In recent weeks Facebook has seen the creation of numerous pages representing White Student Unions at U.S College campuses. These groups claim to provide White students with a "safe space" in which to discuss their experiences with anti-White racism. The existence of such groups has infuriated and shocked many who believe that such groups are, at best, absurd and, at worst, downright evil. This reaction rests on the premise that White people do not experience significant discrimination and that, to the extent that modern western society is racist, White people are the perpetrators, rather than the victims, of bigotry. The purpose of this post is to show that these people are mistaken and to demonstrate that, in fact, racism against white people is common place.
Opportunities Denied
The most transparent examples of anti-White racism are to be found in the world of educational and employment opportunities. Unlike the task, often attempted by liberals, of demonstrating that African Americans suffer discrimination in these domains, showing that White people face racist hurdles is very simple. The simplicity of this task owes itself to the fact that, as you would expect in any genuinely racist society, businesses and schools are open about their anti-White policies.
For instance, in the United States it is typical for firms to announce that they are either beginning to go out of their way to find non-White employees, improving upon their previous attempts to find non-White employees, or that they are proud of the success of their previous attempt to find non-White employees. Any time a firm talks about increasing "diversity" in a workplace they are functionally talking about decreasing the proportion of their employees that are white. Examples of this are easy to come by. It took me about 5 minutes to find pages implicating Google, Facebook, Apple, Walmart, McDonald's, and Microsoft in such attempts. In fact, I know of few major corporations that do not have some sort of "diversity" policy in place. Such policies make ethnicity a factor by which a person's hire-ability is judged. Obviously, White is seen as a negative and so qualified whites are denied job opportunities which they deserve so that companies can reach their "diversity" goals.
Educational opportunities are also denied to Whites based on their race. Empirical research from Princeton University shows that Whites have to score much higher than non-Whites on standardized tests in order to be allowed into the same universities. In fact, said research found that when you compare equally qualified Black and White applicants to elite universities you find that Black applicants are over 5 times as likely to be admitted. Similarly, a recent survey of officials from 68 highly selective U.S colleges found that “membership in an under-represented group” tied with “exceptional talent” as the top pick for what makes a student “fit” their university. Other research has shown that similar discrimination takes place with respect to the funding of college. Specifically, it has been shown that Whites receive, on average, significantly smaller loans and grants than non-Whites do.
This discrimination has real world consequences. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows that Black high-school students are more likely than White high-school students to make it into college. That this is due to discrimination, rather than Blacks being more qualified than Whites, can be seen by the fact that White high-school students make better grades than Black students and score better on standardized tests. Thus, anti-White racism unfairly denies both educational and employment opportunities to Whites.
Racist Stereotypes
Equally unfair are the false and negative stereotypes about White males which exist in our society. Everyone has, at one point or another, heard it suggested that Black males are taller and have larger genitals than White males. Obviously, such a statement is meant to diminish the sexual value of White males relative to Black ones. Of course, real group differences, where they exist, should be recognized. But both of these claims amount to nothing more than racist myths. Analyzes of the relevant data show that there are actually no significant differences between White and Black males in terms of genital size and that White males are actually taller than Black males.
There also exists a stereotype that White people, male or female, are, basically, just not cool. Of course, "coolness" is rather subjective. Nonetheless, it’s hard not to notice that phrases such as "That's so White" meaning the same thing as "That's so lame" is a striking exception to the more general trend of our society becoming increasingly sensitive about the use of any group label that can be construed as having a negative connotation. It's almost as if the group in this instance, White people, is valued less than the groups in other instances.
Anti-White stereotypes extend not only to appearance and status, but also crime. In particular, many people in our society believe that basically all serial killers and mass murderers are White. This couldn't be further from the truth. In fact, the serial killer database assembled by Radford University shows that in recent decades blacks have been roughly 4 times more likely than whites to be serial killers. This figure surprises many people, as we almost never hear about Black serial killers. But this is because of biased reporting and not because they do not exist.
Crime in anti-White America
Speaking of crime, anti-White racism has profoundly distorted the public's perception of inter-racial crime as well as police brutality. In recent years, it seems as if every few months we hear a new story about whites, either police or private citizens, killing blacks. Based on the media's portrayal someone could easily get the impression that homicide is much more often White on Black than Black on White. Crime statistics paint a strikingly different picture. Data compiled by the Bureau of Justice Statistics shows that the rate of Black on White homicide has been roughly three times the rate of White on Black homicide for at least the last 35 years. Moreover, an analysis of 6 years of data by the Department of Justice showed that roughly 500 more Whites than Blacks were killed during arrests. Of course, this is partly due to the fact that the White population in the United States is much larger than the Black population. But if we divide the arrest fatality numbers by the violent crime numbers provided by the FBI's Uniform Crime Report we see that a White violent criminal is more likely than a Black violent criminal to be killed by police. Any American who watches the news knows the names of several blacks killed by Whites in recent years (Micheal Brown, Trayvon Martin, and Freddie Gray, for instance). By contrast, even though more Whites are killed by police, and even though more Blacks kill Whites than the other way around, and even though White criminals are more likely than Black criminals to be killed by police, few people know the names of any Whites recently killed by law enforcement, or by Blacks.
Of course, someone who follows the news will also probably know that many of the Blacks whose deaths generated protests were killed justly. And this is another form of anti-White racism: White police officers and private citizens are now regularly demonized for defending themselves against Black aggressors.
White Racial Consciousness
Anti-White racism is fairly obvious in crime, education, and employment, but nowhere is it more out in the open than in the university. Consider, for example, a recent report by the University of Illinois which argued that having a room filled with too many white people is a "microaggression" against students of color and, therefore, wrong. Could the racism be any more overt? Consider, also, the classes on ethnicity offered by universities today. It is perfectly normal for a college to offer classes in "African American Studies", "Latino Studies", etc, in which the problems of these ethnic groups are systematically studied and an appreciation for what makes these groups unique is gained. By contrast, most universities offer nothing in the way of "White studies" and when they do it literally consists of offering classes with titles like "The Problem of Whiteness". Similarly, most schools have clubs designed to serve the interests of Black, Hispanic, and Asian, students. But the recent rise in White Student Unions has shown that White people are uniquely not allowed to engage in such activities. Meanwhile, Blacks not only organize their own student groups but also demand that white people leave areas when such groups are using them.
More broadly, what is being done in the university, and in society at large, is that White people are being denied any sense of ethnic identity. This is in-spite of the fact that large meta-analyses of dozens of studies show that racial consciousness is associated with improved personal well being and better life outcomes. Indeed, White identity is so strongly viewed as evil that many left wing publications went as far as to call Whites mourning the death of the French of the Paris Terrorist Attacks racist. Can you imagine anyone calling Blacks, Asians, or Arabs, racist for morning an attack on one of their cities?
The most important implication of denying White's a racial identity is the denial that there is such a thing as White interests. Everyone knows that there are certain things that are in the interests of Black people, Asian people, and Hispanic people. Such interests are to be served by organizations like the NAACP, the ADL, racial student unions, political coalitions (Ex: the black caucus) and other modes of organization that are denied to Whites. To many, the mere suggestion that Whites also have group interests is itself racist. This denial of White interests has serious political consequences.
Consider the recent Muslim refugee crisis. Whites are expected to take in these refugees only because it is denied that they have any right to view the situation from the perspective of their own group interest. This is why everyone is talking about Europe and America's obligation to take in Muslims. No one mentions an obligation on the part of rich Asian nations like Japan, Singapore, and South Korea. Nor do Asian nations with populations so large that a million Muslims would barely be felt, such as China and India, have obligations. Perhaps even more extraordinarily, Arab nations which are far richer than almost all European nations, such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, are never mentioned either. No, instead, only Whites have an obligation to take in Muslim immigrants. And this is not because Whites are uniquely able to take in immigrants, but, rather, because Whites uniquely lack the right to decide not to do so. This is why the excuses which are valid for non-Whites, about how their economies can't take such a surge of immigration, about how the Muslims would change their national culture, etc., aren't valid for Whites. White people have no right to preserve their culture. They have no right to protect their economies. Hell, they don't even have a right to fear terrorism. The only right afforded to White nations is to serve the interests of others. This, the denial of the national sovereignty of White nations, directly flows from the denial of White interests, and is the pinnacle of anti-White racism.
At this point, I think it would be instructive to imagine a world in which the tables were turned. Imagine a society in which firms openly declared that they were going to try and hire more White people and universities had a policy of requiring non-Whites to get higher test scores than Whites in-order to be let into the same schools. Imagine that police were actually more likely to kill non-White criminals than White criminals and non-White police were blamed for defending themselves against White thugs. Imagine that Whites were three times as likely to kill non-Whites as the other way around. Imagine that the terms "Black" and "Hispanic" were used to disparage things and that racist, demonstrably false, stereotypes existed about the mating value and criminal tendencies of non-Whites. Imagine that non-Whites were not allowed to organize, at school or politically, the way that Whites do. And, on top of all this, non-White nations were assigned responsibilities that no one would imagine forcing on White ones. What would we call such a world? Obviously, we would call it racist.
History Does Not Justify Anti-White Racism
Some people will say that racism against Whites is justified. They will claim that White people deserve all of this as punishment for past wrong doings and that Whites have a unique obligation to help non-whites because they uniquely hurt them in the past. This belief is mistaken, but before demonstrating that, it is worth emphasizing exactly what it is: this is just a racist saying that their racism is justified. It is the exact same as an anti-Black racist claiming that their racism is justified because Blacks really are dumb and criminal. I point this out not because I believe we can discredit racism apriori, but, rather, just to note that society, for better or worse, would never tolerate something like this being said about non-Whites. With that being said, let's briefly look at some of the White races supposedly unique sins.
First, let's consider slavery. We hear endlessly about the slavery practices that Western governments engaged in several hundred years ago. Slavery is supposed to explain why certain minorities in America lag so far before economically, and Whites are expected to eternally pay for enslaving Africans. Given that slavery from 150 years ago is thought to be so potent, you would think that modern day slavery would be an even greater concern. And yet, you almost never hear about the fact that, today, there are literally millions of slaves in both Africa and Asia. In fact, according to the Global Slavery Index, the number of slaves in The Congo, or India, or China, or The Sudan, or Iraq, or Syria, alone is greater than the number of slaves in The United States, Canada, The United Kingdom, Portugal, Spain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Finland, and Greece, combined.
Non-Whites engaging in slavery isn't exactly new, either. History's longest-running slave trade was carried out for over 1,000 years by the Islamic Ottoman Empire and enslaved well over 10 million Africans (as well as many Europeans). In fact, long before the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade began, being a slave was perfectly normal in many parts of Africa. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, prior to 1600 in many African nations’ as many as one in three people or more were enslaved. Given that all the races engage in slavery, it's hard to see how slavery can be used to assign any unique blame to White people.
The same can be said of conquest. Often times, Europeans are made to feel guilty for conquering America, Africa, Australia, and other lands. The poverty of nations today is blamed on them being conquered in the past. Historically, this is nonsense. Virtually every group of people in history has engaged in conquest. The Aztec Empire in America, the Songhay Empire in Africa, and the Chinese Empire, to name just a few examples, all greatly increased the power of their states by conquering pre-existing nations and subjugating their native peoples. In fact, both The Mongolian Empire and The Ottoman Empire invaded significant portions of Europe. And yet, neither Arabs nor East Asians, not to mention Africans and Native Americans, are made to feel guilty about their imperial past. Nor is said past used as an explanation for why some nations are poor today while others are not. Clearly then, the idea that Whites are uniquely guilty due to the history of White imperialism is untenable. (It also isn't true that European colonialism made nations poor. In fact, a 2012 paper out of Berkeley and NYU showed that the more colonized a nation was by Europeans in the past the richer it ended up being today.)
Finally, there's genocide. Many view Whites as a uniquely evil race of people because of the genocides which Whites have committed against non-Whites. The problem with this line of reasoning, like those refuted above, is not that White people did not kill huge numbers of Native Americans and Jews but, rather, that White people don't hold anything like a monopoly on genocide. Consider The Ottoman Empire. During the 20th century, the Ottoman's killed millions while carrying out genocides of Armenians, Assyrians, and Greeks. Arab's aren't the only non-Whites to commit genocide either. Nearly 2 million people died in the Cambodian Genocide of the 1970's.
Africa has had its fair share of genocide as well, though they are treated differently than other non-White genocides are, which are themselves treated differently from White lead genocides. Generally speaking, if a genocide is carried out by Whites the focus will be on how evil the villains are and how much they owe to their victims. Thus, people are made to hate the Nazi's and early American settlers. If Arabs or Asians commit a genocide it is ignored. Many people have probably never even heard of the Genocides carried out by the Ottomans and the Cambodians, outside of perhaps a passing mention in a history class, even though these genocides are much more recent than what happened to the Native Americans. Finally, if a genocide is committed by Africans the public is made aware of it, but we entirely ignore the villain and, amazingly, believe that it is once again us who has an obligation to help the victims! For instance, most Americans heard about the late 20th century genocides carried out in Rwanda and the Congo. But what did we hear about them? We heard about the victims and how it was our duty to help them. The perpetrators were not demonized the way that, for instance, the Nazis were. In fact, I bet the average American doesn't even know who the perpetrator was in either Rwanda or the Congo. This would never happen with a White lead genocide. It is unthinkable that a white nation could do what these African nations did and not be remembered as villains hundreds of years later.
What we see, then, is that we have a double standard when looking at history. We blame white people for things that we absolve other races of. Clearly then, since this way of looking at history is, itself, racist, this historical perspective is a symptom, rather than a cause or justification, of anti-White racism.
The Peculiar Nature of Anti-White Racism
When discussing anti-White racism, there are two peculiar facts which must be noted: firstly, that many white people are involved in leading anti-White racism, and secondly, that few White people complain about anti-White racism, at least compared to other groups who claim to face discrimination. When asked one after another, it becomes clear that these questions are really one and the same: why do so many white people seem to buy into anti-White narratives? No other ethnic group has, at any time in history, been subject to a racist movement in which they were at once the chief victims and among the chief perpetrators. Answering this question is beyond the scope of this post. Here, I just want to point out that the fact that Whites actively participate in anti-White racism does not change the fact that it is real and serious. If anything, it makes anti-White racism more serious, because Whites lack anyone to defend them, including themselves.
Conclusion
In this post we've seen that whites face discrimination in a variety of different areas. This racism limits their individual opportunities, encourages racist and false stereotypes, and deprives them of both a healthy sense of racial identity and their right to govern in their own group interests. We've also seen that history cannot be used to justify anti-White racism since there are no historical sins unique to Whites. Many White people aren't aware that this racism exists. It arose so gradually and is now so commonplace that many fail to notice it as anything out of the ordinary. Those who do are silenced. Still fewer understand where this racism came from or why White people themselves participate in it. Clearly then, contrary to those who deny the legitimacy of White Student Unions, when it comes to facing racism, there is quite a lot for White people to talk about.
The most surprising finding here is that population IQ correlates more strongly with orbital volume than it does with cortex capacity. However, this may just be due to how well orbital volume correlates with latitude.
Here we see that cranial capacity does continue to predict latitude holding orbital volume constant, but the association has a P value of .14. Given the small sample size of nations being used in this analysis, and the fact that a P value of .14 isn't that far off from conventional significance thresholds, I am inclined to view this as support for the view that brain size is associated with latitude independent of variation in orbital volume.
