I've just googled this despicable man you mention, and his pathetic hatred of the white race is deplorable and nauseating (if you ask me it's ironic self hatred given that by his logic he has benefitted off his own white privilege in becoming an author, activist, and over public white shaming intellectual). I read a quote on Wikipedia quoting his response to a reader who rightfully accused him of hating white people as: We do not hate you or anyone else for the color of her skin. What we hate is a system that confers privileges (and burdens) on people because of their color. It is not fair skin that makes people white; it is fair skin in a certain kind of society, one that attaches social importance to skin color. When we say we want to abolish the white race, we do not mean we want to exterminate people with fair skin. We mean that we want to do away with the social meaning of skin color, thereby abolishing the white race as a social category. Consider this parallel: To be against royalty does not mean wanting to kill the king. It means wanting to do away with crowns, thrones, titles, and the privileges attached to them. In our view, whiteness has a lot in common with royalty: they are both social formations that carry unearned advantages."

There are two problems with this sententious auto puff piece: the first being namely that the white race is not a social construct, as he likes to claim, but it is an ethnicity with biological characteristics grounded not only in science but equally through the entire progression of history till date, in which all of Western civilization was mounted and achieved by almost entirely white European cultures. Leftists will tell you that the former prevented all minorites from realizing their own civilizations, but you need only look before the discovery of the Americas and the enslavement of Africans, all the way to the Greco-Roman empires when anything beyond Europe was undiscovered, to find the absence of any significant minority led civilizations to speak for itself. Surely there must be some biological reason behind the recurrence of civilized traits and behaviors being limited to mostly the Caucasian race? And likewise, behind the abundance of destructive and primitive traits and behaviors largely present within minorities? I remember reading a comment on one of Janice's articles on Richard Bilkszto in which someone in the comments cited a study that showed a link between black people and narcissicism, which proves that "scientific racism" (as its opponents would have it), is very much an evidence based reality. And the comparison to royalty is absurd as well. Royalty is hardly so much of a casual social formation as it is a noble ancestry that supported civilization and culture in particular (who was it that commissioned some of the greatest European masterpieces). The same goes for the white race. Such prestige is not bestown randomly, it has a historical timeline of significance supporting it. To act as if minorities or the working classes, however much they suffered, contributed in as objectively meritorious ways to civilization and culture as the royalty and the artists, intellectuals, and artisans whose fine work they sponsered.