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

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.

Aces u must be on drugs

Blacks commit a tremendous amount of violent crime. Some studies show that blacks lack an adequate sense of consequence.
I dont believe that. Most blacks are good people, their culture is very flawed though. Even Oakasfan has conceded to that.
Why do many blacks insist on using inproper english? Do they think that sounding ignorant is cool?

Do you/Belmont have a Jeckyll/Hyde thing going on?

The statistics don't back that up, Footreads. It would just so happen that police target blacks the most. Latinos after that.