White Victimization

The need for a White Minorities Movement

The 2011 census revealed that across London, Leicester, Luton and Slough, approximately 4.5 million White British people already live as a minority. The release of the census results was significant as it legitimised what British Nationalism has been saying for years about the extent of mass immigration. No longer can opponents of demographic change be smeared as playing on peoples fears or as ‘racist’ by advocates of structural racism theories as if we had ‘White Privilege’, why would we allow ourselves to become a minority?

Now provides the perfect opportunity to launch a movement representing these new white minorities as being a localised minority but a majority of the population nationally enables us to warn of the dangers of demographic change whilst we still have time to motivate the remaining majority to do something about it.

Brexit changes everything- not just because UKIP is now out of the picture- but most crucially because politicians can no longer use discussing Eastern European immigration as a way to talk about immigration without mentioning demographic change. By combining our traditional cultural and security focused arguments with social, economic and political arguments against demographic change we can back the main parties into a corner as, whilst the main parties can try to argue that immigration is good for voters through bringing in tax receipts to pay for pensions, they can’t say the same about their own voters becoming a minority.

People only vote for the main parties as they think they are the only ones capable of governing, providing economic security and safeguarding public services. If we can prove that the rapid demographic change the main parties support undermines this, then we can build a mass movement. It’s impossible to argue in favour of becoming a minority without the main parties exposing their hatred of their own population.

So what does becoming a minority mean really mean for peoples everyday lives? Read more

Blacks As Emotional Abusers of Whites: The Exploration of a Possibility

There is an aggressive, unreasonable, even neurotic, quality in the outlook and behavior of blacks toward whites currently that wasn’t present — at least not nearly to this extent — in prior decades.  The term that captures this quality or thrust for me: it is abusive of white people.  I think it may be helpful to look at black-white relations in our time from an abuse angle.

Recently, I wrote an article for this magazine that recounted episodes on the Dartmouth and Yale campuses.

A group of blacks, shouting Black Lives Matter chants and wielding protest signs burst into the Dartmouth University library where several dozen white students were studying.  “Stand the fuck up you filthy racist white pieces of shit!” they screamed.  They pushed and shoved the young white women and men.  One of the women, pinned to the wall with the blacks yelling “filthy white bitch” in her face, began to cry.   “Fuck your white tears,” one of her attackers sneered.   [The white students acquiesced to this attack on them, and as far as I know, no one at the university came to their defense.]

At Yale University a black female student snarled at a white male faculty member who also was an adviser in a residence college: “Who the fuck hired you?  You should not sleep at night!  You are disgusting!”  His response was to say that the student had “broken his heart.”  He apologized to her — “I have disappointed you and I’m truly sorry”—and then he resigned. 1

I don’t recall this wild-eyed, in-your-face, attack-mode behavior directed at individual white people in prior times.   This conduct is abusive.  And I have the distinct impression that if this kind of thing had happened to white students or faculty back then they wouldn’t have rolled up in a ball and taken it in the way whites did in these instances. Read more

The Riddle of Rotherham: “Mad Ash,” White Trash and the Hostile Elite

The Yorkshire town of Rotherham, that hotspot of vibrancy, is back in the news. A gang of Pakistani Muslims (and two White women) have just been jailed for what the judge described as an “appalling catalogue” of sex-crimes against under-aged White girls. The ringleader, Arshid “Mad Ash” Hussain, received 35 years; his brothers Basharat and Bannaras received 25 and 19 years respectively. According to their victims, the gang seemed to “rule Rotherham,” committing brazen crimes “with impunity” for two decades. And there are lots more like them. A lawyer has said: “This trial is just the first of many and it is the tip of a very big iceberg.”

“Tip of a very big iceberg”: Mad Ash & Co.

“Tip of a very big iceberg”: Mad Ash & Co.

The Rotherham Triangle

And there you see one of the deep mysteries about the vibrant rape-gangs of modern Britain. In smarmy liberal terminology, the Rotherham criminals are of “Pakistani heritage.” Pakistan was once part of the British Raj, an empire created when India was conquered by relatively small numbers of Whites from vast numbers of non-Whites. Whatever your opinion of British imperialism, this was an impressive military and strategic achievement. The higher intelligence, technology and organization of Whites gave them a decisive advantage over less intelligent and less organized non-Whites. Read more

Reply to Ron Unz

Ron Unz has been busy lately dealing with his critics. This is good news because it means that the word is getting out about his meritocracy paper. His most recent excursion was a beat down of of a 3500-word comment by Prof. Andrew Gelman (“Meritocracy: Response to Prof. Gelman on Jewish Elite Overrepresentation“). Unz defends his analysis that on Jewish overrepresentation quite well. However, toward the end, he attempts to lump my critique in with Gelman’s:

Still, [Gelman and Jane Mertz] are hardly alone in such carelessness.  By a remarkable coincidence, their critique was published almost simultaneously with that of a critical column by Prof. Kevin MacDonald, whose focus of greatest interest seems very similar to that of Prof. Mertz.  In Prof. MacDonald’s case, he chided me for no longer discussing the Jewish aspects of my analysis.  Apparently he, too, had failed to notice the same column of mine missed by Prof. Mertz.

In fact, I had noticed Unz’s previous column (“Unz on meritocracy: Yale debate and surname analysis“). Indeed, I linked to it toward the end of my article because it referred to several of his public appearances where he seems to focus entirely on discrimination against Asians. It therefore buttressed my point that Unz’s public comments at Yale and elsewhere, including his NRO article, have ignored the plight of non-Jewish Whites and have even failed to mention Jewish overrepresentation.

I am glad that Unz is defending his analysis of the data on Jews in these online exchanges because I have no quarrel with his analysis. It’s just that the real message of his data is that non-Jewish Whites are being discriminated against because of the huge overrepresentation of Jews. Again, the point of my column is that Asians are being discriminated against only with respect to Jews; when Jews and non-Jewish Whites are combined into one category, as is the practice by universities, there is no discernible discrimination against Asians. Moreover, when compared to Jews, Asians are being discriminated against far less than are non-Jewish Whites. But you would never know this from accounts of Unz’s public appearances, his NRO article, or in accounts of Unz’s work by writers like David Brooks in the New York Times mentioned in my column. Read more

Why has Ron Unz stopped talking about discrimination against non-Jewish Whites?

Ron Unz’s meritocracy article is an important analysis of discrimination against non-Jewish Whites in admission to elite universities. But you wouldn’t know it by following his recent writing and public presentations. For example, a recent article posted on National Review Online (“Racial Quotas, Harvard, and the legacy of Bakke) focused entirely on his findings on Asian Americans. No mention of non-Jewish Whites.

This obvious omission did not go unnoticed. In “The Minimum Wage, Immigration, and Affirmative Action“, Unz mentions “a prominent conservative hardliner, someone very critical of the Republican establishment, who wondered why my sole focus had been on Asians, rather than on the white victims of affirmative action in college admissions.”

I suspect that the conservative hardliner is concerned about the effects of Ivy League practices on non-Jewish White Americans, and, in any case, that is certainly my concern. But Unz doesn’t touch on this issue, preferring instead to chastise Republicans for focusing on quotas rather than other more subtle and less rigid forms of racial preference. I agree that the Republicans have avoided addressing racial presferences. But in his reply Unz makes it sound as though there is no problem at all with White enrollment:

On average, white percentages have declined substantially over the last twenty years, but so has the white fraction of the college-age population, and the two trends have generally moved in parallel.  The range of white percentages across the Ivy League in 1990 was roughly as wide as the range today, with no sign of collusion or “quotas” in either case.

But in his original article Unz showed that Asians aren’t being discriminated at all in terms of the admission to Harvard compared to Whites ( including Jews and Whites in one category). The ratio of Asian Harvard students compared to the Asian share of National Merit semifinalists is 63%, whereas for Whites (including Jews) the comparable ratio is 61%. That is, both groups are represented at Harvard at just over 60% of what they would be in a completely meritocratic system; the shortfall from a meritocratic result is due to affirmative action for Blacks and Latinos, as well as international students and students who don’t declare their race.

So Asians are not being discriminated against compared to Whites at all, if Jews are included in the White category. Read more

Ron Unz in the New York Times

In my article on Ron Unz’s  “The Myth of American Meritocracy” I noted that it did not get much buzz in the above ground media. But Unz managed to get a brief comment in the New York Times “Room for Debate” feature (“Fears of an Asian Quota in the Ivy League“).  Unz uses some of the data from his article to make the case that indeed discrimination is involved (“Statistics indicate an Ivy League Asian Quota“).

The only noteworthy comment was by Jeff Neal, director of university communications for the faculty of arts and sciences at Harvard. Neal attempts to combat the weight of statistics by assurances that admission is based on reviews that are “individualized and holistic.” In other words, they are completely opaque, so they can do what they want. And the result is a very large underrepresentation of Asians and the much larger underrepresentation of non-Jewish Whites controlled for academic achievement. Read more

Ron Unz on the illusory American meritocracy

French Translation, by Armor


An enduring aspect of the self-concept of Jews is that their ascent to elite status in America and elsewhere is the natural result of a meritocracy. For example, after Elena Kagan was nominated for the Supreme Court, Robert Frank penned an article in the Wall Street Journal (“That Bright, Dying Star, the American WASP”) hailing the rise of a meritocracy where Jews could finally assume their rightful place as an elite, and cheering the demise of those lazy, corrupt WASPs who did everything they could to thwart the rise of the Jews, including placing limits on Jewish enrollment in the elite universities.  The fact that Kagan is remarkably unqualified to be a Supreme Court Justice in terms of the usual standards (judicial experience, academic publications, or even courtroom experience) never seems to have entered his mind. In Frank’s view, her ascent from Princeton undergraduate to Harvard Law, to high-level government positions and dean of Harvard Law is the American meritocracy in action—a view that conveniently ignores the role of her Jewish ethnic connections (see also here) in greasing her ascent, most egregiously her appointment as dean of Harvard Law by Larry Summers.

Ron Unz has published a very important article showing that Kagan’s remarkable rise is a symptom of a far wider issue—that Jewish admission to elite universities is far from meritocratic (“The myth of American meritocracy: How corrupt are Ivy League admissions?”). (On the basis of Unz’s article, it would be interesting to look at Kagan’s SAT and LSAT scores!) Because of their role in replenishing elites, university admissions is a huge lever of power. The implication of Unz’s article (although he would probably shy away from this wording) is that a Jewish elite now controls this lever of power and has used it to its advantage, resulting in a massive overrepresentation of Jews in elite universities compared to their academic qualifications or intelligence, while discriminating against non-Jewish Whites and against Asians. Read more