National Review editor Rich Lowry (cc photo: Gage Skidmore)
The National Review can’t seem to shake its racist reputation. Its latest hire, Jason Richwine, shows why.
Richwine was fired by the Heritage Foundation earlier this year when the Washington Post revealed (5/8) that his graduate research at Harvard argued that Hispanics are immutably, genetically inferior to whites–“the low average IQ of Hispanics is effectively permanent”–and that immigration policy should be IQ-based.
Last year, the National Review fired columnist John Derbyshire for writing a column in another magazine advising white kids to avoid “concentrations of blacks,” and to fend off charges of prejudice by befriending the rare civilized black person (FAIR Blog, 4/11/12). Editor Rich Lowry announced the firing in a blog post calling the column “nasty and indefensible,” though he failed to call it racist. Perhaps National Review‘s shaky grasp of racism explains why Lowry had to go public again, just three days later, to fire contributor Robert Weissberg for participating in a conference sponsored by the white supremacist group American Renaissance.
But racism is an National Review tradition. From its 1950s founding, when it campaigned for the racist order in the American South and South Africa, to recent years with the like of Derbyshire, Weissberg and “scientific racists” like Philippe Rushton, Steve Sailor and Mark Snyderman, who say black people are less intelligent than other groups, the National Review has been significantly defined by racism.
Which brings us back to National Review’s latest hire. When the liberal website Think Progress noted Monday (10/28) that Richwine’s byline was appearing on the magazine’s website, they wrote to editor Lowry, who responded briefly, acknowledging that Richwine was doing occasional blogging for the site.
Perhaps Lowry was too busy pondering why the National Review can’t seem to shake its racist reputation to write more?
Showing their true colors
Blindingly white skins
And balefully black hearts
OK and the authors point is??? Everything that Jason’s research showed is fact based. If you can claim global warming then his research is even more fact based
Oh come on now……If the Democratic party(Where 99% of blacks voted in a black man) that was the epitome of racism(ever hear of the KKK being republicans)Were those that fought so hard against all of the moves to have blacks vote,or be admitted to schools etc can clean their image ,so can a magazine.Wanna talk racist?Read Michelle Obamas senior thesis.If you can find it.Look Im not standing up for anybody saying such things.Not on racist grounds but on scientific grounds.It is true that some test groups score higher on IQ tests.Ask most people and they would think Asians are averaging higher than blacks.And they would be right.But how much higher is the question.And that answer in about 3 points.Oo say it aint so Joe.Scary numbers that.That said -most of what is written here is taken way out of context for political effect.Political correctness seems to dictate for instance that 99% of blacks voting black is not racist,so should never be mentioned.Well national review and this guy have never shied from reporting what they find.It is up to you to draw conclusions.There are areas in Hispanic concentrations where IQ seems to trend lower.Instead of studying why(my guess is nutritional)we yell racist.As far as his Harvard research we all know(those of us that attended)that that can be fanciful and provoking as a matter of course.As I stated I consider Michelle Obamas to be very racist.it was a college paper people.Wish we could see Obamas.it is for some reason sealed.National review is a fantastic source of conservative opinion.As with any other magazine subject to the failings of its writers and editors.Dont sweat it.No one on this sight will ever read it.
cheap Kings jerseys china With Paypal