Millions will watch, not able to tell you why. It’s a game that doesn’t matter, but it’s a game that matters very much. Army/Navy. One of the proud traditions in all of American sport, this annual college football game between the United States Military Academy and United States Naval Academy is best described in these words from Sports Illustrated’s Joe Posanski:

Army-Navy football feels as if it was preserved in a snow globe many years ago. All that's missing for the game in Philadelphia this year is the snow. Everything is blue and gray, even the sky. Older men wear fedoras and homburgs, young couples hold hands, and the gates overflow with happy people in somber overcoats. Someone shouts, "Get your program here!" The sports world, the real world, changes so rapidly, but not Army-Navy. Here it is perpetually 1948, and America is strong. The Midshipmen march into the stadium in perfect rhythm, and the Cadets march in perfect rhythm, and tomorrow looks bright.

Why does Army-Navy still matter? Neither team has been a national championship contender in two generations. Many years, neither team is even a bowl contender. The schools stubbornly cling to the worn-out triple-option offense years after even the most stubborn warhorses, such as Nebraska and Alabama, gave it up. In today's world of wildcats and spreads and pistols, Army-Navy can look more like a reenactment than a football game.

“Preserved in a snow globe” is the perfect way to describe what will be on display for a national television audience on CBS. Few, if any, NFL scouts will be in attendance to watch a football game that features two teams running a variation of the option/triple-option/Wing-T attack.*

Posanski should just come out and say why he thinks the Army/Navy looks more like a “reenactment” than a modern college football game. Both teams have majority White starters, and their rosters are full of White players that few other colleges dared recruit.

Into the Cannibal’s Pot – Lessons for America from Post-Apartheid South Africa
Ilana Mercer, Seattle: Stairway Press, 2011, hb, 319pp

Ilana Mercer is a well-known controversialist on the American right, who writes a deservedly popular WorldNetDaily column and somehow finds time to maintain both a website and blog.

Her views are probably best described as paleo-libertarian. The book’s provocative title, which probably cost her potential readers, is borrowed from Ayn Rand, but the author tempers capitalist principles with respect for national identities and cultural traditions. Unusually amongst conservatives, she combines Israelophilia and dislike of Islam with trenchant opposition to American military adventurism. Unusually amongst libertarians, she is an outspoken critic of current US immigration policy as subversive of social order as well as fiscal responsibility. She has now turned her sights on her former homeland of South Africa – both for its own sake and because she feels its tenebrous present contains urgent indicators for America.

The author was born in South Africa, the daughter of a rabbi, but the family had to leave in the 1960s because of her father’s anti-apartheid outspokenness. They decamped to Israel, before the author moved back to South Africa in the 1980s to start a family. She was (and is) against apartheid; she recalls having tea with Desmond Tutu and being on the Grand Parade in Cape Town in 1990 to witness Mandela’s release. From there she went to Canada and eventually the United States.

Notwithstanding her anti-apartheid views, she feels duty-bound to show that the RSA reality was immeasurably more complex than the simplistic narrative which came to misinform the West’s policy towards its final African redoubt. In the old days, there were gross indignities and injustices, and yet in the African context the old SA compared favourably with its neighbours:

“When we departed, South Africa was still a country with a space program...gleaming skyscrapers, and department stores that rivaled Macy’s. The Central Business District in Johannesburg bustled. Crime was controlled, or at least confined. When mobs stoned cars en route to D. F. Malan Airport in Cape Town…a tough and competent police sprang into action. An equally impressive Western system of Roman-Dutch law, and a relatively independent judiciary, dished out just desserts.” (1)

By contrast, the “Rainbow Nation” so revered by postmodern moralizers is largely dysfunctional and becoming more so, in accordance with what has become a sad post-colonial African tradition. The consequences for South Africans of all races range from the inconvenient to the lethal.

The country which carried on space programmes now suffers regular electricity shortages. Once-reliable government services have become a kind of lottery, with even the wealthiest suburbs experiencing interruptions in basic services like postal delivery, refuse collection and sanitation, while one third of budget-administering municipal councillors are functionally illiterate. There has been an explosion of AIDS, thanks to tribal prejudices against science—to the extent that an estimated 20% of adults have the virus. The overall unemployment rate rose from 19% in 1994, immediately before the end of apartheid and at the end of a long period of economic stagnation, to 31% in 2003. It has subsequently declined to 25%, but this is still very high for a country so well-endowed with natural resources, and with much lower levels of debt than many other countries. Black household income shrank by 19% between 1995 and 2000—although it had started to recover prior to the global financial crisis. This is despite – or because of—Black Economic Empowerment (BEE) policies which compel firms employing 50 or more staff to have a certain proportion of black employees and/or black investors. BEE has devastated whole industries, such as the mining sector (ironically, as Anglo-American was one of the chief instruments of ending apartheid) and have helped to force 10% of whites out of work and below the poverty line. Comparing past government performance with present, it seems as if the dearest wish of African National Congress MP Mario Rantho has already been realized:

“It is imperative to get rid of merit as the overriding principle in the appointment of public servants.”

There is less scope for wry humour when it comes to violent crime, although the author tries by entitling a section “Crime, The Beloved Country” in an allusion to Alan Paton’s classic anti-apartheid novel of 1948. Over 300,000 have been killed since the arrival of black majority rule as the erstwhile unjust but orderly regime became one which is theoretically just but with scarcely any order. Mercer cites BBC statistics from 2006 showing that on average, 65 people are murdered each day, 195 raped and 300 robbed with violence. Shockingly, she cites 2008 figures suggesting that more than 50,000 children under three years old are raped each year—10% of total rapes. By comparison:

“Few realize that during the decades of the apartheid regime a few hundred Africans in total perished as a direct and indirect consequence of police brutality. A horrible injustice, indubitably, but nothing approximating the death toll in ‘free’ South Africa where hundreds of Africans, white and black, die weekly” (author’s emphases)

So ungovernable are some places that private security firms have actually been hired by the police to protect…police stations. The South African Police Service’s acronym of SAPS seems highly appropriate. Even high-profile liberals, like writer Nadine Gordimer, historian David Rattray and former First Lady Marike de Klerk, are not immune from murderous assaults. Arguably more deserving of sympathy are poorer, apolitical Afrikaners, singled out for attack because some among them once oppressed and dispossessed blacks. Now all Afrikaners are being oppressed and dispossessed – except more rapidly and much more finally.

An economically and culturally significant subset, Afrikaner farmers (Boer of course means farmer), almost seems to be targeted for obliteration, with one tenth of them – over 3,000 – murdered since the end of apartheid, without anyone appearing to notice, let alone care. The author notes ruefully that “seals being clubbed to death on ice floes have garnered more attention” than what is widely accepted to be the actual genocide of these agriculturalists, often in circumstances of the most frightful cruelty. Statistically, farming in South Africa is more dangerous than mining. When Pretoria attorney Philip du Toit gallantly raised the unpleasant, unfashionable subject in his 2004 book The Great South African Land Scandal, he was brushed aside or condemned as the most verkrampte variety of bigot. The government, the semi-divine Mandela and the self-appointed “international community” all seem indifferent.

Many of the farmers who have survived thus far are quitting both the countryside and the country, defeated by physical assault, theft, sabotage and killing of livestock, incompetent police, corrupt officials and unjust land confiscations. By 2015, one third of farmers’ land will have been redistributed, and much of this acreage is already lying fallow or reverting to bush, because the new proprietors (often local tribal leaders or ANC party bosses) lack the interest or the skills to farm it. In 2009, South Africa became a net food importer for the first time. If or when famine strikes it will presumably be ascribed to the legacy of apartheid rather than the inadequacies of the nouvelle regime.

The white population decreased by 20% between 1995 and 2005, giving rise to the colloquialism of “packing for Perth” and causing even Mandela to snarl that they are “traitors”. Mandela’s Western worshippers may be surprised to learn that their demi-god would resort to such brusquerie, but after all he did lead the ANC’s terrorist wing, Umkhonto we Sizwe (Spear of the Nation) whose anthem contains the following un-neighbourly sentiment:

“We the members of the Umkhonto have pledged ourselves to kill them—kill the whites”

Even terrorists deserve a chance of redemption, but it is salutary to recall that Amnesty International—not generally considered a diehard conservative organisation—refused to recognize Mandela as a prisoner of conscience because of his continued commitment to violence, and that the country over which he hovers like some angelic presence early forged cordial links with the likes of Gaddafi, Castro and assorted Palestinian hardliners.

White flight has further skewed the imbalance between provider and provided for—today for every (disproportionately white) taxpayer there are no fewer than eleven (disproportionately black) voters. To add to this vast potential for class envy, many of these voters have been schooled to resent the whites on whom they depend. It is a volatile blend, fuelling radical redistribution policies and a sporadic ethnic intifada against whites—especially those who live on isolated farms far from police who might not come even if they knew what was happening, and would probably never catch the killers even if they did come.

I have used the word intifada because the Afrikaners always had an unusually intimate relationship with Israel. The author says of the Dutch Reformed Church to which most Afrikaners owe (or owed) allegiance—

“In their community they saw an extension of the covenant God formed with the Israelites.”

The material effects of this mysticism were decades of strategic co-operation between the two pariah-states, both hated for real or alleged racism, and both the objects of innumerable angry denunciations, UN resolutions and anguished editorials. Many in both condemned countries saw the situation as Mrs. Mercer describes it:

“It was SA and Israel against the world and against the forces of nihilistic liberalism intent on snuffing out civilized outposts at the tip of Africa and in the Middle East.”

Calvinist eschatological logic played a paradoxical part in South Africa’s trajectory—originally inspiring the Afrikaner expansion into the intoxicating-horrifying wilderness, then being used to justify and bolster apartheid before eventually turning in on itself, as the Afrikaners realized they

“…had become something they detested…the biblically blessed country became an Ishmael, an outcast.”

There was a consequent collapse of will in Afrikanerdom’s upper echelons. Big business always hated apartheid, there was little or no academic or artistic support, and when the church gave up in puzzled despair there was no more reason to resist—even though Afrikaners knew well that their quality of life would suffer. There is a revealing anecdote from the fraught final days of apartheid, when there were constant rumours of a military coup to forestall power-sharing. When General Constand Viljoen told General George Meiring that the army could take over the country in a single night, Meiring reportedly replied:

“Yes, that is so, but what do we do the morning after the coup?”

The author is particularly insightful on this subject, and en passant tells the little-known story of the slamse gevaar “(the Islamic threat”) in South Africa, as represented by the pro-Iranian revolution group known as People Against Gangsterism and Drugs, which almost unhindered carried out 80 bombings against civilians in 1999-2000 while the state security apparatus focused on a non-existent threat from white separatists.

The author’s father was against apartheid not out of Marxism or sentimentality but simply because he found the system to be inconsistent with the moral tenets he had imbibed from the Torah. Mrs. Mercer is at pains to explain his motivations, because it is her difficult duty to demonstrate that the country he and so many other well-meaning people helped create is in many ways inferior to the reviled Republic. Between the lines of the polemic there therefore crackles much unresolved tension, reflecting this balancing act between her loyalty to her father and her compulsion to attest to truths which will pain him. There is also a palpable sense of guilt—at fleeing from a once-beloved country, and leaving behind them fine people, black as well as white, who had not the Mercers’ good fortune of possessing a second passport and remittable funds.

“If only…” is her underlying refrain—if only the whites had insisted on minority safeguards—if only international opinion had supported the pro-Western Zulus rather than the pro-Third World “Xhosa Nostra”—if only the new reigning ideology had been capitalism rather than racial socialism—if only reform could have been achieved without this kind of miserable meltdown. She does not offer any SA solutions, although she quotes severally from the remarkable Afrikaner cultural activist Dan Roodt. She scarcely mentions contemporary Afrikaner parties like the Freedom Front Plus, or initiatives like the Afrikaner-only settlement of Orania in the Western Cape (which the new SA Constitution permits, and which Jacob Zuma visited last year).

Yet Cannibal is a klaxon of a kind—leaping frequently, if not always seamlessly, between the RSA and the USA. Mrs. Mercer seeks urgently to show how the perils of South Africa are being replicated in her new country of domicile. Both countries are roughly the same age, and both have frontier-taming, republican and Low Church traditions which are metastasizing into anxiety-utopian complexes. They also have large and mutually distrustful racial groups, a factor which militates against social cohesion and democracy because,

“A perquisite for a classical liberal democracy is that majority and minority status should be interchangeable and fluid.”

In America, as in South Africa, perplexed policymakers strive to address distrust through multiculturalism and affirmative action—perversely, because such policies all too evidently entrench rather than efface divisions. Both countries are wedded to what the author calls the “diversity doxology” and to globalisation; both are experiencing PC policy creep on social keystones like freedom of association (and dissociation), freedom of speech, strong families, self-reliance, fiscal rectitude, property rights and enforceable contracts. She feels that as some small recompense for America’s part in toppling the old balance of power, Washington should offer sanctuary to some of those whose livelihoods (and lives) they have ruined—one of her very few proposals, and one unlikely ever to make it into the US statute book.

The two countries’ situations are very different, and their destinies will therefore diverge—but there are strong similarities too, and she raises the powerful possibility what is happening now in South Africa is happening no less surely in her new beloved country.

NOTE

1. A rare and interesting cinematic idea of what the Cape Town of the 1960s looked and felt like may be found in the 1967 film The Cape Town Affair, starring Jacqueline Bisset and James Brolin

Herman Cain had something like a “Palin moment” in an interview released yesterday by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel.

According to his campaign, he was going on little sleep… Jet-lagged or not, it’s obvious that Cain was ignorant of the most basic facts regarding Washington’s latest foreign intervention. But who could blame him? One gets the sense that, much as with his time spent on the Federal Reserve Board—and much as with the many Blacks appointed as CEOs to fulfill Rainbow quotas in the new South Africa—Cain has come a long way repeating mindless catchphrases that White people like to hear.

There’s also no reason to believe that a revelation that the candidate knows precious little about world affairs will derail the Cain phenomenon—which is much bigger than details like whom Washington was fighting in its last war. 

Matt Parrott:

The insecure and self-conscious Whites fear that their own animosity towards Obama might be racist—but Cain’s animosity can’t be . . . because he’s Black! The Tea Party’s cardinal agenda is to thwart ongoing efforts by Cosmic America to redistribute White America’s wealth and privilege: It’s integrally racist and pro-White. Cain absolves White America of the dissonance they’ve been trained to experience when taking their own side in a fight . . . because he’s Black! 

Forty-one years ago, President Richard Nixon attended “The Game of the Century” between No.2 Texas and No.1 Arkansas. The Longhorns would win the game 15-14. From today's standpoint, the most noteworthy aspect of this titanic matchup is that both teams featured all-White teams.

Richard Nixon congratulates the Texas Longhorns, 1969 

Flash forward to this past weekend––No. 1 Louisiana State University and No.2 Alabama met in the latest version of “The Game of the Century” in Tuscaloosa. This time around, the POTUS was not in attendance, and the game itself proved to be a less-than-thrilling 9-6 virtual stalemate. But much like that game in 1969, the overwhelmingly majority of the some 90,000 in attendance at Bryant-Denny Stadium were White. But quite unlike Texas vs. Arkansas 41 years ago, which has been dubbed “Dixie’s Last Stand,” the vast majority of the players on the field were African-American. And most of Black players wearing the Crimson and White for 'Bama, and Gold and Purple for LSU, have absolutely no business attending an institution of higher learning. But this seem to be of little concern to the White alumni boosters of both schools. Indeed, the Southeastern Conference (SEC) has made a science out of lowering standards for Black athletes, with many schools relying on “special admission status” for athletes with poor ACT/SAT and grade point averages.

The SEC had some legendary programs in the Bad Old Days of White football, but it has flourished in the Integration era. In the past 20 years, just under 50 percent of the NCAA Division I National Champions have been SEC schools. More recently, Florida, LSU, Alabama, and Auburn have accounted for five of the past five BCS titles.

The South has some of the most segregated cities and counties in America, and yet, White alumni and fans of the 12 SEC schools are widely recognized as the most loyal, passionate, and intense followers of majority-Black college football. It is no exaggeration to say that these Southerns base their identity on their favorite team and what transpires on Saturdays in the fall. Living vicariously through the exploits of 18-to-22 year-old Blacks, whom they cautiously avoid in every other situation in their lives, these White superfans take offence at the mildest criticism of “their” team. Football is the Opiate of America (or at least the Opiate of this America). 

Recently, I was sent this hilarious video (“Reporter turns ghetto in 3 seconds”) of a Black television news reporter “losing it” after a fly flew into his mouth.

My sense is that most people find this video funny in the way they find the famous "Winnebago Man" video funny, or the way they find the legendary Bill O'Reilly meltdown on Inside Edition funny. A television “straight man” gets angry; his mask slips; and loud cursing, wild gesturing, and cruel epithets ensue.

But there's something else to this video. Not only did the reporter become insanely angry, but his intonation, accent, and vocabulary changed completely. He went from sounding “White,” to sounding “Black”—indeed, sounding like a character out of Cleopatra Jones.

Even when Bill O'Reilly was mad with rage, he was still recognizably Bill O'Reilly.

What the video reveals is an important aspect of Africans that leads Whites to misunderstand and misjudge them. Alongside—and perhaps connected to—their well known talent for rhythm, Africans possess an innate gift for mimicry.

Joseph Kay delved into this component of the Negroid race in the context of academia:

There is a certain type of black student on today's campus who outwardly is smart, articulate, motivated, ambitious, punctual, socially engaging, and all else that any professor might want. For both the champions and the doubters of affirmative action, such black students seem to be just what the doctor ordered to banish racial stereotypes. Unfortunately, the performance of such students on intellectually demanding tasks usually disappoints. The anticipated "A" on a research paper, for example, turns out to be a minimal "C," and, to make matters worse, writing style, logic, footnoted references, and all else indicating cognitive talent contradict the splendid outward appearances. Compromise typically resolves the discrepancy. To avoid trouble, the "A"-looking African American student is given a "B" for "C" work. If he or she complains of the unanticipated "B," matters can deteriorate yet further. Discussions may reveal an inability to grasp the assignment's aim or why the performance was judged sub-standard. He or she may claim that similar work always won "A's" elsewhere. It is as if professor and student resided on different planets.

Because these surprised professors only know their own students, and are not aware of the general phenomenon, they seldom dig deeper. The lousy grade is easily attributed to shoddy high school preparation, lack of prior help, and the other liberal excuses that are proffered for low black academic achievement. Moreover, similar outcomes have occurred with white students, i.e., the classroom brain unexpectedly flunks the course. But what makes this "disappointing smart-appearing black" phenomenon interesting is that it is pervasive. When the subject is raised in personal conversations, countless professors say, "Yes, now that you mention it, I've had several like that, but I thought I was the only one."

These disappointing outcomes are predictable, and have consequences far beyond the campus. The problem begins with the fact that few African Americans at a given university, thanks to lowered admission standards, have the IQs necessary to compete with their white classmates. If merit alone determined admission, this mismatch would not occur. All students would vie on a roughly level IQ playing field, and, given overall IQ distributions, few blacks would populate top academic programs.

What can paper over this deficiency is that many black students master the outward signs of "being smart." This is traditional outsider adaptive behavior, regardless of ethnic/racial backgrounds, and is reflected in phrases such as "passing" or "fitting in." For those with above average intelligence, a keen eye plus a gift for mimicry is often sufficient to play imposter. Familiar academic tools include learning fancy words like "paradigmatic" adroit name-dropping, affecting the professorial sartorial style (e.g., a tweed jacket, blue Oxford shirt), certain verbal mannerisms, even a sprinkling of Yiddish in some venues. A PowerPoint presentation with multiple equations bedazzles. A few Black Panthers once pulled off this deception by tossing around a little Marxism. This is no different from a competent actor with a few weeks of observation plus some props convincing an audience that he is a business tycoon though the real tycoon would sense the charade.

There is a scientific basis to this skilled imitation. IQ test data indicate that blacks usually perform better on items reflecting social norms, less well on abstract, highly "g" loaded items. This is the opposite of popular criticisms of IQ testing, which argue (falsely) that blacks score low because they lack access to the "white" culture underlying IQ tests. In reality, blacks perform worse on abstract, non-cultural sub-tests like spatial relations and better on questions reflecting everyday life (e.g., "What is a bed?" an actual question on the popular WAIS-R IQ test). Thus, a black sociology student who confidently asks about a "construct validity of a multi-dimensional operational indicator" at the department's Thursday symposium will be deemed a rising star and doubters risk being called racist ("Are you hinting that blacks can't do measurement"?). And with actor-like performances rewarded by approving professors, this superficial verbal facility improves. But when lengthy tests require students to evaluate and apply in detail alternative validity approaches to varied statistical indicators, the game is up. 

Non-university people cannot grasp just how simple it is to fool those wanting to believe that outward appearances signify intellectual ability. This is particularly the case in soft disciplines that do not require mathematics. The clever law student imposter can conspicuously carry around legal tomes, ask "serious" questions whose sole purpose is to name-drop obscure cases, complain about spending too much time in the library, join organizations to build a stellar resume, and otherwise construct a false persona. Success at one level leads to triumph at the next. Few professors have the gumption to flunk a pretender who has successfully fooled dozens of others (con artists use this technique when telling potential suckers about all the others who have bought the scheme). But assuming that the lightweight must be the real thing is painless.

My impression is that it is often even easier to fool so-called conservatives. These folk are always suspected of racism, and when they find that seeming stellar African American intellectual, the fawning can be embarrassing. This, they hope, will convince the world that they are not racists, and they may even exaggerate the imposter's abilities--a mediocrity becomes brilliant. Needless to say, these highly presentable intellectual lightweights are often sufficiently savvy to exploit conservatives anxious to demonstrate their anti-racist bona fides.

What separates real life, including politics, from the academy is that real life seldom requires the individual to pass a tough test to demonstrate genuine mastery prior to being given a position. Only afterwards, when the candidate is elected or the junior executive hired, are there unexpected "surprises." At least initially, superficiality always carries the day. A well-tailored, eloquent black office seeker can easily impress audiences by announcing "the declining yield of each marginal investment suggests a cautionary approach." But the listener can never know if this high-sounding verbiage reflects knowledge, or just a knack for picking up economic lingo. Certainly no media personality will ask if this declining yield still represents a net gain in light of alternative investments elsewhere, or whether the opportunity costs associated with alternatives still warrant investment. If this occurred, the interviewer, not the befuddled black candidate, would be condemned with the withering statement that "No white candidate would be so badgered." Thus no incentives exists to expose the arriviste.

Conflating articulateness with high intelligence invites disaster, since the "smart style" is all too easily acquired. Think of Eddie Murphy playing Prof. Sherman Klump in The Nutty Professor. The tip-off is usually the lack of tangible accomplishment, for example, a well-crafted research paper done with minimal assistance. Verbal ability and "white" style is decisive. Again, the fact that many whites, particularly conservatives, desperately want to believe the best, only facilitates the swindle. Perpetrators may even believe their own act since it goes undisputed.

Thus, after decades of failed efforts to achieve racial equality, the market for black empty suits is booming. We've invested billions, perhaps trillions, to get blacks into high-level positions, and to demand a genuine demonstration of intellectual competence, not just mesmerizing appearances, risks exposing massive wastefulness. What you see is not what you get. 

One wonders how many of the conservative movement's beloved “Black conservatives” are, in truth, brilliant actors... (And what does it really matter, as the field of punditry is based on posturing and reciting buzz words?) I fear that movement idol Terrance George, whose speech sounds like a campy parody of William F. Buckley Jr., is one stray fly away from revealing his inner self. 

The following is an installment in AltRight's ongoing series “So This Is How It Ends” (STIHIE), which chronicles instances of decadence so advanced that one can only conclude and hope that we are living in a terminal stage of Western civilization.

The destruction of books—whether as acts of political censorship, rage, or symbolism—has been a recurring component of social movements in the West for centuries, from the early Christians to the Catholic Counter-Reformers to the Nazis. One could say that book burning has been the Western equivalent of the voodoo doll, a way to annihilating one's enemy—or rather his ideas—if only vicariously.

Interestingly, during this summer's rioting, looting, and burning across London and its outskirts—an episode that bore all the hallmarks of a mass uprising against “The Man”—the “urban youths” involved avoided bookstores as if they were infested with plague.

Let's allow a little sunshine to enter into the STIHIE world in which we live—Our cities may burn, but Western high culture shall not be harmed!

Caste Football.us (CF) is one of the best kept secrets on the Internet. The website is certainly not the only one dedicated to race and sports. But it is the only one sympathetic to White athletes who, they maintain, are systematically discriminated against in the U.S. due to notions of Black athletic supremacy. The site often documents these cases of naïve White kids being passed over for scholarships year-after-year, most likely because it assumed they can't play running back, corner back, and other glory positions reserved for Black athletes.

CF actually tries to help young White athletes by letting them know which schools will and will not consider Whites for key positions. They do this through pre-season rankings of all 120 Football Bowl System (FBS) football programs.

One thing is clear from the 2011 rankings: Whites (and indeed all non-Blacks) should abandon any hope of playing in the Southeastern Conference (SEC). Indeed, the SEC is worse than the almost 70 percent Black NFL when it comes to allowing non-Blacks to start.

This is important for a number of reasons, not least of which is that that the SEC has been the marquee confence in college football for the last decade. SEC teams are featured in the most prominent games and the most high profile (and lucrative) bowl games. Success in the SEC often translates into a ticket to the NFL.

The following is an installment in AltRight's ongoing series “So This Is How It Ends” (STIHIE), which chronicles instances of decadence so advanced that one can only conclude and hope that we are living in a terminal stage of Western civilization.

So that's where my taxes went.   

It never ceases to amuse one how equality zealots, when confronted with an inconvenient fact, always manage to square the circle with their unique brand of tortive logic. In fact, one has to marvel at the ingenuity displayed from time to time, because contriving politically correct explanations for observed events in order to force them into compliance with ideology is not always easy.

Take for example the article Is it Wrong to Note 100m Winners are Always Black?, authored by former table tennis champion and failed Labour candidate Matthew Syed, published by the BBC News website this last Saturday. It is clear from it that the consistency with which Black athletes win the 100 metre sprint competition had been noticed, causing enough discomfort vis-à-vis the implications for race relations in the multicultural state to warrant a full explanatory article, lest sports fans watching the World Athletics Championships this weekend reached conclusions not approved by the state.

Syed lays out the problem:

Every winner of the 100m since the inaugural event in 1983 has been black, as has every finalist from the last 10 championships with the solitary exception of Matic Osovnikar of Slovenia, who finished seventh in 2007.

Assuming that this success is driven by genes rather than environment, there is a rather obvious inference to make - black people are naturally better sprinters than white people. Indeed, it is an inference that seems obligatory, barring considerations of political correctness.

This, of course, will not do. Syed then proceeds to explode the inference—and how he does it is really incredible:

But here's the thing. This inference is not merely false - it is logically flawed. . . .

To see how, let us examine success not in the sprints but in distance running, for this is also dominated by black athletes. Kenya has won an astonishing 63 medals at the Olympic Games in races of 800m and above, 21 of them gold, since 1968. Little wonder that one commentator once described distance running as "a Kenyan monopoly".

But it turns out that it is not Kenya as a whole that usually wins these medals, but individuals from a tiny region in the Rift Valley called Nandi. As one writer put it: "Most of Kenya's runners call Nandi home."

Seen in this context, the notion that black people are naturally superior distance runners seems bizarre. Far from being a "black" phenomenon, or even a Kenyan phenomenon, distance running is actually a Nandi phenomenon. Or, to put it another way, "black" distance running success is focused on the tiniest of pinpricks on the map of Africa, with the vast majority of the continent underrepresented.

The same analysis applies to the sprints, where success is focused on Jamaicans and African-Americans. Africa, as a continent, has almost no success at all. Not even West Africans win much.

The combined forces of Mauritania, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Liberia, Ivory Coast, Togo, Niger, Benin, Mali, the Gambia, Equatorial Guinea, Ghana, Gabon, Senegal, Congo and Angola have not won a single sprinting medal at the Olympics or World Championships.

The fallacy, then, is simple. Just because some black people are good at something does not imply that black people in general will be good at it.

Note how Syed, using a tired Labour tactic, attempts to pass evidence as a refutation. He conveniently neglects to mention that most of the individuals residing in Nandi belong to an eponymous tribe. And while he is correct to point out later in the article that it is wrong to assume that all Blacks are the same, given that they exhibit the most genetic variation among the main racial groups, this adds substance to, rather than detract from, a genetic explanation, as all this tells us is that the Nandi are particularly well equipped anatomically for the 10,000 metre competition.

Syed proceeds to make genetic explanations seem preposterous by providing a preposterous analogy:

Imagine a similar argument using the Central African Bambuti, a black tribe more commonly known as Pygmies. With an average height of 4ft we could assert that the Bambuti are naturally better at walking under low doors. Would it be legitimate to extrapolate that black people in general have a natural advantage at walking under low doors?

He then attempts to explicate an alleged fallacy by committing three in a row himself:

Our tendency to generalise rests on a deeper fallacy - the idea that "black" refers to a genetic type. We put people of dark skin in a box labelled black and assume that a trait shared by some is shared by all.

The truth is rather different. There is far more genetic variation within racial groups (around 85%) than there is between racial groups (just 15%). Indeed, surface appearance is often a highly misleading way of assessing the genetic distance between populations.

This evidence demonstrates how absurd it is to engage in racial generalisations - how crazy it is to witness a tiny group of black people winning at, say, the 10,000m and to infer that all people who share the same skin colour share an aptitude for 10,000m running.

One surmises this tells us more about the hidden racial prejudices and subterranean determinism of so-called ‘anti-racists’ than about how race realists think about human biodiversity. What is craziest about the arguments presented above is that they provide evidence for their own refutation: for example, it is obvious that in the face of great genetic variation, and given the highly specialised nature and the very high level of the competitions involved, some racial subtypes will possess superior genetic endowments for one competition and other racial subtypes will possess them for another.

Finally, we get to the most bizarre part of the article, and the one that gives the game away (note the tone):

But our subconscious assumptions about race have more than merely sporting implications.

Consider an experiment by Marianne Bertrand and Sendhil Mullainathan, two American economists. They drafted 5,000 CVs and placed archetypal "black" names such as Tyrone or Latoya on half of them and "white" names such as Brendan or Alison on the other half. They then divided the white CVs into high and low quality and did the same with the black CVs.

A few weeks later the offers came rolling in from employers, and guess what? The "black" candidates were 50% less likely to be invited to interview. Employers were using skin colour as a marker for employment potential, despite the fact that the candidates' CVs were identical.

But that's not all. The researchers also found that although high-quality "white" candidates were preferred to low-quality "white" candidates, the relative quality of "black" CVs made no difference whatsoever.

It was as if employers saw three categories - high-quality white, low-quality white and black candidates. To put it another way, the subliminal assumption that causes us to think that black people are all the same has powerful real-world consequences.

For many economists, this assumption, which gets under the radar of our conscious thought, explains why black people still lag behind white people in economic development more than four decades after the introduction of race-relations legislation.

Recognising that we have these biases is a good place to start in trying to combat them. And a good way of tracking progress is to watch a 100m final and see whether we fall into the trap, when seeing eight contestants with black skin, of inferring that black people are naturally better sprinters.

Ultimately, then, this entire exposition about Black supremacy in athletic competitions and comically contrived logical fallacies is about calling White people racists and once again suggesting they must  redouble efforts to remove themselves from their own societies.

Given the effort expended slandering White folk in this very roundabout way, one cannot help but sense the exercise was driven by desperation.

Readers of AltRight are typically well aware of the sham nature of the Left's commitment to "tolerance," "diversity," and all their other favorite buzzwords. But the reaction of the One People's Project, a kind of left-wing parody, to the news of Elizabeth Wright's passing really drives home the point of what the cultural Marxist Left is really about. Like their Stalinist forbears, no dissent or genuine independence of thought is permitted, not even from those on whose behalf they claim to speak, whether workers or blacks. Here's some "anti-racist tolerance" for you:

ROT IN HELL!

ELIZABETH WRIGHT
CALLING HER A 'SELLOUT' WOULD BE CHARITABLE
d. 2011
How bad was Elizabeth Wright? She was a black woman, and we heard of her death via American Renaissance, complete with tribute to her written by Jared Taylor! Wright was one of those utterly despicable black conservatives that didn't just cover for white racism, she was a total apologist for white supremacists. In 1985, she started publishing the newsletter Issues & Views, and although she had this mantra that it "was derived from the wisdom of earlier generations of American blacks, like Booker T. Washington, who attempted to steer their people towards greater economic self-reliance," but to her that meant being concilitory and a segregationalist in many respects. She was no fan of multiculturalism, but that didn't stop her from defending neo-Confederacy. She was also a supporter of Holocaust deniers David Irving and Ernst Zundel while they were in jail, railed against the Civil Rights Act as "forced intergration", supported the stunt being promoted by white supremacists that the Republican Party focus only on reaching out to white voters and not anyone else and also had time to cry about the American Renaissance Conference being shut down in Charlotte, NC this year (we didn't even know she had written about that until we started writing this). Elizabeth Wright lived in New York City, which is probably why she made herself such a shut in. There were never many pictures of her, and DLJ did meet her once at a Black Conservative conference in 1995 in Washington DC, the week of the OJ Verdict (and a week before the Million Man March), and that's just as well. As we write this, the news has spread, but only to other white supremacist blogs. Seriously, if your legacy as a person of color has people who downright despise black people mourning your death as a collegue, it is probably pretty wise to hide your face. This woman will not be missed.

Wow. Robert Moore, Joey Vento and now Elizabeth Wright. Three Rot in Hells in one week. Pop the champagne and keep 'em comin'! The sooner these scumbags shuffle off this mortal coil, the better for the rest of us!