December 31, 2017

Source: Bigstock

To our knowledge, there is only one former (and future) congressional candidate who has tweeted a picture of Paul Ryan being dropped from a helicopter, who has used the (((triple parentheses))) to tag someone as Jewish, who has used the phrases “the goyim know” and “It’s OK to Be White,” and who claims to be currently reading Culture of Critique by Kevin MacDonald, whom John Derbyshire once referred to as “The Marx of the Anti-Semites.”

That man is Republican Paul Nehlen of Wisconsin, who ran against Paul Ryan in 2016 but was only able to squeak out a measly 15% of the vote. Nehlen says he intends to run against Ryan again in 2018, although his recent enthusiastic embrace of Alt-Right terminology would appear destined to sink him.

Last week Breitbart News—which used to feature Nehlen’s writing—formally disavowed him. “Nehlen is dead to us,” said Arthur Schwartz, an advisor to Breitbart’s Steven Bannon. “He’s gone off the deep end,” said Breitbart editor Joel Pollak of Nehlen.

After being queried by The Washington Post about his recent radicalization, Nehlen responded with a text message:

If pro-White is White supremacy, what is pro-Jewish? I reject being called a White Supremacist, because clearly Pro-White isn’t White Supremacy unless Pro-Jewish is Jewish Supremacy.

As of press time, The Washington Post has steadfastly avoided Nehlen’s question. Instead, they have condemned him merely for posing the question.

Despite the fact that it’s the current year, and despite the fact that we’ve struggled as a nation since the mid-1960s to work toward an equal world, Asian students persist in making black students look dumb.

Recent research finds that in the math section of the SATs—with a perfect score being 800—black American students lag behind Asians by a staggering 170 points. Factoring in their relative percentages of the population, Asian students are a mind-melting sixty times more likely than black students to score higher than 750 in math on the SATs.

We sincerely encourage Asian students nationwide to do some soul-searching and stop acting so smart. The Narrative depends on it.

In a recent research paper with the academically unwieldy name of “Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice,” Lisa Legault of the University of Toronto arrives at the ironic but not at all surprising conclusion that people are much more likely to make a personal decision to be racially tolerant compared to when you scold and shame and harass and pressure them into not being “racist”:

Individuals with a controlled motivation to regulate prejudice are motivated to reduce prejudice for external reasons (e.g., pressure, fear). They might suppress racism because they seek approval from others or because social norms require that prejudice be avoided. Conversely, individuals with a self-determined motivation to regulate prejudice are motivated by internal factors, such as the personal relevance and importance of striving to be nonprejudiced. For such individuals, the pursuit of nonprejudice is valuable and enjoyable, and energized by the satisfaction gleaned from intergroup relations.

We’re not so sure about that last part—the whole “it’s enjoyable and energizing to strive to be nonprejudiced,” because we’ve never found striving for anything to be particularly enjoyable. But we’ve been stressing the first part for years—if you’re constantly clucking your tongue and tormenting people about being “racist,” sooner or later anyone with a spine will cease to be so much as bothered by the accusation. Instead, they’ll simply shrug and say, “Sure—why not?”


Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!