. Again, you can disagree but it's not Zionist to believe that. It's a form of consensus building.

    Regarding RoR, Chomsky doesn't oppose it; he says that it is unlikely to gain support as a part of the BDS platform, and again he is correct.

    Finally, regarding the two state solution, Chomsky only favors it as a transitional mode toward a single binational state. That's definitely not Zionist.

    I don't think you've read any of Chomsky's work. I think you've relied on liars to interpret it for you. That's a mistake.

    What's your solution for Israel?

  20. @gdpbull
    To say there are no differences between races besides skin color is absurd, but that doesn't mean one race is superior to another overall. Each race has its relatively strong and weak attributes. What is not proper is to judge an individual on this or that attribute based on his or her race. For example, one should not conclude that because a person is black, they must be a good boxer because they have longer arms for their height than other races, and have better coordination. That would be the very definition of being prejudice.

    Blacks as a group are far superior to whites in football and basketball because they’re faster and quicker and better jumpers. They’re superior on average because they’re superior animals from the waist down. Their superiority is wholly in the legs. Europeans and Asians and Jews as groups are far superior to blacks in abstract reasoning and mathematical intelligence. What’s more important?

    Read More
  21. Blacks as a group are far superior to whites in football and basketball because they’re faster and quicker and better jumpers.

    Then why can’t you find top flight football and basketball players and teams in Africa? Since I played sports I know firsthand how quick most of them are. But American Negroes have varying degrees of white European blood which is partly responsible for their athletic success along with coaching and training methods and nutritional programs devised almost entirely by whites. These factors accentuate their natural physical abilities.

    When NBA teams go scouting for foreign talent they look to Europe, not Africa. The NFL has no zero interest in Africa for current and future talent. Blacks can only reach their potential in white nations under white guidance.

    Most black African nations show very poorly in the Olympics outside of a few track and distance running events.

    Read More
    • Replies: @SMK
    Imagine if millions of West Africans played football and basketball from a young age and benefited from the "training methods and nutritional programs" invented by whites. The NBA would be over 95% black rather than 80% black. Whites in America also benefit from the same "methods" and nutrition and outnumber blacks 5 to 1. Roughly 90-95% of blacks in the NBA and NFL appear to be purely negroid. Only a tiny fraction are Mulattoes. Every cornerback in the NFL is black. Not one is white, or even a mulatto.

    Isn't it ironic that myriads of blacks earn hundreds of thousands or millions or even tens of millions of dollars playing games invented by American white men, and that blacks would never have invented. You'd think they'd be a bit grateful, that such a reality would mitigate their hatred of whites and view of blacks as a victim-class. But no!

  22. Anon says:     Show CommentNext New Comment
    @Wally
    Here you go:

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/11/02/jimmyvnoam/

    http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2016/07/noam-chomsky-the-cleverest-zionist/

    There's tons of stuff, if you look for it.

    Shalom.

    The Barrett article is ridiculous, amounting to the argument that, if someone believes that al Qaeda blew up the WTC, then he is a Zionist. There are plenty of anti-Zionist Arabs and Iranians who would beg to differ. We shouldn’t even need to discuss it, although Chomsky makes an excellent point, which is that, if Israel or Bush or anyone else wanted to get a war with Iraq based on 9/11, they should blame it on Saddam Hussein, not 19 Arabs from other countries.

    The OR article’s argument is similar but more nuanced. Regarding M&W, Chomsky does nothing to defend Israel; he only indicates that he disagrees with their thesis. That’s not Zionism; that’s disagreement. If the argument is that any person who doubts that Zionists are supernaturally powerful above all other interests, then I guess it’s Zionist. That’s not how most people define the word.

    Regarding BDS, Chomsky supports it but not the academic part of the boycott because leftists in Israel are amenable to ending the occupation. Again, you can disagree but it’s not Zionist to believe that. It’s a form of consensus building.

    Regarding RoR, Chomsky doesn’t oppose it; he says that it is unlikely to gain support as a part of the BDS platform, and again he is correct.

    Finally, regarding the two state solution, Chomsky only favors it as a transitional mode toward a single binational state. That’s definitely not Zionist.

    I don’t think you’ve read any of Chomsky’s work. I think you’ve relied on liars to interpret it for you. That’s a mistake.

    What’s your solution for Israel?

    Read More
    • Replies: @joe webb
    the solution for israel is two states if the Palestinians will go for it AFTER the JEWS have paid for what they stole in 1948. JW
    , @Wally
    Hello, old acquaintance.

    When Chomsky stands up and makes clear, unambiguous statements denouncing Zionism, I will then buy your argument.

    The solution for Israel, IMO, for starters, is a country that does not proclaim itself to be a Jewish state.
    Palestinians must have equal rights in every way and the right to return to their homeland.
    Palestinians must either have their land given back, or adequate compensation that they agree with. I do realize that some land owned by Jews was properly bought back in the day.
    Israel must end their Jews Only immigration policy.
    Israel must tear down it's 'bantustan' wall.
    There can be no Jews Only 'settlements', no Jews Only roads, no Jews Only anything.
    Israel must allow free speech on all subjects, 'holocaust' included.

    Anyway, I could write all day on this, but I think you get my drift.

    Good to see you here contributing to unz.com, nothing quite like it.
  23. @anon
    National Review Magazine. Isn't that the reputedly CIA funded rag that has always been ready to censor or steer away any discussion of whether there might be a "deep state" that actually was in control.

    I had a subscription to TNR back in the 1970s. At the time I found it curious that such a well-known and widely distributed magazine was able to exist and survive, year after year, despite having little or no advertising. Its principal sources of funding seemed to be several shadowy nonprofits like the Bradley and Olin Foundations along with support from other equally shadowy but apparently very generous individuals and maybe William F. Buckley himself.

    The indication that TNR wasn't what it appeared to be, occurred way back in 1993 when then-editor Joseph Sobran wrote (undoubtedly with Willaim Buckley's encouragement and approval) an article that was mildly critical (by today's online standards) of Jewish influence on American political politics.

    We all the know story. The sh-t absolutely hit the fan. Antisemitism was claimed and a truly terrified Buckley was given two orders: fire Sobran immediately and then make an absolutely groveling apology which included the publishing of an article in TNR claiming that there was far too much anti-Semitism among conservatives which he did. Despite the claim that Buckley wrote the article , it was probably put together under the very careful supervision of Neocon godfathers Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.

    It was at this point that I realized that the claims about the sources of TNR's funding were almost entirely phony. Its operating budget was, in fact, coming from entirely different sources.

    Joseph Sobran was utterly blacklisted for his transgression to make him an "example" out of him as these people love to do. (Once prominent but eventual "non persons" and ex US senators Charles Percy and J. William Fulbright were other examples of this process). He lost all access to the mainstream media. He disappeared from CBS radio and television where he had been a frequent and well-paid contributor. He lost all his paid speaking engagements. As he sunk further and further into poverty even the supposedly independent right wing news source The American Conservative Magazine suddenly withdrew an employment offer given to him because of a phone call and a threat the magazine had received, most likely from the ADL or the SPLC. The magazine claimed that the recission of the job offer was made because it had been discovered that the now destitute Sobran gotten into the habit of speaking before non PC audiences, which were, incidentally, the only ones willing to pay for him speeches. (Years later, the similarly purged veteran reporter Helen Thomas was accused of similar behavior when she spoke before "unacceptable" groups, only because they were the only ones willing to let her speak because of her blacklisting).

    People still don't seem to realize just how dangerous to the very existence of the CIA is to American democracy. The long existing rumors that the CIA routinely subsidizes numerous media sources (like TNR) and reporters has now become proven , in part thanks to Wikileaks.

    The CIA corrupts everything it touches. It is both out of control and inherently uncontrollable because it has increasingly become self-funding and subject to foreign influence. (Friends of mine jokingly label it the Mossad West).

    Dean Acheson was virtually alone in warning about the potential for abuse when the CIA was being formed out of the wartime OSS. He must have noticed how the British secret service was prone to routinely ignore the control of British politicians and operate on its own, often under the control of people like outright spies Kim Philby and friends.

    Stalin apparently realized this same sort of unaccountable parallel government had been formed in the USSR very early in his reign in form of the secret police group initially called the CHEKA. Despite this knowledge and his being virtually an absolute dictator, it still took him until the late 1930s to feel that he had consolidated power enough to start purging its members from his government.

    Let the purges begin!

    Lets connect the dots:
    1. “Despite the claim that Buckley wrote the article, it was probably put together under the very careful supervision of Neocon godfathers Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz.”
    2. “Joseph Sobran was utterly blacklisted for his transgression [wrote an article that was mildly critical of Jewish influence on American politics] to make him an “example” out of him as these people love to do.”
    3. “People still don’t seem to realize just how dangerous to the very existence of the CIA is to American democracy. The CIA is both out of control and inherently uncontrollable because it has increasingly become self-funding and subject to foreign influence. (Friends of mine jokingly label it the Mossad West).”
    Seems right: the CIA has become a branch of Mossad. This explains, for instance, the US (CIA) support for ISIS/Al Qaeda in the ME. The US is playing/living a role of a hapless host controlled by parasitoid.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-is-a-us-israeli-creation-top-ten-indications/5518627

    Read More
  24. @Anon
    How is Chomsky a "Zionist"? Provide proof. And bear in mind that Chomsky defended your prophet Faurisson

    I exposed Chomsky about 12 years ago as a zionist. I simply read his Fateful Triangle and on about page 39 he states that he is a zionist. Joe Webb

    Read More
  25. “‘It’s about time conservatives ignore Leftist journalists instead of taking their orders.”

    well, become Famous for a good cause. Trumpet the books of Phillippe Rushton and Richard Lynn that fully establish the scientific reality of race Inequality.

    note that Murray may have just started the clarion call by Coming Out, not apart, a couple days ago in his talk at the college, where he stated that race has at least a part in it. Vermont was a couple weeks ago, this one is another one.

    The video of the event on Fox last night had some big chimps throwing their arms up right in the faces of the many white cops. Hands Up, Don’t shoot. Remember that one?

    The Time has come to speak of many things but the absolute center of it is race inequality.

    What’s-his -name Watkins or something a couple years ago backed down on his statements about black inferiority. Shucks, at 80 something, he could have become a hero. Instead he caved…craven and craving adulation. NO BALLS.

    What the notable notables ought to do is become a Gang of 12, or whatever, and hold a press conference….imagine. Emperor’s Clothes. Sky Falling department.

    Speak… Joe Webb

    Read More
  26. @Anon
    The Barrett article is ridiculous, amounting to the argument that, if someone believes that al Qaeda blew up the WTC, then he is a Zionist. There are plenty of anti-Zionist Arabs and Iranians who would beg to differ. We shouldn't even need to discuss it, although Chomsky makes an excellent point, which is that, if Israel or Bush or anyone else wanted to get a war with Iraq based on 9/11, they should blame it on Saddam Hussein, not 19 Arabs from other countries.

    The OR article's argument is similar but more nuanced. Regarding M&W, Chomsky does nothing to defend Israel; he only indicates that he disagrees with their thesis. That's not Zionism; that's disagreement. If the argument is that any person who doubts that Zionists are supernaturally powerful above all other interests, then I guess it's Zionist. That's not how most people define the word.

    Regarding BDS, Chomsky supports it but not the academic part of the boycott because leftists in Israel are amenable to ending the occupation. Again, you can disagree but it's not Zionist to believe that. It's a form of consensus building.

    Regarding RoR, Chomsky doesn't oppose it; he says that it is unlikely to gain support as a part of the BDS platform, and again he is correct.

    Finally, regarding the two state solution, Chomsky only favors it as a transitional mode toward a single binational state. That's definitely not Zionist.

    I don't think you've read any of Chomsky's work. I think you've relied on liars to interpret it for you. That's a mistake.

    What's your solution for Israel?

    the solution for israel is two states if the Palestinians will go for it AFTER the JEWS have paid for what they stole in 1948. JW

    Read More
  27. @Anon
    The Barrett article is ridiculous, amounting to the argument that, if someone believes that al Qaeda blew up the WTC, then he is a Zionist. There are plenty of anti-Zionist Arabs and Iranians who would beg to differ. We shouldn't even need to discuss it, although Chomsky makes an excellent point, which is that, if Israel or Bush or anyone else wanted to get a war with Iraq based on 9/11, they should blame it on Saddam Hussein, not 19 Arabs from other countries.

    The OR article's argument is similar but more nuanced. Regarding M&W, Chomsky does nothing to defend Israel; he only indicates that he disagrees with their thesis. That's not Zionism; that's disagreement. If the argument is that any person who doubts that Zionists are supernaturally powerful above all other interests, then I guess it's Zionist. That's not how most people define the word.

    Regarding BDS, Chomsky supports it but not the academic part of the boycott because leftists in Israel are amenable to ending the occupation. Again, you can disagree but it's not Zionist to believe that. It's a form of consensus building.

    Regarding RoR, Chomsky doesn't oppose it; he says that it is unlikely to gain support as a part of the BDS platform, and again he is correct.

    Finally, regarding the two state solution, Chomsky only favors it as a transitional mode toward a single binational state. That's definitely not Zionist.

    I don't think you've read any of Chomsky's work. I think you've relied on liars to interpret it for you. That's a mistake.

    What's your solution for Israel?

    Hello, old acquaintance.

    When Chomsky stands up and makes clear, unambiguous statements denouncing Zionism, I will then buy your argument.

    The solution for Israel, IMO, for starters, is a country that does not proclaim itself to be a Jewish state.
    Palestinians must have equal rights in every way and the right to return to their homeland.
    Palestinians must either have their land given back, or adequate compensation that they agree with. I do realize that some land owned by Jews was properly bought back in the day.
    Israel must end their Jews Only immigration policy.
    Israel must tear down it’s ‘bantustan’ wall.
    There can be no Jews Only ‘settlements’, no Jews Only roads, no Jews Only anything.
    Israel must allow free speech on all subjects, ‘holocaust’ included.

    Anyway, I could write all day on this, but I think you get my drift.

    Good to see you here contributing to unz.com, nothing quite like it.

    Read More
  28. one of the ways of defeating the beltway zios, cucks, and Trump haters is to go out into the Fly Over Zones and do stories from and on the Trumpsters. Ask them about Israel too.

    In my travels in the US West Fly Over rural areas (of the Rockies), I find many folks full of contempt for the usual racial degenerates, especially indians if they are within 100 miles of the rez, and they are also semi jew-wise. The whole Trump constituency or constituencies are ripe for the Truth, except the jews of course.

    T. may have a surprise up his sleeve, like when he got a wince out of Bibi on the settlements…”or not”…something like that. Dunno, but being a New Yorker does not mean that one is a jew yorker, especially when in business. I am probably wrong, or not.

    Joe Webb

    Read More
  29. @KenH

    Blacks as a group are far superior to whites in football and basketball because they’re faster and quicker and better jumpers.
     
    Then why can't you find top flight football and basketball players and teams in Africa? Since I played sports I know firsthand how quick most of them are. But American Negroes have varying degrees of white European blood which is partly responsible for their athletic success along with coaching and training methods and nutritional programs devised almost entirely by whites. These factors accentuate their natural physical abilities.

    When NBA teams go scouting for foreign talent they look to Europe, not Africa. The NFL has no zero interest in Africa for current and future talent. Blacks can only reach their potential in white nations under white guidance.

    Most black African nations show very poorly in the Olympics outside of a few track and distance running events.

    Imagine if millions of West Africans played football and basketball from a young age and benefited from the “training methods and nutritional programs” invented by whites. The NBA would be over 95% black rather than 80% black. Whites in America also benefit from the same “methods” and nutrition and outnumber blacks 5 to 1. Roughly 90-95% of blacks in the NBA and NFL appear to be purely negroid. Only a tiny fraction are Mulattoes. Every cornerback in the NFL is black. Not one is white, or even a mulatto.

    Isn’t it ironic that myriads of blacks earn hundreds of thousands or millions or even tens of millions of dollars playing games invented by American white men, and that blacks would never have invented. You’d think they’d be a bit grateful, that such a reality would mitigate their hatred of whites and view of blacks as a victim-class. But no!

    Read More
    • Replies: @KenH

    Imagine if millions of West Africans played football and basketball from a young age and benefited from the “training methods and nutritional programs” invented by whites.
     
    But they aren't because their limited brain power cannot conceive of such things. It takes white people to show them the way. Without that, they are unspectacular at most things.

    Whites in America also benefit from the same “methods” and nutrition and outnumber blacks 5 to 1.
     
    Whites don't have a 5-1 advantage in the under 25-30 age group. Whites are highest in the higher age brackets but are declining in the lower age brackets and are now minority in the under 5 bracket.

    And there is a level of discrimination against white athletes that goes unreported. A website called caste football has documented this trend. This doesn't mean that college football or the NFL would be all white but white representation across the board would increase if this was addressed.

    The New England Patriots have one of the whitest rosters in the NFL (a fact decried by some sports announcers) and seem to either win the super bowl or play in the AFC conference championship every year. The Boston Celtics of much the 1980's used to have three white starters and won three championships and narrowly lost several others.

    Duke used to dominate college basketball with their majority white rosters. Since whites are 50% or less of the under 25 population the demographics of the Duke roster have changed although they are still very good. Gonzaga's roster is nearly 50% white and a few light skinned blacks and they are in the final four. Butler made the national championship game twice with mostly white rosters in 2010 and 2011. Would the mostly black or all black teams who win be so great without white coaches? I doubt it.


    Roughly 90-95% of blacks in the NBA and NFL appear to be purely negroid. Only a tiny fraction are Mulattoes.
     
    Yeah, "appear to be", but looks are deceiving. American blacks average 17-18% white DNA.
    http://blackdemographics.com/geography/african-american-dna/

    Every cornerback in the NFL is black. Not one is white, or even a mulatto.

     

    That's a position they've dominated for decades. Just like whites dominate the QB position in spite of the unofficial affirmative action by the NFL to start promoting black quarterbacks. Most of them suck and don't measure up to most white quarterbacks.

    You’d think they’d be a bit grateful,
     
    Fat chance. Most of them are jerks who think they are the world's greatest athletes.
  30. @SMK
    Imagine if millions of West Africans played football and basketball from a young age and benefited from the "training methods and nutritional programs" invented by whites. The NBA would be over 95% black rather than 80% black. Whites in America also benefit from the same "methods" and nutrition and outnumber blacks 5 to 1. Roughly 90-95% of blacks in the NBA and NFL appear to be purely negroid. Only a tiny fraction are Mulattoes. Every cornerback in the NFL is black. Not one is white, or even a mulatto.

    Isn't it ironic that myriads of blacks earn hundreds of thousands or millions or even tens of millions of dollars playing games invented by American white men, and that blacks would never have invented. You'd think they'd be a bit grateful, that such a reality would mitigate their hatred of whites and view of blacks as a victim-class. But no!

    Imagine if millions of West Africans played football and basketball from a young age and benefited from the “training methods and nutritional programs” invented by whites.

    But they aren’t because their limited brain power cannot conceive of such things. It takes white people to show them the way. Without that, they are unspectacular at most things.

    Whites in America also benefit from the same “methods” and nutrition and outnumber blacks 5 to 1.

    Whites don’t have a 5-1 advantage in the under 25-30 age group. Whites are highest in the higher age brackets but are declining in the lower age brackets and are now minority in the under 5 bracket.

    And there is a level of discrimination against white athletes that goes unreported. A website called caste football has documented this trend. This doesn’t mean that college football or the NFL would be all white but white representation across the board would increase if this was addressed.

    The New England Patriots have one of the whitest rosters in the NFL (a fact decried by some sports announcers) and seem to either win the super bowl or play in the AFC conference championship every year. The Boston Celtics of much the 1980′s used to have three white starters and won three championships and narrowly lost several others.

    Duke used to dominate college basketball with their majority white rosters. Since whites are 50% or less of the under 25 population the demographics of the Duke roster have changed although they are still very good. Gonzaga’s roster is nearly 50% white and a few light skinned blacks and they are in the final four. Butler made the national championship game twice with mostly white rosters in 2010 and 2011. Would the mostly black or all black teams who win be so great without white coaches? I doubt it.

    Roughly 90-95% of blacks in the NBA and NFL appear to be purely negroid. Only a tiny fraction are Mulattoes.

    Yeah, “appear to be”, but looks are deceiving. American blacks average 17-18% white DNA.

    http://blackdemographics.com/geography/african-american-dna/

    Every cornerback in the NFL is black. Not one is white, or even a mulatto.

    That’s a position they’ve dominated for decades. Just like whites dominate the QB position in spite of the unofficial affirmative action by the NFL to start promoting black quarterbacks. Most of them suck and don’t measure up to most white quarterbacks.

    You’d think they’d be a bit grateful,

    Fat chance. Most of them are jerks who think they are the world’s greatest athletes.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

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
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
Which superpower is more threatened by its “extractive elites”?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.