Return to the NeoEugenics' Home Page

Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, and Future Reparations by Joe R. Feagin, 2000.

Joe R. Feagin is Professor of Sociology at the University of Florida in Gainesville and is currently President of the American Sociological Association. (Email

"It's all calculated. Don't ever believe that the Left acts spontaneously. Even when it is intuitive, it is an intuitive drive for power. These people want to be in control, and the only way they can do this is by exerting moral blackmail on everybody else." (Russian dissident Vladimir Bukovsky)

"Unlike most behaviorists, Hans Eysenck accepted both the 'reality' of intelligence differences and their mainly biological origins; and he had already upset social scientists in Britain by claiming that Nationalists and Communists might have underlying psychological traits of illiberalism, insensitivity and spitefulness genetically in common." (Brand, 1996)

In reading this book, in order to understand its real content, I had to look beyond what was being stated. I had to "deconstruct" the motive or purpose of this hateful diatribe against Whites, and especially White males.  Feagin is a Marxist and uses his dialectics to tell a story about how White Anglo-Saxon Protestants (WASP's) were the vilest oppressors to have ever inhabited the earth, primarily against African slaves and Native American Indians, and how this legacy of oppression still exists today.  According to Feagin, who relies on story telling rather than empirical facts, all of the current wealth held by these WASPs was stolen through slavery and that the wealth is still present today.  That is, much of what WASPs earn, own, or control comes from past oppression.  But he does not stop there.

He goes on to claim that there is a conspiracy amongst these WASPs still going on today to oppress and exploit Blacks.  He calls this systemic racism, and he tells some pretty tall tales about how it takes place.  Apparently, within the inner essence of these WASPs, they are maintaining a racist system in order to continue the oppression of Black people to further use Black labor for their own financial gain. Of course, every group tries to benefit their own. But where and how these WASPs still have the power or control to do this he doesn't really address.  In fact, most people who put forth such conspiracy theories are usually looked at with great skepticism or as just plain paranoid.  But in the circles of Marxist identity theories they seem to have an almost mythical explanation about the White human anthill acting as automatons, following some central dictum that keeps their mischief highly coordinated.  It reminded me of the conspiracy theories put forth in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, where Jews were conspiring to dominate the world in some fiendish plot. The truth is simply this, every group is going to act in such a way as to maximize their own benefits, and lately WASPs have been losing that game, not winning it. As David Horowitz has so elegantly pointed out in his attack on reparations for Blacks, there has already been a transfer of 5 billion dollars to Blacks since 1965. Why did the WASPs allow this to happen?

But in simpler terms, Feagin just hates WASPs, especially males; with his hatred for Whites diminishing as the vile nature of Whites in general gets farther away from the center core, like concentric circles.  In fact, the hate portrayed against Whites in this book was just a tad less ludicrous than Malcolm X's The End of White Racism, where Whites are portrayed as beasts with tails and all, no better than dogs.  But is this hatred just another form of bigotry?  Perhaps not.  It has more to do with an ongoing power struggle between the old Marxists and the general White population that is, contrary to Feagin's thesis, quite apolitical and unwilling to yield to a new totalitarian egalitarian state (Communism).  The very fact that Whites are so accepting of any and all races today, unlike in the past, poses a great threat to these Marxists. 

So why would the current President of the American Sociological Association take on such a bold indictment of a single race of people?  Because these Marxists feel betrayed by the very people they have sponsored, primarily through massive immigration into the United States after passage of the 1965 immigration act.  What has occurred since then is in fact more friction between these different racial or ethnic groups.  These new "people of color" immigrants were supposed to act in unison to depose White hegemony as the first step to a return to Communist egalitarianism.  They have not done that, and instead they have pursued their own interests and have as much hostility in general for Blacks as Whites do, and very often much more (see Kevin MacDonald's paper "An Integrative Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity" at ). Feagin's anticipated emancipation of all the oppressed peoples, forming a singular block of people against the hated White man, is not going according to plan.  So he lashes out even more against Whites, accusing them of "corrupting" these marginally "non-Whites" by manipulating this racial conspiracy to fragment them into opposing factions.

Throughout this book, it is apparent that Feagin is trying as hard as he can to be divisive without really being very clear about the groups who are to be reviled.  He includes in his "people of color" category: Asians, Asian Indians, North African Caucasians, Amerindians, Semites, and even Latinos.  So even if you are White, if you have a Spanish surname you become a "person of color."  In addition, he even seems to exclude White women in his grand conspiracy theory.  Throughout the book, it is always "White men" who are the oppressors, as if the White women were some other species or race.  And to complicate his xenophobia even more, he starts out by attacking primarily those Whites who were slave owners, and then as time goes by he starts including in the same broad category those Whites from countries who not only immigrated long after slavery ended, but also took up residence in parts of rural or small town America where there were no Blacks to oppress or even to give much thought about one way or the other.  But he manages to weave his web of conspiracy, through a series of "just so" stories, never providing any real empirical facts or complete explanations.

But this is why social science has strayed so far from the rest of empirically based science in the last few decades, and why it is so dominated with Marxists.  When it comes to explaining the Black-White disparity in earnings, wealth, health, and a myriad of other social pathologies that afflict Blacks, social scientists never include in their studies the fact that Blacks have an extremely low average intelligence.  If this fact was included, then the racist argument no longer has any basis and the disparities can be explained in terms of genes, not prejudice.[1]

Scientists today rely on accepted tools and procedures when they try to make a case such as Feagin's mythical systemic racism.  You can't just make up a theory and indict a whole race of people by supporting its truthfulness with a series of speculations.  First, science requires several simple rules and procedures: Parsimony or using simple explanations over the incredulous machinations of facts and figures; meta-analyses to make complicated correlations between variables by combining many independent and confounding studies; and the theory must be falsifiable.[2],[3]  Racist America fails all three.  But the flaws only begin with these basic scientific errors.

Jensenenism Denied.

Over the last thirty years the radical environmentalists or cultural determinists have been in retreat.  Simultaneously the left has attacked all of sociobiology, the genetic basis for intelligence, and the fact that there could exist genetic biological and behavioral trait differences between racial groups.  Today, those who once attacked sociobiology no longer have any scientific standing; the debate is over (see Defenders of the Truth: The Battle for Science in the Sociobiology Debate and Beyond, 2000 ).  In addition, it is commonly accepted that intelligence is 60 to 80% heritable and it has been so stated by a task force put together by the American Psychological Association in response to the publication of The Bell Curve in 1994. (see Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns, 1995 at )  Now, the only final remaining debate with regards to genetic differences in intelligence between different population groups or races is all but over.  The differences are real, and the races differ in average intelligence. (see my review of The g Factor: The Science of Mental Ability, 1998,  by Arthur Jensen at and from the journal INTELLIGENCE, Jensenism is discussed .)

Neo-Darwinism Denied.

To base a whole book on the evils of White supremacy may appeal to the mass public. After all, they have been fed this fear of the vast right wing conspiracy for over 50 years now and have been led to believe that humans should all just get along.  But Feagin ignores two extremely important fundamental concepts in his racism.  First, he holds slave owners of 150 years ago and more to the same moral standards that we have today.  Any scholar today with his credentials knows that morality changes, as morality is nothing more than the current ethos or value system of people at any particular time.  In fact, these same Marxist sociologists embrace moral relativism except when in applies to Whites.  Morality is not constant nor is it sustainable as a normative absolute.  So no indictment can be made against the WASP slaveholders in the United States when there were slaveholders of different races, including Blacks and Indians, over most of the world at one time or another.  This moral argument is a non sequitur.  But most of the book is based on laying all of the world's slavery history on Whites only, and WASPs in particular.

Second, Feagin also ignores group evolutionary strategies.  There is no evidence that any racial or ethnic group is going to capitulate to some utopian dream of equality and voluntarily give up any acquired resources or privileges easily.  Yes, humans do show some universal altruism, but only when it does not hurt too much to give or share.  When push comes to shove, every group wants to acquire more wealth, status and power.  And I suspect that this desire for power and status is what really drives Feagin's hatred of all White people.  He envisioned a multiculturalist society not for its goodness, but for its ability to destroy Whites. Whites are seen as too powerful and too successful and they are in the way of a renewed effort at a universalist egalitarianism that will lead to another totalitarianism by the elite Feagin's of the world.  This desire for complete control and dominance has always been the underlying desire of Marxists, to use the masses to destroy their enemies, who ever they are at the time. (See MacDonald's trilogy on evolutionary group strategies with a review of these works at


Feagin pg. 2: Police harassment and brutality directed at black men, women, and children are as old as American society, dating back to the days of slavery and Jim Crow segregation. Such police actions across the nation today reveal important aspects of the racism dealt with in this book --- the commonplace discriminatory practices of individual whites, the images of dangerous blacks dancing in white heads, the ideology legitimating antiblack images, and the white-dominated institutions that allow or encourage such practices. In the United States racism is structured into the rhythms of everyday life. It is lived, concrete, advantageous for whites, and painful for those who are not white. Each major part of a black or white person's life is shaped by racism. Even a person's birth and parents are shaped by racism, since mate selection is limited by racist pressures against interracial marriage. Where one lives is often determined by the racist practices of landlords, bankers, and others in the real estate profession. The clothes one wears and what one has to eat are affected by access to resources that varies by position in the racist hierarchy. When one goes off to school, her or his education is shaped by contemporary racism --- from the composition of the student body to the character of the curriculum. Where one goes to church is often shaped by racism, and it is likely that racism affects who one's political representatives are. Even getting sick, dying, and being buried may be influenced by racism. Every part of the life cycle, and most aspects of one's life, are shaped by the racism that is integral to the foundation of the United States.

Or, there may be differences in the way some races behave and there may be differences in the preferences one shows for his or her own race.  Opposition to miscegenation is often lamented as racist, and yet there is sound evolutionary evidence that people like to associate and eventually marry others who are more like themselves.  Blacks are more comfortable with Blacks, Jews are more comfortable with Jews, and Asians with other Asians.  In fact, studies have shown that different racial groups will mingle and marry with other racial groups that are more alike.  For example, genetic studies put Eastern Asians and Whites closer together genetically than even Eastern Asians and Southern Asians. And guess what, Eastern Asians intermarry quite readily with Whites, and there is far more mingling regardless of gender.  On the other hand, few White men would marry a Black woman.  Men prefer lighter skinned women according to evolutionary studies and they also want their mates to be as intelligent as they are.  On the other hand, White women are willing to marry Black men in cases where the men have resources (O. J. Simpson) or where the women can cut a better deal with a Black man because she is either unattractive or of low intelligence, and probably both.  But Blacks and Whites do not marry often because genetically they are just too dissimilar.  Is this racism?  I think not.  Other racial groups not only don't intermarry but they also have strong social taboos against race mixing.  Asian Indians under their Caste system expect their children to marry into the same Caste.  And Jews also condemn interracial marriages, even if the other person will convert, for fear of racial contamination.[4]

Feagin pg. 3: No other racially oppressed group has been so central to the internal economic, political, and cultural structure and evolution of American society --- or to the often obsessively racist ideology developed by white Americans over many generations. Thus, it is time to put white-on-black oppression fully at the center of a comprehensive study of the development, meaning, and reality of this nation. In this book I develop an antiracist theory and analysis of the white-on-black oppression that is now nearly four centuries old. Theory is a set of ideas designed to make sense of the empirical and existential reality in and around us. Concepts delineating and probing racism need to be clear and honed by everyday experience, not framed from an ivory tower. Here I attempt to develop concepts, in language understandable to the nonspecialist, that can be used for an in-depth analysis of this racist society. These concepts are designed to help readers probe beneath the many defenses and myths about "race" to the often painful racist realities. They are useful in countering inaccurate assessments of the society's history and institutions. They can be used to reshape the socialization that hampers insight into the operation of this society. A critical theory of racism can help us better understand the racialized dimensions of lives.

Interpretation?  Feagin is going to tell you one sob story after another, and in your weeping you will come to see that this theory of racism is correct.  But of course, everyone has a sob story and it proves little or nothing.  Feagin fails to develop any coherence in his story as I will show, but he does do a good job of spreading bigotry and hatred against all White people in general.  That is, he is highly prejudiced and shuns all empirical data to prove his point.  He is a racist trying to get everyone else to hate Whites.  He is encouraging totalitarian actions against the race he so deeply hates and despises.

Feagin pg. 4: Currently, we have theoretical traditions that are well developed in regard to the systems of class and gender oppression.  There is a well-developed Marxist tradition with its many important conceptual contributions. The Marxist tradition provides a powerful theory of oppression centered on such key concepts as class struggle, worker exploitation, and alienation. Marxism identifies the basic social forces undergirding class oppression, shows how human beings are alienated in class relations, and points toward activist remedies for oppression. Similarly, in feminist analysis there is a diverse and well-developed conceptual framework targeting key aspects of gendered oppression. Major approaches accent the social construction of sexuality, the world gender order, and the strategy of consciousness-raising. Feminist theorists have argued that at the heart of sexism is the material reality of reproduction and sexuality, the latter including how a woman is treated and viewed sexually and how she views herself In both the Marxist and feminist traditions there are also well-developed theories of resistance and change.

Yes Feagin, we have seen this Marxist tradition before.  It managed to slaughter over 100 million people over the last 100 years, all in the name of peace and equality.  A return to totalitarian Communism is not a good way to solve the problem he describes. If it is really as bad as he states, and there is not a viable way of making all people equal, then it would be far better to allow people who don't get along to just separate peaceably.  But here is the dilemma, if other races voluntarily left America, Feagin would feel all alone again against the oppressive White man.  Of course, he could just leave himself, and find a country more to his liking, perhaps Israel if they will have him.

Feagin pg. 5: As I will show in this book, however, the central problem is that, from the beginning, European American institutions were racially hierarchical, white supremacist, and undemocratic. For the most part, they remain so today.

I wonder what utopian country Feagin would like us to emulate that is nonhierarchical and democratic?  What is democracy?   Does he mean real democracy or representative democracy?  Has there ever been a country with direct democracy?  Are not humans naturally hierarchical?  And aren't most ethnic groups also supremacist if that means just feeling good about themselves?  Again, Feagin is showing his hatred of Western culture. He hates Whites and he will throughout this book try to slander us with terms like racist, supremacist, oppressive, etc.  And yet, he offers no evidence for any other nation or ethnic group that does not behave similar to Americans. So what do we stand accused of?  As Michael Levin states in his superb book Why Race Matters, "Calling claims of genetic race differences 'racist,' in particular, begs not one but four questions: (1) Are race differences in themselves bad? (2) Is believing in race differences bad? (3) Is saying there are race differences bad? (4) Is studying race differences bad? Once it is realized that an affirmative answer to each of these questions must be established before the charge of racism can be made to stick, the charge itself collapses."

Feagin pg. 6: I develop a theoretical framework centered on the concept of systemic racism, viewed as a centuries-old foundation of American society. Systemic racism includes the complex array of antiblack practices, the unjustly gained political-economic power of whites, the continuing economic and other resource inequalities along racial lines, and the white racist ideologies and attitudes created to maintain and rationalize white privilege and power. Systemic here means that the core racist realities are manifested in each of society's major parts. If you break a three-dimensional hologram into separate parts and shine a laser through any one part, you can project the whole three-dimensional image again from within that part. Like a hologram, each major part of U.S. society --- the economy, politics, education, religion, and family --- reflects the fundamental reality of systemic racism.

Notice he is going to "develop a theoretical framework centered on the concept of systemic racism."  That's the beauty of Marxism. You can just think up any old theory you want and then talk about almost anything and in the end say it is proven. But there is no proof.  He never resolves the circularity of his arguments.  He first needs to prove that the two population groups --- Blacks and Whites --- are absolutely equal in ability and especially intelligence to make his case. But he never even comes close to addressing that issue.  And by ignoring these genetic differences in intelligence, he has committed a fundamental error in research --- ignoring a known and fundamentally important variable.

Feagin pg. 7: As we begin a new millennium, whites are a modest minority of the world's population and are gradually becoming a statistical minority in the United States. Today, whites constitute less than half the population of four of the nation's largest cities --- New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. They will soon make up less than half the population in large areas of the nation, including the largest states. Demographers forecast that if current trends continue whites will be a statistical minority in California by approximately the year 2002 and in Texas by approximately the year 2010. Sometime in the middle of the twenty-first century, whites will likely be a minority of the U.S. population. Over the next few decades this demographic change will likely bring great pressures for change in the racist practices and institutions in the United States. Moreover, as the world's peoples of color become more influential in international politics and economics, still other pressures will likely be put on the institutions of the United States to treat all people of color with greater fairness and justice. . . . The right to a life free from racial alienation and racist oppression is clearly enunciated in international law and morality. Today, the United States stands judged by international human rights doctrine and law as still unjust and inegalitarian.

Here Feagin has just shown how absurd his theory is.  White Americans have been told for years that we will soon be a minority.  If we were really as racist and as organized as Feagin claims, why would we not change the immigration laws and slow immigration down to a trickle?  Is it because we need cheap labor?  Are we so in need of this cheap labor that we would sacrifice our own majority and dominant position?  Never. No racially aware group would submit to this subjugation.  In fact, most White Americans are against current levels of immigration and want to reduce the numbers to give immigrants a chance to assimilate.  But the fact is Whites are so disorganized and passive on these issues that only a small percentage of us take much notice, even when Feagin throughout this book warns us that we will suffer greatly once we are outnumbered.  How can such a racist nation do so little to turn back what every dominant race in every nation in the world is always concerned about, becoming a minority?  The fact is, White Americans are extremely passive with regards to race and immigration.  If we were even remotely racist, we would close the immigration gates.

Feagin pg. 13: Generally, the founders viewed Americans from Africa as slaves by natural law. Conceptualized as inferior beings, these Africans were fit by nature for enslavement by whites. Natural law was also used to explain why the white male founders and their compatriots could subordinate two other large groups --- white women and Native Americans. White women were not directly mentioned in the Constitution, and their legal rights under local and national laws were limited. In Article I of the Constitution, the section dealing with Congress regulating interstate and foreign commerce adds relations with "Indian tribes," indicating that indigenous peoples were not generally seen by the founders as part of their new nation. Until the mid- to late nineteenth century, indigenous societies were generally viewed as separate nations, with some whites advocating treaty making, land purchases, and the "civilizing" of Native Americans while others pressed for land theft, extermination, or removal of all Native Americans to the distant western areas of the new nation.

This was pretty much how the world operated just a few hundred years ago. And in fact it has always been true in our evolutionary past that patriarchy, genocide, and dominance has been the norm for our species.  What needs to be answered in terms of human behavior is why we have strayed so far from our tribalism and have become so tolerant and passive with regards to group conflicts.  Evolutionists are in fact quite puzzled as to why reciprocal altruism within the tribe has now run amok and has crossed tribal boundaries. No one is quite sure why but I will speculate that it has to do with our very wealth that we pay so little attention to "the other."  That is, we have become tolerant because we are safe, and we are well off.  So again, Feagin fails to convince.  In fact, in terms of ethnocentrism or xenophobia, Northern Europeans have been shown to be the least racist and the most tolerant of any of the major racial groups.  They only react when threatened as is human nature, and Feagin does make a good case for Whites to sit up and take notice of what is happening to their once prosperous culture.

Feagin pg. 16: The black intellectual tradition is a rich source for developing a far more accurate and systemic view of this American house of racism. Drawing on the analyses of Frederick Douglass, W. E. B. Du Bois, Oliver Cox, Anna Julia Cooper, Kwame Ture, and Frantz Fanon, among others, I accent here a conceptual framework understanding American racism as centuries-long, deep-lying, institutionalized, and systemic. As I suggested in the introduction, systemic racism includes a diverse assortment of racist practices; the unjustly gained economic and political power of whites; the continuing resource inequalities; and the white-racist ideologies, attitudes, and institutions created to preserve white advantages and power. One can accurately describe the United States as a "total racist society" in which every major aspect of life is shaped to some degree by the core racist realities.

No where does Feagin list the "ideologies, attitudes, and institutions created to preserve white advantage and power."  In fact, if that were the case and Whites have this kind of power and control, then why are Whites not the ones with all the money and wealth? Over the past few decades, by far the wealthiest and most powerful race of people is the Ashkenazi Jews.  By their own admission and bravado, they have declared that they make almost twice as much money as Whites, own ten times the wealth, and control politics, the media, and the professions far in excess of their numbers.  In addition, they make up by far the largest majority of students in the Ivy League universities. So what happened to all this so-called White racism?  If White racism has made Whites better off than Blacks on a number of parameters like wealth, health, and power; then the Jews have far more explaining to do with regards to institutionalized racism against all other groups because they have those things that Feagin claims Whites have because of racism alone.  And in addition to that, Asians have more income than Whites also.  So where is this institutionalized racism?  It doesn't seem to be helping Whites.  Maybe the Jews and the Asians are the new supremacists, and Feagin just never noticed. (see The Phenomenon of the Jews at for the latest tabulation by a Jew of who owns what.)

Feagin pg. 18: Undeserved impoverishment and Enrichment. Analyzing Europe's colonization of Africa, Du Bois demonstrated that extreme poverty and degradation in the African colonies was "a main cause of wealth and luxury in Europe. The results of this poverty were disease, ignorance, and crime. Yet these had to be represented as natural characteristics of backward peoples." The unjust and brutal exploitation of African labor and land had long been downplayed in most historical accounts of European affluence. By bringing the unjust impoverishment of Africa back into the picture, Du Bois showed that this impoverishment was directly and centrally linked to European prosperity and affluence. A similar connection needs to be made between the immiseration [incapable of blending in] and impoverishment of black Americans and the enrichment and prosperity of European Americans.

But even today we see that Blacks cannot prosper in Africa.  I would submit that no sub-Saharan African civilization ever existed, no language was ever developed, and that because of their low average IQ of 70, reported on consistently by many scholars including a Black psychologist, that Africa's impoverishment is due to Blacks --- not Whites. Now that Whites have retreated from Africa those few areas that did have some prosperity are falling apart.  Blacks are incapable of civilization as we know it because of their innate low intelligence.  In addition, Feagin obfuscates the facts by lumping sub-Saharan Africans in with Northern Africans who are not Blacks but are a mixture and have alternated between predominately Caucasian and predominately African over the past ten thousand years or more because of cross migrations, and no doubt a lot of slavery not only from the south but from the Northern barbarians.  No one knows for sure the racial makeup of these people, but they were certainly not sub-Saharan Africans.

Feagin pg. 19: Slavery's impact extended beyond the economy. Each institutional arena in the new nation was controlled by whites and was closely linked to other major arenas. As we have seen, the new Constitution and its "democratic" political system were grounded in the racist thinking and practices of white men, many of whom had links to slavery. Those who dominated the economic system crafted the political system. Likewise the religious, legal, educational, and media systems were interlinked with the slavery economy and polity. Woven through each institutional area was a broad racist ideology --- a set of principles and views --- centered on rationalizing white-on-black domination and creating positive views of whiteness.

Sounds to me like American attitudes and practices were pretty much the practice for that era around the world. Slavery, intolerance, barbarity, dominance, and all those nasty human proclivities at the time were pretty standard fair for any civilization that had the opportunity and the technology to take advantage of a good thing.  You could take any country, anywhere and tell a similar story.  Of course, some population groups were too isolated or poor to have a written record of their supposed sins.  But our founding fathers were just regular guys, with attitudes that prevailed pretty much everywhere when it came to dominance, democracy and "the other."  To single out one race, the White race, is bigotry.  As Feagin knows full well, the same story could be told for almost any tribe or any nation in the world prior to the twentieth century.  And still, similar attitudes and conflicts are occurring still today in Indonesia, Malaysia, throughout the Balkans, and the Arab countries, China and Southeast Asia, and let us not forget --- Africa.  No, only a bigot and a racist like Feagin would single out one people and one nation and heap all of the world's scorn on them without recourse.  We Whites have been judged and found guilty by Marxism for no other reason than Marxists need to destroy us in order to dominate and control the world for themselves.  To do that, they must undermine our will to resist these absurd accusations.

Feagin pg. 20: People do not experience "race" in the abstract but in concrete recurring relationships with one another. Individuals, whether they are the perpetrators of discrimination or the recipients of discrimination, are caught in a complex web of alienating racist relations. These socially imbedded racist relations distort what could be engaging and egalitarian relationships into alienated relationships. The system of racism categorizes and divides human beings from each other and thus severely impedes the development of common consciousness and solidarity. It fractures human nature by separating those defined and elevated as the "superior race" against those defined and subordinated as the "inferior race." As a result, life under a system of racism involves an ongoing struggle between racially defined human communities --- one seeking to preserve its unjustly derived status and privileges and the other seeking to overthrow its oppression.

Of course race is concrete. What race you are depends on how you are treated. If you are Black you get treated with advantages that Whites do not have.  It is very difficult for an employer to fire a Black person because of Black group privileges.  If you want to get a college degree, you do not have to be as smart as a White to get your credentials.  If an employer wants to hire fairly by giving examinations to all applicants equally he is prevented from doing so because of special considerations for Black's poor performance on tests.  When government contracts are handed out, a certain percentage of the money has to be given to Black owned businesses just because they belong to a select racial group.  Billions of dollars are spent on Black special education over what Whites receive per pupil because they account for far more students with remedial skills.  Yes, quotas and special programs for Blacks have divided humans who could get past race if it were not for one thing  ---  Marxists like Feagin refusing to admit that different races have different innate abilities  ---  on average.  If everyone was just treated as individuals, and allowed to live where and how they desire without special programs for minorities to slant the playing field in their favor, then these racial tensions would go away.  But Feagin's agenda is not for racial harmony but for racial warfare.  Marxism is based on conflict between groups.  Without it, they have no program and if need be they will create it for their ultimate goal  ---  complete and total control of human behavior under a totalitarian egalitarian socialism, even if it means a new round of death and slaughter to bring that about.  To do this they must fracture apart countries like the United States by pitting races against each other.

Feagin pg. 63: Clashes with whites became frequent as black workers and their families moved into northern cities. Whites sometimes used violence to enforce informal patterns of discrimination. During one white-generated riot in 1900 in New York, a mostly Irish police force encouraged whites to attack black men, women, and children. One of the most serious riots occurred in 1917 in East St. Louis. There white workers, viewing black immigrants from the South as a job threat, violently attacked a black community. Thirty-nine black residents and nine white attackers were killed. This was followed in 1919 by a string of white riots from Chicago to Charleston.  Opposition to black workers searching for jobs has been a recurring cause of antiblack violence. Black workers have periodically become scapegoats when a serious economic crisis threatens white livelihoods. They, as well as Asian, Latino, and Jewish Americans, have been singled out as targets of anger, even though they are not responsible for the employment or other economic problems of white workers. Acceptance of the dominant racist ideology has meant that many white workers have little understanding of how a capitalistic system operates against their own interests.

Note here how Feagin says it is wrong and irrational for Whites deprived of work because of bad economic times to lash out at Blacks.  It is wrong to blame others for their condition, he says.  But, that is in fact what Feagin is doing throughout this book; he is blaming Whites for the poor condition of Blacks.  If Whites irrationally blamed Blacks for loss of jobs it is equally irrational for Feagin to now blame Whites because Blacks do not have jobs in accordance with their increased expectations.  Is there any proof for either case?  Well, it can be shown that during hard times, one group can compete with another group over jobs.  We are using foreign labor now as scapegoats for loss of jobs in the US, where Feagin blames capitalists for sending jobs offshore.  Isn't he doing the same thing that the Whites were doing against the Blacks, lashing out at capitalists over loss of jobs?  Feagin makes these errors throughout the book, using every bit of history, anecdote and innuendo to lay all of the blame for Black pathology at the feet of Whites, while he simultaneously castigates Whites who express concerns for their own well-being.  Such hypocrisy is truly profound.  The fact is, as should be known even by a Marxist who is even a little bit familiar with evolutionary principles, kin matters more than class.  That is, every racial group will try to get more as a group from every other group if they can.  We can see this group evolutionary strategy in play by the very nature of this book, where Feagin is using Blacks to further his goals.  That is, he is using Blacks as his surrogates to now oppress Whites for his own advantages, by trying to recapture the moral capital needed to suppress racial comparison with regards to intelligence, conscientiousness and ethnocentrism.

Feagin pg. 64: The globalization of U.S. racism began in the late 1800s and the early 1900s. U.S. citizens, including government officials, often brought racist ideas and practices to other parts of the world. By 1900 the U.S. government created systems of white dominance in its colonies, including Cuba and the Philippines. During World War I the French government received a formal complaint from the U.S. military command that the French people were treating black American soldiers too well, and U.S. military authorities gave the French government instructions on how to treat black soldiers in discriminatory fashion.

Feagin here needs to establish a mechanism to explain how it is that when foreigners from many different parts of the world come to America, they experience the same attitudes towards Blacks as everyone else.  It never occurs to him I guess that immigrants of many countries recognize in Blacks what we here have always seen so easily.  But what Feagin fails to establish is how this great transference of racist attitudes with regards to Blacks got transmitted to the masses of foreign countries before movies, radio, television, books and newspaper coverage was readily available to these serfs from many lands.  Does Feagin really think they spent all their leisure time studying American literary works?  That is absurd and frighteningly naïve.  But of course, I think Feagin really knows better, but to make his case against Whites he had to somehow show why other immigrants also have the same attitudes as Whites, including immigrants of color.

Feagin pg. 68: Creating a Racist Ideology.  The expansion of Europe from the 1400s to the early 1900s eventually brought colonial exploitation to more than 80 percent of the globe. The resulting savagery, exploitation, and resource inequalities were global, and they stemmed, as W. E. B. DuBois has noted, from letting a "single tradition of culture suddenly have thrust into its hands the power to bleed the world of its brawn and wealth, and the willingness to do this."  For the colonizing Europeans it was not enough to bleed the world of its labor and resources. The colonizers were not content to exploit indigenous peoples and view that exploitation simply as "might makes right." Instead, they vigorously justified what they had done for themselves and their descendants. Gradually, a broad racist ideology rationalized the oppression and thereby reduced its apparent moral cost for Europeans.

But of course this is not new.  Every great civilization that had the resources, the power, the technology, and the drive to do so conquered without mercy large portions of the known world.  From the Greeks, the Mongols, the Aztecs, the Vikings, the Romans, the Muslims, and the Ottoman Empire to name just a few did exactly the same thing.  The point is, Europe wanted wealth and to explore the world, and along with the capability to do so they conquered others (for a time).  Just like every other great civilization (and small civilizations alike) tried to do.  In nature, might does make right.  There is no normative moral system yet devised that can show otherwise.  Humans have enormous capacities for barbarism and it can be found in every racial group under the right conditions.  To single out Europeans is just plain hate on the part of Feagin, but then I understand it.  He carries in him the same capacity for both hate of the other and love as any other human being.  It is a part of nature and what makes us social animals.  Love of our own and hatred of the other is natural.  Especially when the other is seen as a threat or a hindrance to one's evolutionary goals, including power and resource acquisition.  What is so sad is that Feagin is using Blacks to get back at Whites via Marxism.  We have seen variations of this formula so often now that it is amazing it is still not recognized by other susceptible Whites (see MacDonald link above).

Feagin pg. 69: An ideology is a set of principles and views that embodies the basic interests of a particular social group [ethos]. Typically, a broad ideology encompasses expressed attitudes and is constantly reflected in the talk and actions of everyday life. One need not know or accept the entire ideology for it to have an impact on thought or action. Thus, each person may participate only in certain fragments of an ideology. Ideologies are usually created by oppressors to cover what they do, and counter ideologies are often developed by the oppressed in their struggle against domination.

Of course, from 1917 to the present the world has been trying to get out from under the tyranny of Communism, the Marxist ideology that is determined to slaughter any group or class of people that gets in the way of their egalitarian dystopia.  Feagin follows in that tradition of revolutionaries who try to use the masses and the downtrodden for their personal gain in subjugating all opposition to their unified vision of the culturally determined human.  Nature is to be ignored, and he and his elitist ideologues will use class warfare to get control.  They hate anyone and any democratic system that does not yield to their demands, until all they have left is to invent new causations such as systemic racism to explain human social dysfunction.  And after each one of these new theories are debunked, others will follow.  The overriding truism is that all of these social science theories are failures because they do not have a workable paradigm such as sociobiology or evolutionary theory to explain their observations.  They still cling to cultural determinism, hoping that behavior genetics and the Human Genome Project will someday disappear under their authoritarian hammer of censorship.  Have no doubt, these Marxists are determined to suppress freedom of speech as they have in most of Europe when it comes to discussing racial differences, because it is the last escape from the truth for tyrants.

Feagin pg. 70: Major ideological frameworks, including racist frameworks, are typically created, codified, and maintained by those at the top of a society, although this construction takes place in ongoing interaction with the views and practices of ordinary citizens. Those with the greater power have the greater ability to impose their own ideas on others. As Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels long ago pointed out, "the ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e. the class, which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force." Elites have dominated the creation, discussion, and dissemination of system-rationalizing ideas in business, the media, politics, education, churches, and government. While there is indeed much popularly generated racist imagery and discourse, even this is usually codified and embellished by the elites. As with most important ideas, if the elites had been opposed to the development of the racist ideology, they would have actively combated it, and it would likely have declined in importance. Thus, in his detailed analysis of the racist ideas and actions of presidents from George Washington to Bill Clinton, Kenneth O'Reilly has shown that conventional wisdom about presidents following a racist populace is wrongheaded. The historical evidence shows that most of the men who control U.S. political institutions have worked hard "to nurture and support the nation's racism."  Racist thought did not come accidentally to the United States. It was, and still is, actively developed and propagated.

Well, we all know what a bigot Bill Clinton is, so there's proof for you!  But the fact is the ruling elite in the United States when it comes to the media, academics, government and business is dominated by Jews.  As I pointed out before, they have far more power than any other group for their numbers and give far more money to both political parties than any other group (50% of all Democratic contributions and 25% of all Republican contributions come from Jews who only account for 2.4% of the population. Shapiro (1992,116)).  So it must be the Jews now who are maintaining this racist system; they have far surpassed the one time dominance of the WASPs by double or more in influence and power.  We have a new elite in town, and its not Whitey.  (Feagin never mentions if the Ashkenazi Jews want to be White or "people of color."  Semites according to Feagin are people of color.  I guess they are just a race unto themselves as genetic testing has shown.)

Feagin pg. 71: Positive images of Africa: The Early Period.  Negative images of Africans and African Americans are now so commonplace that one might think that non-Africans have always held such views. This is not the case. Early Judeo-Christian writings, including sections of the Bible, reveal that images of Africans were often positive in the Middle East. In what Christians call the Old Testament, African kingdoms are frequently portrayed as strong societies and as allies of Jewish kings. Moreover, during the Greek and Roman periods Europeans generally attached far greater significance to Africans' learning, advanced culture, and nationality than to their physical characteristics. Africa and the Africans, from whom Greeks and Romans borrowed substantially for their own development, were seen in mostly positive terms. While individual Greeks or Romans did sometimes express negative views of Africans' physique or skin color, these views were never developed into a broad color consciousness viewing Africans as a greatly inferior species. Before the European slave trade began in the 1400s, the world had not seen a well-developed racist ideology.  However, in the writings of early Christian leaders the idea of spiritual "darkness" was increasingly linked to concepts of sin, evil, and the devil. As Jan Pieterse tells us, "Origen, head of the catechetical school in Alexandria in the third century, introduced the allegorical theme of Egyptian darkness as against spiritual light."

The above is the standard ruse used by Afrocentrists to try and prove that Africa had some culture in the past.  But African Blacks came from sub-Saharan Africa.  The races of people around the Mediterranean, including North Africa were primarily White during Ancient Egyptian times.  This is a common trick, conflating very racially different people who live on the continent of Africa: the Blacks from the very isolated sub-Saharan region with the predominately White to Semitic races of North Africa.  They are very different people. The Saharan desert before commercial shipping was a major barrier to racial mixing.  Feagin knows this and again is just lying about the accomplishments of African Blacks.

Feagin pg. 72: "Christians" Versus the "Uncivilized Others."    From the 1600s to the 1800s English and other European Protestants dominated the religious scene on the Atlantic coast of North America, and their religious views incorporated notions of European superiority and non-European inferiority. The early English Protestants regarded themselves as Christian and civilized, but those they conquered as unchristian and savage. Religious and cultural imperialism accompanied economic imperialism.  Why were Europeans first to engage in large-scale imperialism and colonialism across the globe? One proposed reason points to the relative absence of mineral and agricultural resources in Europe. Another reason often suggested is that Europeans had the shipbuilding and military technologies to expand and colonize overseas. However, one other society, that of China, had developed the technological potential (for example, large sailing ships) for major overseas conquest well before the Europeans, but had not engaged in such large-scale conquest. Perhaps very important to the emergence of European imperialism was the early development of a strong acquisitive ethic, an ethic coupled with a missionary zeal convinced of the superiority of European civilization.

Of course if Feagin had any sense of honesty, he would have included that the Chinese did have ships that could have conquered other countries, but they were destroyed by the eunuchs in an internal power struggle (see  Awakening China, 1996).  Whatever differences there are between the Eastern Asians and the Western Europeans that can account for why the West advanced and the East stagnated is still a mystery and has not been satisfactorily explained.  But it could have been them and not us conquering the world.  I am glad it was the West, except for the fact that now we have to listen to the moral wailing of sophists like Feagin, haranguing Whites for doing what every other tribe or nation would have done with the same intelligence, culture and technology.  The West has a lot to be proud of and we should not apologize to anyone for winning out over others.  Our only problem now is how to keep others from trying to steal it away with absurd moral arguments that have no basis in human nature.

Feagin pg. 77: Why do many whites often react viscerally to the presence or image of the black body, and especially the bodies of black men? Joel Kovel has argued that many whites dislike and reject black bodies because they project onto them their own deep fears, which are often rooted in childhood. As they are socialized, young whites learn, directly and indirectly, consciously and unconsciously, that the dark otherness of black Americans symbolizes degradation, danger, sinfulness, or the unknown --- imagery dating back to at least the seventeenth century and still present in white imaginings. Over the course of a lifetime antiblack impulses and actions are strongly shaped by the images in whites' unconscious minds. From this perspective, a primary reason for the intensely emotional character of the racist ideology is that many whites project onto the black out-group their own deep-lying inclinations and forbidden desires, which cannot be openly acknowledged.

But rather than speculate as Kovel has done, Feagin could look at empirical evidence why many races fear Blacks --- they are violent.  Person for person, approaching Black males on the street is far more dangerous than any other group.  High levels of testosterone, an inability to understand the consequences of their actions due to an average low intelligence, or hatred stirred up by people like Feagin are just some of the reasons that Black on White violence far outpaces White on Black violence. See "The Color of Crime" at  But the fact is, people including other Blacks have every reason to fear especially Black males as dangerous predators.

Feagin pg. 78: Developing an Explicit Ideology of "Race."   We/they ethnocentrism existed long before Europeans built their colonial empires, but a well-developed exploitative, and soon to be fully racist, ideology emerged only with European domination of peoples overseas. As Oliver Cox has noted, the modern racist ideology did not arise out of some "abstract, natural, immemorial feeling of mutual antipathy between groups; but rather grew out of the exploitative relationships of colonialism.  There are significant variations in the stereotyping and treatment of external groups across societies. Some societies, for example, do not develop the high level of xenophobia that others do. Historically, many indigenous societies showed a friendliness (xenophilia) toward Europeans when the latter first came into their areas. As it turned out, this friendly attitude was usually a serious mistake.

But of course this is nonsense.  Xenophobic reactions are the same for humans as they are for animals.  Evolution determines fear reactions, and xenophobia is expressed differently under different contexts.  If the outsiders did not appear to be threatening, then they may have been welcomed.  But the same natives that may have welcomed these strange creatures were more than likely fighting xenophobic wars with their neighbors.  Maybe the newcomers looked so strange and formidable that they were thought to be gods.  No one really knows for sure.  But there is no evidence that conquered Native American Indians for example were any less brutal and genocidal towards their neighbors than the Europeans were towards them (see War Before Civilization, 1996).  Humans without civilization were all potentially genocidal when threatened by neighbor or foe.  In fact tribal genocide was one of the primary evolutionary forces that increased the intelligence and ethnocentrism of all humans (see Demonic Males: Apes and the Origins of Human Violence (, 1996 and Hierarchy in the Forest: The Evolution of Egalitarian Behavior, 1999).

Feagin pg. 79: By the late 1700s these hierarchical relations were increasingly explained in overtly bioracial terms. This biological determinism read existing European prejudices back into human biology; then it read that biology as rationalizing social hierarchy. Those at the bottom were less than human; they were alleged to have smaller, and thus inferior, brains.

Not really inferior, but less intelligent as a statistical measure. Modern Magnetic Resonance Imaging and other techniques are now being used to show that there is about a 0.4 correlation between brain size and intelligence when body stature is taken into account (larger bodies --- big brains to work the machinery --- including the same relationship for all animals large and small).  The latest research just done by a group of scientists in Turkey also found that men and women have to be tested separately because of gender related brain differences.  What this means however is not that people with small brains are inferior.  Any time these terms are used: inferior, superior, supremacist, racist, etc. it is meant to invoke emotion but not knowledge.  Nature does not infer superior/inferior on singular traits like intelligence.  There are times when a large brain requires too much energy and may be detrimental where intelligence is not needed but energy conservation is.  It just happens that now, intelligence is of great benefit in a technological world for most people.  Will Feagin ever admit or accept this data? No, because he is as closed to such scientific advances as a fundamentalist is to the principles of evolution.  He is beyond reasonableness as his book so elegantly repeats over and over again.

Feagin pg. 86: Immigrants Becoming "White."  What the white elites have propagated as racist ideology the white majority has usually accepted. The transmission of the racist ideology from one social group to the next is a critical mechanism in the social reproduction of the system of racism. We noted previously how most ordinary whites had come to look at their social world in racist terms. They have accepted the psychological wage of whiteness and the racist ideology peddled by elites. As Oliver Cox once noted, "[W]e may take it as axiomatic that never in all the history of the world have poor people set and maintained the dominant social policy in a society."  From the 1830s to the early 1900s millions of European immigrants bought into the racist ideology in order to gain white privileges. Take the case of the poor Irish immigrants who came in substantial numbers in the first decades of the nineteenth century. The Irish did not initially view themselves as "white," but rather identified with their country of origin. Once in the United States, however, they were taught in overt and subtle ways that they were white by the already established white ministers, priests, teachers, business people, newspaper editors, and political leaders with whom they interacted. They were pressured and manipulated by British American elites and their own leaders into accepting the dominant ideology denigrating blackness and privileging whiteness. Over the course of the nineteenth century most Irish immigrants, who themselves had been viewed by their British oppressors in Ireland as an "inferior race" came to envision themselves as white and deserving of white privileges in regard to jobs and living conditions. Coupled with this move to whiteness was active participation in efforts to drive black workers out of better-paying jobs in northern cities.

Cannot we assume again, that the Irish as a cohesive ethnic group, were quite capable of forming their own opinions with regards to Blacks?  Where is the evidence that they were "duped" by the very English WASPs that they themselves hated and reviled for the Potato Famine and other atrocities against the Irish by the British.  My wife's Irish relatives are still bitter against the English for long past injustices.  Like Feagin they are living in the past.  But unlike Feagin, the Irish do not blame the British for stealing Irish land and food and accusing all Englishmen of having all the money yet today that the Irish should still have.  No, they actively debate history, but they get on with their lives and do very well without government aid or whining about past injustices.  Feagin has a vivid imagination about how easily people can be indoctrinated. The Irish are White. Why wouldn't they identify as White as well as being Irish, just as Germans are White and well as identifying themselves as Germans?  And think again what that means.  He has no faith in people being able to make up their own minds. The masses are just mindless automatons following their leaders.  If this is so, then Feagin's insistence on a more democratic form of government is doomed to failure, because people are so easily indoctrinated by the media and the elite that they will just blindly follow whomever is in control at the time.  Feagin's many references to an alternative democracy are nothing more than propaganda.  He never clearly explains what it is and how it should work under his elite tutelage.  But it seems clear he is talking about a form of Communist proletariat democracy, where the Marxist theoreticians decide how the people should vote. 

Feagin pg. 92: Nonetheless, in recent years some social and behavioral scientists have joined with certain physical scientists to continue to press for the idea of biological races and to connect that idea to concerns over government social policies. Since the late 1960s several social scientists at leading universities, including Arthur Jensen and Richard Herrnstein, have continued to argue that racial-group differences in average scores on the so-called IQ tests reveal genetic differences in intelligence between black and white Americans. Their views have been influential, especially on white politicians and the white public. In 1969 the Harvard Educational Review lent its prestige to a long article by Jensen, a University of California professor. The arguments presented there and Jensen's later arguments in the next two decades have received much national attention, including major stories in Time, Newsweek, U.S.  News and World Report, Life, and major newspapers. Jensen has argued that on the average blacks are born with less intelligence than whites, and that the "IQ" test data support this contention. In addition, he has suggested that high birth rates for black Americans could result in a lowering of the nation's overall intelligence level.  Perhaps the most widely read example of biological determinism is a [1994] book, The Bell Curve, which to this point has sold more than a half million copies. As we move into the twenty-first century, it is still being cited and read. Like Jensen, the authors of The Bell Curve --- the late Harvard University professor Richard Herrnstein and prominent author Charles Murray --- argue that IQ test data show that black (and Latino) Americans are inferior in intelligence to whites. Though the authors have no training in genetics, they suggest that this supposed inferiority in intelligence results substantially from genetic differences. Thus, biological differences account to a substantial degree for racial inequalities. The fact that the book has sold many copies and has been widely debated in the media --- in spite of the overwhelming evidence against its arguments --- strongly suggests that biologically oriented racist thinking is still espoused by a large number of white Americans, including those who are well-educated. Indeed, Herrnstein and Murray explicitly suggest that their views are privately shared by many well-educated whites, including those in the elite, who are unwilling to speak out publicly.

Feagin is caught in two major deceptions and lies in the above statement.  He preaches over and over again, ad nauseam throughout his book, that the media promotes racism.  And yet, when The Bell Curve was released, it met with such strong criticism from every corner of the media that one could only conclude that the media was dominated totally by cultural determinists.  If Feagin is right about how the media spreads racism, why didn't they at least cover The Bell Curve with some balance?  But that was not the case.  Any mention of racial differences in intelligence were dismissed and condemned from every source accept the rare maverick reporter drowned out by the hysteria.  This ONE incident should be enough to destroy Feagin's assertion that racism is rampant in the [mostly Jewish owned and controlled] Media.  In fact the reaction was so hateful against the book's conclusions that 52 academic researchers found it necessary to take out a full page ad in the Wall Street Journal supporting the book's findings.  Later in 1995, because of ad hominem attacks on the book, the American Psychological Association put together the task force discussed at the beginning of this review and also concluded that intelligence was primarily genetic and that tests were unbiased, along with a long list of corrections to the lies that Marxists have been making about differences in intelligence between Blacks and Whites.  Since then, ongoing research has only shown conclusively, again based on the principle of parsimony, that there are genetic differences in the average intelligence of different races, and ongoing searches for the elusive environmental cause, Factor X, has never been found even after billions of dollars have been spent on programs to make it different.  Nothing works because it is primarily genetic --- Blacks fail because they have a low average IQ of 85.  And it would be even worse for them if they still had the average IQ of their ancestors in Africa with an average IQ of 70.  No, contrary to what Feagin has tried to prove, Blacks in the United States are far better off than their kin in Africa because they have been given a huge boost in intelligence, no matter how brutal that genetic admixture was for slaves who are now deceased (and Feagin never proves that it was not primarily consensual sex between slave owner and slave).  But right or wrong, Blacks are far more intelligent today because of their White genes.  They may not be equal to Whites, Asians or Jews --- but they are eons ahead of their African kinsmen.

Feagin pg. 98: In recent years numerous writers and journalists have written accounts of U.S. history designed to preserve the white sense of innocence and of inculpability for the genocide, slavery, and segregation so central to that history. For example, in the best-selling book The End of Racism (1995)  journalist Dinesh D'Souza, an Asian American whose work has been supported by white conservatives, has argued not only that antiblack racism has come to an end but also that the historical background of white oppression of black Americans has been misperceived. In his view the enslavement of black Americans had some very good features. "Slavery proved to be the transmission belt that nevertheless brought Africans into the orbit of modern civilization and Western freedom," D'Souza claims. As he sees it, "slavery was an institution that was terrible to endure for slaves, but it left the descendants of slaves better off in America." Similarly, in a book attacking the idea of racial equality, former Time journalist William Henry, a Pulitzer Prize winner, argued that the European conquests were successful in dispersing superior cultures among inferior cultures, which were forced to accommodate.

D'Souza's book is in fact a very fair and balanced look at Blacks in the United States.  He is a conservative, and like most conservatives he seems to be unaware of the vast amount of genetic research that shows a genetic basis for Black dysfunction.  But at least his book was not filled with hatred and venom for Blacks, Whites or any other race of people like Feagin's book.

Feagin pg. 106: Racist attitudes and images are revealed and reproduced constantly in the everyday discourse and writings of whites at all class levels. Seeing black Americans in negative terms and viewing whites in positive terms are perspectives shaped by elite indoctrination, such as through the mass media, but they also constitute the way most ordinary whites regularly communicate with each another about racial matters. These ideas are perpetuated over generations by means of everyday communication. Racist attitudes and images are constantly available to virtually all whites, including the young, by means of presentations in daily discourse, as well as in the media, through the writings of intellectuals, and in the speeches of politicians and business leaders. Such attitudes and images are adapted and used as the situation warrants, and they vary in expression or impact depending on the situation and the persons involved. Over centuries now, they have had a severely negative impact on their targets. Racist ways of thinking and feeling can be conscious and directly stimulative of discriminatory action, or they can be unconscious and implicit in that action. Moreover, most racial prejudice not only portrays the racial others negatively but also imbeds a learned predisposition to act in a negative way toward the others. In this manner, racist attitudes commonly link to discriminatory practices.

What Feagin states here is of course nonsense. There is no consensus among Whites on a day to day basis with regards to race and attitudes, and there is certainly very little discourse that can be carried on amongst a group of Whites about racial matters without leading to hostile arguments between liberals, conservatives and socialists.  Yes, race is discussed sometimes, but I have noticed that Blacks spend far more time condemning and blaming Whites for every problem that exists.  Just reflect back on the Bush/Gore election and the pandemonium of the Blacks led by Jesse Jackson that the world would now come to and end for Blacks because Bush won.  I am around Blacks, Hispanics and Whites on my job, in about equal amounts, and individuals --- not race --- is what is important.  No matter how bigoted a few backward Whites are, people are judged by their individual qualities, not grouped together by race.  And anyone who works in a multicultural environment knows this.  And as far as racial attitudes and animosities are concerned, Blacks are just as likely as Whites to stereotype and act snotty.  In my job, I walk into enough private conversations and get enough attitude from Black people just because I am White, as well as on the street and driving my car.  These racial tensions exist everywhere, and to think that they only occur to Blacks is nonsense. ("Walking while White" is far more dangerous than "driving while Black" in my neighborhood --- yes folks, I live in the inner city with all kinds of people.)

Feagin pg. 109: In addition to admissions about racist stereotyping, many whites still admit to pollsters that they hold other negative views and ideas in regard to black Americans. I analyzed white responses to five items in a recent NORC survey: (1) Do you think there should be laws against marriages between blacks and whites? (15 percent said yes); (2) White people have a right to keep blacks out of their neighborhoods if they want to, and blacks should respect that right (16 percent agreed); (3) Blacks shouldn't push themselves where they are not wanted (43 percent agreed); (4) One law says that a homeowner can decide for himself whom to sell his house to, even if he prefers not to sell to blacks (35 percent approved of this law); (5) Do you think blacks get more attention from government than they deserve? (18 percent said "much more").  Taking the five items together, the majority (59 percent) of these white respondents took an essentially antiblack position on at least one item. These overview analyses suggest that a majority of whites still harbor some negative attitudes toward, or negative images of, blacks.

Not really.  As I stated above, Jews have religious laws against marrying Gentiles and they are considered persona non grata if they do so transgress.  Asians and Hispanics also are hostile to  race mixing, so this is really not unusual.  If life is so bad for Blacks, why would any White in their right mind want to see a White subject their children to such an arrangement.  So it seems to me Feagin shows nothing with this concern about "sticking to one's own kind." Even the radio self-help talk show host Doctor Laura warns against inter-religious marriages (which may be just a ruse to keep Jews and Gentiles from marrying each other).  As to points 2, 3 and 4 above, it seems that freedom dictates that I should have some freedom about where I live, who I live with, and what I do with my own property.  And with item five, there is no doubt that there is a transfer of money from Whites to Blacks under the numerous anti-poverty, welfare, and set-aside programs that cost Whites billions of dollars. And this does not include losses from law suites and an inefficient work force dictated by a system of de facto quotas by the courts where any disparate hiring is subject to court action.  So all the survey above proves is that some Whites have a more libertarian sense of freedom rather than a socialist egalitarian set of beliefs.  Racism is neither shown nor even inferred.  

Feagin pg. 113: Even preferences for body type are racialized in a manner biased against black women. From the seventeenth to the twenty-first century not only white politicians, explorers, and missionaries, but also those whites developing the sciences of medicine, biology, and ethnography and those developing the mass media have set white skin and body type as the standard for aesthetic superiority. For centuries white men have been the standard for male handsomeness, as well as masculinity and manly virtue. White women --- in recent decades, especially those who are fair-haired and slender --- have long been the standard for female beauty in the United States. As one black woman recently put it in an interview, "I went through a long, long time thinking I was like the ugliest thing on the earth. . . . It's so hard to get a sense of self in this country, in this society, where . . . every role of femininity looks like a Barbie doll."

Well this might be true, but if it is --- then who is to blame?  Research on attitudes regarding beauty, skin color and preferences has shown that these norms are hard wired in to humans from our evolutionary past.[5]  So why does Feagin blame Whites for being better looking?  Is it some White conspiracy?  Again, this is just fomenting hate because the objective of this book is to increase the hostility between Whites and everyone else, but using Blacks for this latest Marxist conspiracy theory --- systemic racism.

Feagin pg. 114: As a result of these common stereotyped images, many whites have fearful reactions to a black man encountered in public settings such as on streets, in public transport, and in elevators. In my interview studies, numerous black men have reported aversive reactions taken by white women and men when they are walking the streets of U.S. towns and cities. Many whites lock their car doors, cross streets, or take other defensive precautions when a black man is near. Some conservative commentators have asserted that this defensive action is "rational discrimination" because of the high black crime rate.  These commentators, like many ordinary whites, seem to assume that the majority of criminals who violently attack whites are black. But this is not the case. Federal surveys of white victims of violent crime have found that about 17 percent of these attackers are black, while about three-quarters are white. Most violent crime affecting whites is carried out by white criminals. Yet most whites do not take similar precautions when they are in the presence of those whites --- disproportionately white men --- who perpetrate most of the violent crimes suffered by whites. The reason for this is that they do not see themselves as being in the presence of someone likely to commit a violent crime when they are around those socially defined as white.

But the numbers still don't dislodge the fact that Whites have to be more careful around Blacks than other Whites.  The fact that there are far fewer Blacks in contact with Whites does not change the fact that person for person, when face to face with a Black versus a White or when Blacks are present rather than just Whites, the probability of being attacked, robbed, raped or assaulted goes up.  So there is every reason to fear Blacks.  I would ask Feagin to walk in Harlem by himself at night, or walk in an all White neighborhood at night, and tell me the odds of assault, if not death.  But here are the facts in more detail (again see "The Color of Crime" report above).  Of the interracial violent crimes reported every year, 90% are committed by Blacks and only 10% by Whites.  Read the whole report and the numbers are truly staggering; just the opposite of what is reported in the press.  But, that is just the opposite of what Feagin claims;  that "racist America" distorts the facts against Blacks is a lie.  For example, 23 million Hispanics are included as White when they perpetrate a crime, but when the victim of a hate crime is Hispanic it is recorded as a hate crime against a Hispanic and not a White.  If America has racist institutions, then why does the FBI distort the hate crime data against Whites?  For every innuendo put forth by Feagin in his book about systemic racism, there are far more of these real anti-White or Anglophobe policies and practices in place in both the government and in private sector, especially the media, that are real and well documented.  Feagin has reversed the facts.

Feagin pg. 116: In fact, black youth are less likely than white youth to use marijuana or cocaine, smoke cigarettes, or drink alcohol. And rates of drug abuse (and child abuse) are higher for single-parent white families than for similar black families.  White and other nonblack Americans account for seven out of eight illegal drug users. However, in spite of these facts, black Americans have become the national symbols of drug abusers and dealers. This stereotyped imagery affects white actions in serious ways. For example, black drug users are disproportionately targeted by the police; three-quarters of those sentenced to prison for drug possession are black.  In contrast, white drug crime gets much less police surveillance, even though a substantial majority of drug dealers are white and even though there is much drug selling and use on predominantly white college campuses and in white suburban areas.

Actually I agree with Feagin that far too many people are put in prison for non-violent drug offenses, and that Blacks are probably disproportionately targeted unfortunately because the penalties for crack cocaine over powder cocaine impact Blacks more than Whites.  But this was an unfortunate fall-out over the country's paranoia over drugs.  But aside from that, it seems reasonable that if a White suburbanite is doing drugs discreetly in some dorm room rather than smoking dope while driving around the inner city, yes there could be a disproportionate number of Blacks arrested for drugs.  But this again gets back to intelligence, foresight, conscientiousness and caution. And probably also proves that in spite of what some people believe, Blacks also have very little street smarts when they keep getting in trouble where they supposedly have so much savvy.  Yes, I watch "Cops" on Fox once in a while. And most of those people have low IQs (including apparently many of the cops the way they avuncularly lecture and chastise these felons like it is going to make a difference.  They apparently are also cultural determinists like Feagin --- not understanding that some people are just plain genetically incorrigible).

Feagin pg. 119: The Role of Elites. In chapter 3 we examined how elites have fostered a racist ideology rationalizing the realities of unjust impoverishment and enrichment. This effort is a major source of the racist ideology and its associated attitudes that are held in the non-elite part of the white population. Through various means the white elites have manipulated ordinary white Americans to accept the racist ideology and its component parts. Moreover, after the elements of an era's racist ideology and structural arrangements are in place, ordinary whites need less manipulation, for they generally understand what is in their group interest. Indeed, groups of ordinary people often generate new permutations on old racist ideas, innovations that in their turn reinforce and reproduce the racist ideology.

And likewise, during the sixties, what Blacks wanted was to be treated fairly as individuals rather than by the color of their skin.  When that finally happened, and Whites shrugged off what most saw as a legacy of racial policies that did not accord with the constitution, they readily accepted Blacks as equals and wished to leave racial animosities in the past.  Then, as time went by and Blacks still could not get what they wanted, which was material wealth as seen all about them, they started generating numerous permutations of explanations and causes for Black failure to further their own group interests.  And they cared little about what was right or equitable.  And over the next forty years they would come up with one program after another to bring back racial group categories in order to take what they desired, under varying programs of quotas and preferences.  It is ironic that Feagin is accusing Whites of doing what in fact the Blacks and their Marxist sponsors have in fact been doing all along --- changing the rules and explanations as time moves along because nothing works out as planned.  They then have to keep reinventing this mythical racism to justify various programs as they conjure up excuses, instead of accepting the obvious differences in the innate intelligence of different racial groups.

Feagin pg. 131: Mainstream theories of the cognitive development of children stress that they do not form clear ideas on racial matters until they are at least five or six years old. Until that time, egocentricity is said to be the child's natural state.  However, a recent study of young white children in a preschool setting found that even three-­to-four-year-olds interact with children of other racial groups using clear and often sophisticated understandings of racist ideas and epithets (for example, "nigger"). White children used such ideas and terms to define themselves as white and to exclude or exert power over other children. This study also found that many white adults, including parents, do not know about or deny the racist language or activ­ities of their children. Even as whites socialize children in racist thought, emo­tions, and practices, they often deny to themselves and others what they are doing.

Bunk. I'll quote from MacDonald's paper referenced above, entitled "An Integrative Evolutionary Perspective on Ethnicity" as follows:  "Hirschfeld (Race in the Making, 1996) finds that young children are very interested in human groupings. 'This curiosity is shaped by a set of abstract principles that guide the child's attention toward information relevant to discovering the sorts of intrinsicalities and naturally grounded commonalities that are entrenched in his or her particular cultural environment' (p. 193). Hirschfeld thus posits an interaction between an innate domain-specific module of intrinsic human kinds combined with cultural input that race is the type of human kind that is intrinsic --- that it is inherited and highly relevant to identity --- more so even than other types of surface physical characteristics like muscularity. Thus even young children view racial categories as essentialized and natural: 'Young children's thinking about race encompasses the defining principles of theory-like conceptual systems, namely an ontology [nature of being], domain-specific causality, and differentiation of concepts' (p. 88). 'But racial kinds are not natural kinds (at least, not as they have classically been conceived), and they certainly are not kinds whose existence is triggered by external reality' (p. 197)."  This somewhat cryptic quote simply states that children come readily equipped with genetic modules that leads them to categorize people, or the "other."  Children, as like other primates, are extremely vulnerable from violent males and they are equipped to learn to categorize classes of people.  This is not racism, but a survival mechanism that is part of our evolutionary past.  And we have learned, from ethnographic studies around the world, that Blacks are more violent and more dangerous.

Feagin pg. 134: "When I asked one migrant in Houston why some migrants have antiblack attitudes, he responded that they first learn about blacks from U.S. movies." Similarly, a research study of foreign-born and U.S.-born Latinos in Houston found that the former had even more negative attitudes toward black Americans than did the latter. Such data suggest that the foreign-born bring negative views of black Americans from their countries of origin.

Again, Hollywood is predominately owned and controlled by Jews, including producers, writers, directors and owners according to their own bragging.  If there is any aberrant portrayal of Blacks in the movies that does not correspond with real life, then it is not White Gentiles who are spreading hate but Jews.  But likewise, Hollywood has been also attacking White Christian values for decades now, and especially portraying Whites as bigoted and prejudice.  Does that correlate with what Feagin is claiming, that White Gentiles are using Hollywood to spread lies about Black people? I doubt it.  White Gentiles do not have any influence in Hollywood, but Hollywood has plenty of influence on the rest of the nation, including the Presidency of Bill Clinton and his socialist backers.  Feagin's accusations just make no sense at all.

Feagin pg. 143: To my knowledge, there is no research on the frequency of the incidents and events of discrimination faced by individual black Americans over their lifetimes. In a few exploratory interviews with black respondents, I have asked a question about frequency and gotten large estimates in response. For example, I asked a retired printer from New York City how often he has faced discrimination over the course of his life. After some careful reflection, this man estimated that he confronts at least 250 significant incidents of discrimination from whites each year, if he only includes the incidents that he consciously notices and records. Blatant and subtle mistreatment by white clerks in stores and restaurants are examples he had in mind. Judging from my own field studies using in-depth interviews with black Americans, this man's experience seems representative. Over the course of a lifetime, a typical black man or woman likely faces thousands of instances of blatant, covert, or subtle discrimination at the hands of whites. Today, this omnipresent and routinized discrimination remains a key mechanism in the social reproduction of systemic racism.

And I could easily record a similar number of incidents where Blacks treat me with disdain or contempt in my daily life, as I live in the inner city and deal with Blacks often.  But that happens. There are a lot of nasty people everywhere, and for Blacks to encounter Whites on a regular basis that act in ways they do not approve of is no different than what I experience on a daily basis.  People are all different, and some times people may seem racist when they are just generally unpleasant, no matter what color they are.   But I do notice it more from Blacks than from other Whites, which only means that each group naturally treats their own with greater consideration than the "other."  That is perfectly natural for many people, as it only shows that most racial groups are preferential towards their own kind.  If that is racism, then human nature is racist, which in many ways research has shown that is how we evolved.  But the proper term is ethnocentrism or groupism, not the derogatory term used by Feagin --- racism.

Feagin pg. 149: More Court Discrimination Racial discrimination extends beyond policing to the court system. Few judges in the criminal justice system are black, and most white judges appear to have little understanding of the lives of the black Americans --- mostly working-class or poor people --- that they often face; they do not come from the same community or socioeconomic backgrounds as the black defendants in their courtrooms. Not surprisingly, some white judges thus discriminate against those in the courtroom. One New Haven, Connecticut, study of 1118 local arrests did a statistical analysis of bail-related variables and found that "after controlling for eleven variables relating to the severity of the alleged offense, bail amounts set for black male defendants [by judges] were 35 percent higher than those set for their white male counterparts." In contrast, the researchers found that local bond dealers charged significantly lower bonding rates for black defendants than for whites. The bond dealers set their rates based on experience with defendants fleeing from prosecution, and the probability of flight was greater for whites than blacks. The researchers concluded that this is strong evidence of discrimination in bail setting in the justice system, saying, "Judges could have reduced bail amounts for minority males without incurring flight risks higher than those deemed acceptable for white male defendants."

But isn't this White profiling that Feagin finds so offensive when it is done to Blacks?  What hypocrisy!  The bondsmen have determined, based on real statistical data based on two groups' racial classification that Whites will flee more often than Blacks.  And yet, when the same data is used by the car insurance industry for example to set rates, Feagin screams racism and Black profiling.  This example shows that every industry tries to maximize profits by using as much data as possible to predict outcomes.  Now what needs to be done is for the above-mentioned judges to talk to the bail bondsmen and get their facts straight regarding the flight risks for Blacks versus Whites.

Feagin pg. 151: Recent White Violence Attacks on black Americans are still part of the U.S. landscape. The number of racially-motivated crimes ("hate crimes") has increased in the last two decades. Thousands of attacks on black Americans and other Americans of color were reported each year in the 1990s.

But once again, there are far more Black on White hate crimes as White on Black.  So who are the real racists?  Again, see "The Color of Crime" for the very anti-White methodology used to count Hispanics as White when they commit a hate crime and then classifying them as Hispanic when they are the victim of a hate crime.  But all and all, Blacks commit far more hate crimes against Whites than Whites commit against Blacks.  A point Feagin conveniently chooses to ignore.

Feagin pg. 160: In the view of many white employers only certain groups of workers are seen as acceptable, and individuals are judged by their group characteristics. White employers often argue that they choose white over black workers because they feel whites are as a group more productive, and they may defend such choices by recourse to the recurring notion that it is "rational" discrimination. However, the workers they deem unacceptable, such as black workers, are often just as qualified as those whites who are chosen.  One major study jointly sponsored by the Russell Sage Foundation and the Ford Foundation examined the situation of black workers and other workers of color in four large cities --- Atlanta, Boston, Detroit, and Los Angeles. The researchers found that the movement of jobs from central cities to suburban areas by employers had a serious impact on black employment in the cities. This is a common research finding. However, this study also found that racial motivations were intertwined with this economic restructuring. Some employers seemed to intentionally choose workplace locations inaccessible to black workers. In Boston and Los Angeles surveys found that employers were more likely to express a desire to move away from neighborhoods with increasing numbers of black families than from other neighborhoods. The spatial mismatch of jobs in many cities, it appears, is often linked to an intentional movement away from black populations by investors.

Some Blacks may be more qualified than some Whites.  But thanks to quotas, many employers are forced to hire less qualified Blacks, and then they can't fire them. Is it any wonder that these employers, forced to hire unqualified Blacks to fill quotas, move away from areas where there are a lot of Blacks, to areas that are mostly White?  And on top of that, the courts have prevented companies from testing new employees because Blacks do so poorly on exams. And contrary to what is claimed, Blacks over perform on exams.[6]  That is, they test out higher than their actual job performance according to studies done by the military, the one institution Feagin claims is the least biased.  So affirmative action and a host of laws that favor hiring and retaining Blacks who are NOT qualified has made companies respond in such a way that harms the few remaining Blacks who are made to suffer for the government's and courts' irrational racialist policies.

Feagin pg. 162: Job Tracking and the Lack of Job Mobility. Racial oppression encompasses the exploitative relationship that enables white employers to take more of the value of the labor of workers of color than of comparable white workers. Today, as in the past, some white employers have paid black workers less because they are black. They do this directly, or they do it by segregating black workers into certain job categories and setting the pay for these categories lower than for predominantly white job classifications. The Marxist tradition has accented the way in which capitalist employers take part of the value of workers' labor for their own purposes --- thus not paying workers for the full value of their work. That theft of labor is a major source of capitalists' profit. Similarly, white employers have the power, because of institutionalized discrimination, to take additional value from black workers and other workers of color. White employers can thus superexploit workers of color. This continuing exploitation of black workers not only helps to maintain income and wealth inequality across the color line but also is critical to the reproduction of the entire system of racism over long periods of time.

OK --- I get it now.  Employers simultaneously move their companies away from areas where there are a lot of Blacks because they are forced to hire them, while at the same time they make more money off of Blacks because they can get more work from them for less money by exploiting them.  If this were the case, then companies would be flocking into the inner cities to take advantage of this superb but under appreciated labor pool.  Feagin either suffers from some rare form of paranoia and delusions, or he is unabashed in distorting reality to make his Marxist arguments.  But that is not unusual considering that his goal is to alienate different racial groups while stereotyping every White with racist intents over all else, as if we had nothing better to do than to plot against those poor Black folks.  Feagin's "just so" stories have no credibility when taken alone.  But when these "just so" stories contradict each other consistently throughout his presentation of lies, one wonders what he was smoking when writing.  As Christopher Brand writes, " Above all, psychologists who have spurned the g factor have been guilty of creating a Western equivalent of the 'ideological pseudo-reality' that Vaclav Havel and others exposed in communist Eastern Europe. By a 'collective fraud' (Gottfredson, 1994), they have condemned scientists and students, as Havel put it, to 'live within a lie.' Between them, psychology's inheritors of empiricism and idealism deny that much is known about the causes of unemployment, crime, welfare-dependency and the neglect and abuse of children: they betray people and psychology for the sake of another research grant."

Feagin pg. 163: Cycles of relative prosperity in the U.S. economy should not mislead us. Even when most media pundits describe the U.S. economy as "very good," a great many workers --- especially black workers and other workers of color --- are unemployed, or underemployed in low-wage or part-time jobs. If the economy turns sour, as it periodically does, many black workers face even worse conditions. When they are no longer needed, the less-skilled black workers are kept as a "reserve army" in a condition of painful poverty and unemployment, or in the prison-industrial complex, until they may be needed again. It is significant that at no point in the decades since the 1960s has any major business organization or government agency, including the U.S. Congress, shown concern for the plight of black workers and other workers of color in the form of large-scale job training or job creation programs.

Wow, now we keep Blacks in prison until the job market needs them, and then they are let out to serve their masters!  Statements like this should really make a person question Feagin's sanity, except he is typical of Marxist paranoia seeing capitalist conspiracies behind every Black failure.  Are we to believe that Blacks would be let out of jail during times of labor shortage when we just came out of a period of extremely low unemployment as Black incarceration went up? Jeez, I guess the prisons must not have gotten the message from those capitalist pigs.  Or maybe the prisoners caught and ate the pigeons carrying the secret encoded messages to let all the brothers out.

Feagin pg. 172: Black customers face discrimination in the buying process. One major Chicago study examined more than 180 buyer-salesperson negotiations at ninety car dealerships. Black and white testers, with similar economic characteristics and bargaining scripts, posed as car buyers. White male testers got much better prices from the salespeople than did white women or black men and women. Compared to the markup given to white men, black men paid twice the markup and black women paid more than three times the markup. The average dealer profit in the final offers to each category of tester was as follows: white men, $362; white women, $504; black men, $783; and black women, $1237. In another study the researchers used thirty-eight testers who bargained for some 400 cars at 242 dealers. Again, black testers were quoted much higher prices than white men, though this time black men were quoted the highest prices. In some cases racist language was used by salespeople, but the researchers concluded that the more serious problem was stereotyping about how much black customers will pay. The cost of this commonplace discrimination is high. Given that black customers pay two to three times the markup offered to white men --- if this holds across the nation --- then black customers "annually would pay $150 million more for new cars than do white males.

Just one comment, intelligent people know how to shop for the best prices.  The above only shows that Blacks are less capable even in buying a car, an area of expertise they should be superb at if there was such a thing as "street smarts."  Apparently they just can't do well even at bargaining for a good price on a car.  And if they think it is racism, they have every opportunity to go to a Black owned dealership in Chicago where there are plenty to choose from, thanks to the government forcing the car manufacturers to provide Blacks with dealerships since they can't seem to do it on their own.  This is just one more example that shows how intelligence, not racism, is responsible for Black failures.

Feagin pg. 183: In addition, the U.S. political system was originally crafted using European (often English) political ideas about such matters as representation, republicanism, branches of government, and limited democracy. Today, the U.S. political system often does little to implement real democracy in everyday operations at state, local, and federal government levels. This can be seen most clearly, perhaps, in the many ways the political structure allows those with money ---  especially well-off white men --- to corrupt and control its most important aspects and institutions. Whites as a group benefit handsomely from this white control of a theoretically democratic political system.

Once again, all we have to do is look at who contributes the most money to the two main political parties to see that Jews, not White Gentiles, control.  And then there are unions and special interest groups, all of which do have a corrupting influence on government efficiency, but Blacks have benefited handsomely under the varying government programs.  If government officials were really the pawns of White racists like Feagin states, why is government policy so egalitarian?  Why wouldn't it be far more big business?  Just in Head Start alone, the government spent $23,000 per IQ-point gained per child (Spitz, 1986).

Feagin pg. 186: The Many Economic Costs. In recent decades, U.S. government census data have shown the median family income of black families to be consistently in the range of 55 to 61 percent of the median family income of white families. During the late 1980s and into the 1990s this percentage actually declined. In the late 1990s black median household income ($25,351) was still about 60 percent of white median income ($42,439). These data present a clear picture of persisting and substantial inequality across the color line. In addition, today, as in the past, black families face poverty at a much greater rate (26 percent) than white families (8 percent) and unemployment rate roughly twice that of whites.

Again, Blacks do as well as Whites when we consider their overall lower IQ. And, the following quotes from Intelligence, Genes, and Success, a very liberal biased book, shows how far off the  mark Feagin is.  But one more thing, note that Blacks only have a slightly lower income than Whites when we consider just intelligence differences, but what if there were also behavioral trait differences?  What if Blacks also had less conscientiousness as well as lower average intelligence?  No one has looked at this possibility, which would mean that Blacks make more on average than Whites based on their qualifications. The above book states:

"It has frequently been said that intelligence tests predict "academic" rather than "on-the-job" intelligence. In support of this point, there are a number of studies of "on-the-job" situations in which one can demonstrate unarguably intelligent performance by people who do not have high test scores. All these demonstrations show is that intelligence is not all that is important on the job, and no one ever said that it was. The studies showing failures of intelligence as a predictor of performance have been so small as to be almost anecdotes. Massively larger studies of the correlations between various aptitude tests and measures of workplace performance have shown that the correlations between test and measure are only slightly, if at all, lower than the correlations found in academic situations, such as the SAT-GPA example.  Furthermore, the findings go beyond studies that simply compute correlation coefficients. During the years when the American Telephone and Telegraph (AT&T) had a virtual monopoly on telephone services in the United States, the company conducted a longitudinal study in which candidate managers were interviewed and tested early in their careers, and then followed for more than 15 years.  A test much like the SAT, given at the outset of the executives' careers, was the best single predictor of eventual level of management achieved. However, the correlation was only slightly below 0.4, and personality tests added more to predictability. This does not mean that the personality tests were better predictors than the intelligence tests. They were not. It means that the combination of intelligence and personality test scores provides a better prediction than either test score alone. This issue is not whether 'intelligence' or personality is more important to success. . . . The plausibility of the color-blind model can be tested using a Wald test. On implementing this test we reject the hypothesis that the earnings function is color-blind (p < .Ol).* We find de facto evidence of the presence of racial discrimination in H&M's preferred model, after correcting for gender. This model predicts that earnings for black men with population average characteristics are about 6% lower than comparable white men at the average age of 28.7, and that this earnings gap grows larger for older men in the sample. For women, the picture is reversed, with black women with population average characteristics earning about 15% more than comparable white women. However, serious deficiencies in the H&M model limit its usefulness for making assessments of racial discrimination. These deficiencies are addressed in the following sections.(Devlin, 1997)

Feagin pg. 187: One dramatic indicator of generations of white access to the acquisition of material and educational resources can be seen in measures of family net worth. The median net worth of white households ($61,000 in 1995) is more than eight times that of black households ($7400 in 1995). In addition, black families have most of the wealth they do hold in cars and houses, while white families are far more likely than black families to have interest-bearing bank accounts and to hold stock in companies.  Even white families with modest incomes --- in the $7,500 to $15,000 range  ---  actually have greater wealth (net worth) than black families with incomes in the $45,000 to $60,000 range.

Resources and wealth are not permanent; they are used up in the process of living.  Passing money on from one generation to the next means that money has to be earned over and over again.  There is no free ride for anyone.  Feagin makes it sound like family inheritances are never used up, but resources have to be earned, they just don't lay around getting passed on to the next generation. Which again means two things: Blacks do not bring to the job skills and knowledge that rewards them well for their labors and they spend their money on short term pleasures like cars that wear out quickly.  Whites, according to Feagin invest their money more wisely.  So again, all the above shows is the low intelligence of Blacks and their shortsightedness, on average more than Whites.  And then again there is the Jewish question.  How did they manage to amass in just a few decades enormous wealth far above anyone else?  Who did they steal their money from?

Feagin pg. 197: The Price Whites Pay for Racism.  Writing in a late-1960s Supreme Court decision cited previously, Justice William O. Douglas argued that "the true curse of slavery is not what it did to the black man, but what it has done to the white man. For the existence of the institution produced the notion that the white man was of superior character, intelligence, and morality." Thus white-supremacist thinking entails living a lie, for whites are not superior in character, intelligence, or morality. This self-deception takes a corrupting toll on the souls of white Americans.

Then Jews must be in even worse shape, their souls contorted in pure agony from the lies they live.  Judaism preaches that the Jews are Gods chosen people, they are "the light unto the nations" bringing a higher moral system for all others to follow, and they are more intelligent and have more character than White Gentiles.  So if Whites are in bad shape for White-supremacist views, the Jews far outpace us in pure delusion by a magnitude or two in feelings of Jewish-supremacy. (see Jewish Fundamentalism In Israel  at

Feagin pg. 210: Each new immigrant group is usually placed, principally by the dominant whites, somewhere on a white-to-black status continuum, the commonplace measuring stick of social acceptability. This, socioracial continuum has long been imbedded in white minds, writings, and practices, as well as in the developing consciousness of many in the new immigrant groups. Generally speaking, the racist continuum runs from white to black, from "civilized" whites to "uncivilized" blacks, from high intelligence to low intelligence, from privilege and desirability to lack of privilege and undesirability.

Wrong again. Each new immigrant group isn't placed anywhere by Whites, they earn their standing on how they behave and how they perform.  It has nothing to do with color or any other physical trait.  A dark skinned Pakistani will be less threatening than a light skinned Hispanic depending on how they behave and the averaging of the observations made about them.  Humans naturally, accumulate data on many things including different racial groups so that wise decisions can be made for survival. Is it safe to go into Harlem? Is it safe to go into Skokie where Asians have moved in as the Jews moved out?  These are important facts for one's survival.  And each group is categorized and stereotyped by all others so that we can efficiently deal with them without spending months getting to know a person before we interact.  This is how the brain operates, decisions based on the best available knowledge, which quite often means putting humans into to easily recognized groups that have similar attributes.  I wouldn't hit on a nun to try and get a date.  I am stereotyping that she is probably not a good bet for my efforts to get laid.

Feagin pg. 228: Sociologist Nestor Rodriguez has noted a parallel phenomenon of whiteness pressures among Latinos. Some of the latter, especially those up the income ladder, "share this experience, and some do it in a state of denial, that is, they deny the reality of anti-Latino bias, discrimination and prejudices around them. And they push their children into an Anglo-like existence."  While much more research on this assimilation is needed, among many Asian and Latino Americans it appears that the pressure to look, dress, talk, and act as white as possible increases personal or family stress and reduces their recognition of the racism that surrounds them. This is yet one more destructive consequence of the underlying system of white racism.

This again shows the angst of Feagin's Marxism.  People refuse to be placed into classes of oppressed people.  They will go where they feel comfortable.  This has nothing to do with White racism, but everything to do with White tolerance towards others that they respect and recognize as our equals.  Intelligent, considerate people no matter what the color of their skin is.  Feagin's hoped for revolution against White hegemony is falling apart as Whites associate freely with other racial groups, and vice versa because they have more in common than Feagin likes to admit.  His goal of finally finding a way of oppressing Whites is not going according to plans.

Feagin pg. 229: Hostility among Subordinated Groups: Links to White Racism.  Systemic racism affects everyone caught in its web. It is the social context for relations between all Americans, those defined as white and those defined as nonwhite. Intermediate groups often come to stereotype or attack those below them on the racial ladder, who may in turn retaliate, and these internecine attacks reinforce the racist system set in place by and for whites. Historically, whites have encouraged groups below them on the status ladder to stereotype and disparage each other. Stereotypes and prejudices in one racially subordinated group that target those in other subordinated groups are not independent of the larger context of systemic racism. Many negative racial images carried in subordinated communities exist because of the age-old racist ideology originally created by whites to rationalize white-on-black oppression. All groups of color assimilate many of the attitudes of the dominant society. As the black legal scholar Charles Lawrence has put it, "we use the white man's words to demean ourselves and to disassociate ourselves from our sisters and brothers. And then we turn this self-hate on other racial groups who share with us the ignominy of not being white." Many other scholars of color have also noted the ways in which oppression is internalized when people of color adopt racist attitudes toward themselves and others.  The white supremacist system intentionally fosters hostility between groups of color. When those higher on the white racist ladder express racist views about those lower, this helps preserve the systemic racism that benefits whites the most. By asserting that one's own group, though subordinated, is still better than those considered lower, members of an in-between group underwrite the racist ladder of privilege. Intergroup stereotyping and hostility among communities of color are very useful for whites who can play down the significance of their own racist thinking and practice. Whites can assert that everyone is prejudiced. . . . When these stereotyped images and accompanying discriminatory propensities are brought by Asian, Latino, and other immigrants to the United States, they can become the basis for intergroup conflict: These attitudes and practices are not independent, but generated by the now global white-racist order.

Feagin uses the language of conspiracy theorists whether it is flat-earthers, UFO fanatics, Jewish world control, or Holocaust deniers, or world Masonry.  All of these paranoid types seem to think there is a conspiracy that is the cause of what they perceive to be the truth, but only they can figure it all out in its intricate planning and design.  This is all "Doctor Evil" nonsense and anyone that thinks humans can be ordered about and manipulated by some hidden hand of control needs to take a rest or at least try to provide some sound evidence.  The fact is, many immigrants fight with Blacks over many issues because they are different from Blacks.  These animosities are perfectly natural when Blacks lash out at everyone else including Whites.  Intelligent Asians and Latinos have no more in common with the average Black than a White person does.  Even children it has been shown prefer to be around other children that are as smart as they are.

Feagin pg. 236: The Demographic Challenge to White Domination.  Until major crises in this society occur, most whites are unlikely to see the need for large-scale egalitarian reforms. They are too constrained by their own privileges and conforming minds, by their social biographies, to see the need for radical structural change. Still, at certain times in human history new social options appear. What complexity theory calls "cascading bifurcations" can mean great societal instability and possibly a new social order.  Current demographic trends are creating and amplifying societal contradictions that could eventually lead to a major social transformation, including the reduction or destruction of white domination over Americans of color. As we begin a new millennium, Americans of European descent are a decreasing proportion of the U.S. and world populations. Whites constitute less than half the population of four of the nation's largest cities --- New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston. They are less than half the population in the state of Hawaii, as well as in southern sections of Florida, Texas, and California. Demographers estimate that if current trends continue whites will be a minority in California and Texas by about 2010. By the middle of the twenty-first century, whites will be a minority of the U.S. population if birth rates and immigration trends continue near current levels.  Over the next few decades this demographic shift will likely bring great pressures for social, economic, and political change. For example, by the 2030s a majority of the students in the nation's public school system will probably be black, Asian, Latino, and Native American. They and their parents will doubtless strive for greater representation in the operation, staffing, and curricula of presently white-dominated school systems. In addition, by the mid-2050s demographers predict that a majority of U.S. workers will be from these same groups, while the retired population will be majority white. One has to wonder whether these workers will raise questions about having to support elderly whites (for example, by paying into Social Security) who have long maintained a racist society. As voting majorities change from majority white, there will likely be changes in jury composition, operation of the criminal justice system, and the composition and priorities of many state, local, and national legislative bodies. Where voting majorities change, we will probably see far fewer white politicians opposing affirmative action or pressing for laws restricting Asian and Latin American immigrants. These transformations will, of course, only take place if whites have not reacted to the demographic trend with large-scale political repression.

Well, if Whites do actually have all of the privileges that Feagin claims we do, I can assure him that we will close the doors to future immigration whenever we feel a real threat from immigrants.  That is, before we lose our culture, our freedom, and our safety we will retaliate against new immigrants who would threaten our way of life. That means, the average White American will retaliate against those who support immigration for cheap labor (corporations) and those who support immigration because they hate Western culture and the Whites that created it (Marxists).  These two groups, as MacDonald has shown in The Culture of Critique (above),  were responsible for the 1965 immigration act that threatens to Balkanize the United States.  There is NO evidence that egalitarianism will come about the way Feagin describes without a violent overthrow and a return to Communist tyranny.  So in a way, he and his kind are setting the stage for a renewed ethnic awareness for Whites, as they face real threats like a loss of social security or the freedom to live and work where they desire.

Feagin pg. 250: The showpiece of the liberal strategy of job desegregation can be seen in the U.S. Army. Today the army, which has about half of all black personnel in the military, is the most desegregated large institution in U.S. society. In the late 1990s black Americans made up about 11 percent of all officers, a figure much higher than that for executives in almost all large corporations or that for professors at almost all historically white colleges and universities. The 7,500 black officers there constitute the largest group of black executives in any historically white organization in the entire history of the United States. African Americans also make up one-third or more of the sergeant ranks in the army, a proportion much higher than that for comparable supervisors in most other workplaces. In addition, surveys indicate that black personnel generally see intergroup relations as better in the army than in the larger society, which is one reason that many reenlist.

One major flaw with the above optimism with the military success at integration is that the military, unlike the private sector, is allowed to discriminate at the very beginning by using tests to admit recruits.  That is, by law, it is the only organization that can test and skim the very cream of the crop so to speak of Blacks.  The military has a cut-off point where anyone with a test score below (roughly equivalent to an IQ of 90) a certain level is not admitted.  This is not the case anywhere else.  Then, after enlisting only the very best, they can channel Blacks, based on their relatively low scores, into those units that are not cognitively challenging.  For example, if more Blacks are assigned to a mechanics unit versus an engineering construction unit, they will have an easier time being promoted.  But both units will have the same percentage of officers and non-commissioned officers.  So the army is able to artificially promote Blacks by assigning enlistees to different types of jobs that are more or less challenging with regards to intelligence.  They are not hampered by non-military organizations that cannot discriminate in this way, essentially against Whites.  However, since Feagin brings up the military, the only organization that uses testing for both recruitment and promotions, it has been subject to analyses by psychometricians.  One thing they have discovered is that Blacks score higher on tests than they do on job performance.  That is, Blacks tend to test higher than they actually perform in school or on the job.  That is, testing over predicts a Black's relative qualifications.

Feagin pg. 266: Building a Real Democracy.  It appears that few white Americans have ever envisaged for the United States the possibility of a truly just and egalitarian democracy grounded solidly in respect for human rights. Certainly, the founders did not conceive of such a possibility, even in the long run. Nor did later white leaders such as Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Dwight D. Eisenhower envision that type of democratic future. In my judgment, as the nation and the world change demographically and dramatically in the future, whites everywhere will face ever greater pressures to create and to participate in a new sociopolitical system that is nonracist, just, and egalitarian.

Randomly, throughout this book, Feagin will bring up democracy, but he has a real problem in that he never defines it.  In Darwinism, Dominance and Democracy: The Biological Bases of Authoritarianism (1997), Somit and Peterson take a look at the history of democracy and what it means today as well as in the past.  This is a very good short book and is essential reading for anyone who likes to throw around "democracy" as if we understood it.  The book shows just how unnatural democracy is, how only representative democracy is tolerated, and how direct democracy is shunned and has never been supported by any philosophers in the past.  And yet, if Feagin means by democracy "direct democracy" or the closest thing to it, then let's see what that means.  Some states like California have referendums, the closest thing we have to direct democracy.  In the last few years it has resulted in ending quotas and reducing support by the State for illegal immigrants.  Also, if we had direct democracy we would not have the immigration policy we have in the United States.  The majority of Americans do not want open borders, but our representative democracy does not always support what the people want but what the powerful and the elite want.  So immigration continues against democratic choice because of the Jewish lobby and big business --- for different self-promoting interests.  So I have to infer that what Feagin means by democracy is a form of totalitarian democracy, since that is where Marxism naturally leads.  That is, no democracy at all.[7]

Feagin pg. 267: The struggle to deal with the Nazi Holocaust, together with ongoing struggles for human rights by people in many countries around the globe --- including black Americans in the United States --- led to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This important international agreement stipulates in Article One that "all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights," and in Article Seven that "all are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law." Article 8 further asserts, "Everyone has the right to an effective remedy. . . for acts violating the fundamental rights; and Article 25 states that these rights extend to everyday life: "Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and his family, including food, clothing, housing."

Well aren't these non-democratic declarations convenient for Marxists around the world.  Notice that Article 25 states that everyone has a right to have as many children as they can produce, and that the rest of society owes them a living whether they make any effort at all to support their families by their own labor.  Under this socialist mandate, I have no obligation to give back to society, but I have every right to refuse to work or take any responsibility for my actions and the world owes me a living wage for my offspring and me.  Before Marxism this was called stealing.  Under Marxism, it is called class struggle.

Feagin pg. 269: However, the full eradication of racism will eventually require the uprooting and replacement of the existing hierarchy of racialized power. A developed antiracist strategy will eventually go beyond reform of current institutions to the complete elimination of existing systems of racialized power. One analysis of liberation strategies for the United States concluded that "oppressors cannot renounce their power and privilege within a racist relationship; they must abandon that relationship. . . . there is no historical example of genuine, peaceful abdication of racist supremacy by the whole ruling group." . . . The question hanging over white Americans is this: Do white Americans wish to face open racial conflict, even racial war, for themselves, their children, or their grandchildren? During the 1960s urban rebellion's numerous black leaders and a few white leaders pointed out that without social justice there can be no public order. This is still the long-term reality in the United States.

Feagin is apparently advocating a violent overthrow of the existing society.  That is how deeply he hates and despises representative democracy.  He believes that it is unrepentant and corrupt beyond salvation.  This is the same Marxist/Lenin proclamation that total revolution was necessary to overthrow freedom and replace it with the dictatorship of the proletariat.  So I would have to answer Feagin thusly, "White America would rather die than be subjugated by a Communist totalitarian state."  I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but I would rather fight than lose my freedom.  If Blacks cannot accept freedom, and would rather destroy America than to not be able to compete with other Americans on a level playing field, then I suspect turmoil and open warfare is the only option. This seems to be what Feagin is advocating and frankly what he desires.  His need for destroying White Gentile America seems to surpass his need for peace and representative democracy, even with its flawed institutions.


Feagin, if you are wondering, looks White as far as I can tell from the cover on his book.  I can only infer therefore that he is a self-hating White or he is a Jew who hates all White Gentiles.  I could find out I'm sure, but it really doesn't matter.  In either case, as an advocate of Marxist pseudoscientific prose for uncovering what he believes to be the truth, he has revealed in this book his unadulterated hate for Western culture and its dominant races.  What drives that hatred I believe are the same viscerally genetic coded algorithms that have always driven us humans to genocidal brutality --- an inherent blood-lust.  It evolved to high levels during our long stay in the environment of evolutionary adaptation --- when human bands and tribes were advancing to higher levels by killing other tribes who were less intelligent and less maniacal in defense of their own group. We see this same behavior in the chimpanzees.  And we carry that legacy with us, ready to unleash our venom whenever we feel that we are not reaching our evolutionary goals.

On the other hand, for most people the sheer prosperity and safety of Western civilization has tamed or subdued this human rage because it is safer to keep it under control than to suffer the consequences of allowing it to be unleashed.  Feagin, however uses the pen in hopes of getting other people to take up arms for his world vision.  This has happened many times before and it will continue to occur as long as human nature is what it is.  There will always be those people who want to destroy the "other" because they can't have it all.  Happiness is not sufficient; dominance must prevail.  Feagin's elite corps must rule and be on top.  Nothing less will do for him to meet his evolutionary goals.  Those goals are innate, and they are the totality of what he has become.  And it sends a clear message to Whites that we are surrounded by these neo-Marxists, and they are intent on seeing our culture and our gene pool destroyed whether it is through immigration, intermarriage, or outright genocide.  Whatever it takes will be done, unless we wake up from our slumber.

And finally, with regards to reparations:

From: John Bryant's weekly news letter 1/24/2001


Repairing the Claim for Reparations

In response to black claims for reparations for slavery, I say, "Let's look at the total bill."  We should begin with slavery and segue into modern times, noting the following important facts as we go:

* Blacks who were sold into slavery were mostly sold by fellow blacks, so if blacks want reparations, let them go to Africa and non-negotiably demand them.  (And while they're at it, let them stay there.)

* Blacks who were sold into slavery were mostly either criminals or captives.  In either case, slavery constituted a rescue.  So let blacks pay whites for services rendered.

* Blacks who were sold into slavery, tho compelled to work, acquired a better life than they would ever have had in Africa.  So let blacks pay whites for services rendered.

* Whites lost 600,000 dead -- the flower of their youth -- in a bloody Civil War, one of whose major issues was the ending of slavery.  So let blacks pay whites for services rendered.

* America has spent five trillion dollars on welfare, a good deal of which went for the uplifting and support of blacks.  So let blacks pay whites for services rendered.

* America destroyed her public school system trying to integrate blacks so they could be uplifted.  So let blacks pay whites for services rendered.

* Half of America's criminals are black, tho only 12% of the population is black.  So let blacks pay whites for their destructive behavior.

* Many of America's major cities have been destroyed by black population displacing white.  So let blacks pay whites for their destructive behavior.

* Black demands have brought about affirmative action and other anti-white laws.  So let blacks pay for their destructive behavior.

* Blacks have been failures where every other immigrant group has been successful, including many -- such as Irish, Chinese and Jews -- who were discriminated against in major ways; yet blacks blame whites for their failures.

Which would lead me to say "So let blacks pay whites for their destructive behavior", except for the fact that black failure means that blacks don't have any money, and still wouldn't have any if they were paid reparations -- they would just spend it as fast as they got it, with nothing more to show for it than a few hazy, alcohol- or coke-filled memories. Which is to say -- not to put too fine a point on it -- Reparations, my ass!



[1]     Later, Binet developed tests of reasoning, drawing, analogies, and pattern recognition that form the basis of modern intelligence tests. Spearman's contribution was the concept of a general intelligence factor (g) underlying correlations between tests of intelligence. Early advances in the study of intelligence were reversed by advocacy of testing for racial policies (e.g., sterilization laws). Finally, the 1960s heralded a fundamental shift away from causes within the individual as the source of social ills to causes outside the individual. Social factors that could be redressed by the government were considered the source of deficiencies. In this context of egalitarianism, recognition of biological bases of individual differences was and remains anathema. (Devlin, Bernie and Stephen E. Feinberg, Daniel P. Resnick, and Kathryn Roeder, eds. Intelligence, Genes, and Success: Scientists Respond to "The Bell Curve". Copernicus, 1997.)

[2]     Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem (No more entities should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary) William of Occam. [Now known as the principle of parsimony or Occam's Razor in science. Also: Prefer the simplest model that explains the data.] Occam's Razor, originally formulated as a maxim against the proliferation of nominal entities, has become a methodological principle dictating a bias toward simplicity in theory construction. In today's scientific jargon Occam's Razor has become this: Prefer the simplest model that explains the data. The need for such a maxim suggests that scientific theories often exhibit the opposite tendency and, in striving for optimality, become exceedingly intricate. Is natural, unaided, human inference similarly elaborate and tortuous? A well-established trend in cognitive psychology has been to project scientific tools into mental theories: As Gigerenzer (1991a) has suggested, models of the mind's function have often reflected the computationally expensive statistical tools used in scientific induction. This book has a different viewpoint, revealing the simple heuristics the mind can use without necessarily sacrificing accuracy. . . .Furthermore, Popper (1959) has argued that simpler models are more falsifiable, and Sober (1975) deems them more informative. But the transparency, falsifiability, or informativeness of models are not the only grounds to argue for the simplicity of actual mental mechanisms. We have provided evidence that simple heuristics are also adaptive for those who actually use them. Simplicity can have both aesthetic appeal and adaptive value. . . .There are two ways a theory can fail: by being wrong, or by being not even wrong, but merely indeterminate and imprecise. The heuristics-and-biases program has too often fallen into the latter category. But we would rather risk the former fate, because indeterminate theories hinder scientific progress by resisting attempts to prove, disprove, or improve them. In this book, we therefore propose computational models of heuristics, putting our theoretical cards on the table so that others can see them --- and even pick them up and play with them. (Gigerenzer, Gerd and Peter M. Todd, Eds. Simple Heuristics That Make Us Smart. Oxford, 1999.)

[3]     As a technique for theory construction, meta-analysis is more than useful. It is a necessary tool. Artifacts at the level of individual studies often thwart efforts to draw correct theoretical inferences.  Many people know that meta-analysis is a good way to pull together findings across studies to more accurately assess treatment effects, basic correlations, and other facts.  To test theories you must have established facts. Because meta-analysis is a good way to accurately establish facts, it is indirectly a key part of theory testing. Fewer people are aware that the results of meta-analysis can differ in quality. Several factors influence the accuracy of meta-analysis findings. Some research domains are extensive, other scant. Some research domains are plagued by method artifacts, others are not. Researchers differ widely in their ability to correct for artifacts when they are present. (Allen, Mike and Raymond W. Preiss eds. Persuasion: Advances Through Meta-Analysis. Hampton, 1998.)

[4]  Orthodox rabbis rip most Jews: Say other branches "not Judaism at all" by Tom Sheridan, Religion Reporter.  A group of Orthodox rabbis declared Monday that the Reform and Conservative branches "are not Judaism at all."  The 600 member Union of Orthodox Rabbis of the United States and Canada, the oldest organization of rabbis in the United States, condemned the two more liberal branches for condoning assimilation and intermarriage. . . .The Orthodox union said Orthodoxy means to oppose "conversions and homosexuality," which "are repugnant not only to Torah Judaism, but also to common morality."  Many Orthodox rabbis have long refused to recognize marriages, burials and conversions performed by Reform and Conservative rabbis, but this is the first time that an Orthodox rabbinical group has made such a declaration. [This means of course that since the Orthodox control Jewish immigration to Israel, that a convert cannot go and live in Israel, but an atheist Jew can.  You decide: is this a blood cult or a religion?]

[5]     From Doug Jones' chapter "Physical Attractiveness, Race, and Somatic [affecting the body] Prejudice in Bahia, Brazil" from the book Adaptation and Human Behavior: An Anthropological Perspective, 2000: SUMMARY (1.)  The evolutionary psychology of physical attractiveness may contribute to understanding "somatic prejudice," in which members of one racial or ethnic group are evaluated more or less favorably than members of another on the basis of their physical appearance. Three well-documented and universal or near-universal components of attractiveness -- color, "averageness," and status markers -- are likely to be especially relevant to understanding somatic prejudice. (2.)   Brazil is a racially stratified country in which whites have considerably higher status than blacks, but Brazilians generally treat race as a continuous rather than a categorical variable. An investigation of the complex racial terminology in the state of Bahia in northeastern Brazil shows that (a) Bahian racial classification is largely concerned with labeling individuals first by color, and then by African versus non-African features independently of color, and (b) in accordance with the ideology of mixture, individuals labeling photographs tend to avoid labels clearly indicating African features, and to emphasize the way different individuals combine white and black features, rather than differences between blacks and whites. (3.)   Although Bahians downplay black/white differences in labeling photographs, these differences play a major role in assessments of attractiveness: photographic subjects with pronounced African color and features are rated substantially less attractive than others (1.7 standard deviations), while subjects with intermediate features are not rated significantly less attractive than those with pronounced European features.  These findings demonstrate that evolutionary psychology must consider the role of social cues in the development of standards of attractiveness.

[6]     When the same trend lines are adjusted for the known difference in IQ between blacks and whites, the trend lines show that both in clerical and in professional and technical positions, for individuals in the same IQ range, blacks were being hired at higher rates than whites since the 1960s, with both trends increasing into the 1980s.(Devlin, 1997 above)

Complaining about the validity and fairness of IQ-type tests has been a popular way of avoiding serious consideration of the other questions about IQ differences - about their unity, essence, origins and function; but the complaints do not withstand scrutiny. In empirical testimony, two massive research programs on the use of IQ tests in occupational selection in the USA have shown the tests to be equally useful (i.e. valid and predictive) with all racial groups. Reynolds & Brown (1984) brought together the main strands of the voluminous evidence on whether and when IQ tests were unfair to minorities. Blinkhorn (1985) provides a review and observes that ". . the problem is not that tests under-predict the performance of blacks [in industry] but that they over-predict it." . . . But Project Alpha on the US Army provided the largest-ever trial of psychologists' capacity to help with effective and fair selection, and the most complete resultant vindication of IQ testing; and Herrnstein & Murray's US Department of Defense data have shown that, in today's conditions, IQ differences are much more predictive than anything to do with young adults' social classes of origin. (Brand, Christopher. The g Factor: General Intelligence and its Implications. John Wiley, 1996. (Under pressure from Marxists this book was depublished after its release. However, it is available on the Internet using search engines because the location may change.))

[7]  I Emailed Joe Feagin requesting that he define his concept of democracy.  He Emailed me back and stated, "Democracy involves full access and participation in the key decisions that shape one's life. As I see it, the best democratic political system would be a blend of direct and representative democracy, with a constitution protecting broad human rights. The New England town meeting at its best is a good model of democracy at the smaller unit levels, and that is my view of democracy at that level. As you move to larger political units, you have to have representative democracy because the size issue comes in. Representatives should be elected with short term limits, and with all candidates having equal access (undistorted by money) to the means of contacting voters.  A constitution with a strong bill of rights protecting speech, press, organization, etc., and minority groups of voters is also necessary. All groups in the population should have equal access to the political system, and should be protected from the tyranny of the majority by appropriate rights guarantees."

This politically correct definition however does not follow from Feagin's attack on Whites.  If people do not want a radically egalitarian society, then they should not be forced to accept or adopt one. But that is what Feagin attacks in his book; he concludes that democracy must include egalitarianism.  This is the fatal flaw between his PC definition and his radical agenda as spelled out in Racist America.


This review was written by Matthew Nuenke in January of 2001.  None of this material is copyrighted and may be used in any fashion deemed necessary or desirable to stop the recurrence of Marxist totalitarianism.