25 Aug 2019

New Yorker Headline: “Penn Law Professor Wants to Make America White Again”

, , ,

Amy Wax, a professor at Penn Law, has gravely jeopardized both her career and personal reputation, tip-toeing around the edge of the Overton Window, by questioning the absolute equality of mankind’s cultures.

In Nazi Germany, when somebody got this far out of line, they’d get a visit from the Gestapo. In the Soviet Union, it would be the N.K.V.D. rapping on the door. In contemporary America, the New Yorker sends a professional apparatchik like Isaac Chotiner to assassinate by interview.


If a politician with a history of anti-Semitism says, “The Jews control a giant chunk of Hollywood,” and he starts ranting about that, do you think that the proper response is to say, “Well, let’s investigate exactly how much power Jews have in Hollywood, and, if it’s true that Jews have a lot of power in Hollywood, we should let this person rant about how much power the Jews have in Hollywood, because, after all, it is true?” And so anything that is true can’t be racist. What do you think of my example there?

Well, here you go with the “racist” again. I mean, is it true? Are there a lot of Jews in Hollywood? Yeah, there are. Let’s start with that—there are a tremendous number of Jews, out of proportion to their numbers in the population within the universities, within the media, in the professions. We can ask all of these questions, and you know what? They admit of an answer. But essentially what the left is saying is: We can’t even answer the question. We can’t. Once we’ve labelled something racist, the conversation stops. It comes to a halt, and we are the arbiters of what can be discussed and what can’t be discussed. We are the arbiters of the words that can be used, of the things that can be said.

I can tell you, and, once again, this is just from the mail I get, from the e-mails I get, from the people I talk to, that kind of move is deeply resented.

I’m just trying to make a point about how something could be true but still racist or used in a racist manner. Not that I think that everything you said is true.

Once again, you’d have to define racism. You’re basically saying any generalization about a group, whether true or false—and we know it doesn’t apply to everybody in the group, because that’s just a straw man—is racist. I mean, we could do “sexist,” right?

We could.

So, women, on average, are more agreeable than men. Women, on average, are less knowledgeable than men. They’re less intellectual than men. Now, I can actually back up all those statements with social-science research.

You can send me links for women are “less intellectual than men.” I’m happy to include that in the piece if you have a good link for that.

O.K., well, there’s a literature in Britain, a series of papers that were done, and I need to look them up, that show that women are less knowledgeable than men. They know less about every single subject, except fashion. There is a literature out of Vanderbilt University that looks at women of very high ability—so, controlling for ability—and, starting in adolescence, women are less interested in the single-minded pursuit of abstract intellectual goals than men. They want more balance in their life. They want more time with family, friends, and people. They’re less interested in working hard on abstract ideas. You can put together a database that shows that. The person who has the literature is a man named David Lubinski, and he shows that intelligence isn’t what’s driving it. It is interest, orientation, what people want to spend their time doing.

Now, is that sexist? We can argue all day about whether it is sexist. We can argue from morning till night. And it is sterile. It is pointless. Let’s talk about the actual findings and what implications they have for policy, for expectations.

[Wax sent links to two studies whose lead author is Richard Lynn, a British psychologist who is known for believing in racial differences in intelligence, supporting eugenics, and associating with white supremacists. (She also shared the Wikipedia page for “general knowledge,” which cites several of Lynn’s studies.) David Lubinski, a professor of psychology at Vanderbilt, clarified that his research was about the life choices of men and women and did not address claims such as women being less intellectual than men.]

Professor Wax, throughout the interview, is trying to identify the Progressive restriction of speech and thought as a serious national and academic problem. Chotiner, throughout the interview, is looking for some damaging quotes he can use to hang her.

5 Feedbacks on "New Yorker Headline: “Penn Law Professor Wants to Make America White Again”"

Schill McGuffin

It would at least be consistent if those on the left who wish to shut down discussion on these issues were flatly opposed to all sociological or social-psychological research on the grounds that it’s socially divisive and destructive. But the same people who would shut down discussion of these sorts of race or sex-based trends have built whole institutions on “white privilege” and “toxic masculinity”.


I have never met or seen a white supremacist. I think this label first was given to the white prison gangs (and post prison) who banded together to defend themselves from what could only be labeled the black supremacist.

I think I have seen and met White nationalist, at least as loosely defined by the left. In fact I could be one; I am white and I do believe in nation/country first. But I’m not racist and I suspect that most people thus labeled are not racist. Realist maybe but not racist.


White supremacy is the Loch Ness monster of the Left: Big, scary, and imaginary.

They have already maxed out their race card with calling everyone racist, then declaring everyone had white privilege, then claiming everyone who disagreed with them was a Nazi, if not Literally Hitler. White supremacy is the next evolution and there will be another evolution after white supremacy is discredited.


The New Yorker pulls this kind of stunt every time its glass cover gets lifted for a few seconds.


“White Supremacy” replaced “racist” with had replaced “Nazi”. It is all “Marxist” for “I hate you”. In the Ukraine “Nazi” replaced “Kulak”. It is all the same.

Believe that they do hate anyone who is not a true believer in the Cultural Marxist theology.

“Standards”, “merit”, and “equal opportunity” are all elements of “White Supremacy”and just an excuse to keep the “minorities”down. Actually, especially “The sacred minority”, who are driven to violence and irrationality by “White Supremacy”. There is no other acceptable explanation for Detroit, Saint Louis, ChiCongo, Baltimore, et al.. Well maybe also “slavery” in America [not to be confused with slavery in Africa, the Muslim World or in Asia which are, of course, White myths.]

It is all verbal garbage, but they do mean to destroy you because you are blocking the way to their mythical Utopia, and they hate you for that. Antifa is just the beginning.


Please Leave a Comment!

Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark