In America, when it comes to race there is widespread
liberal propaganda machine designed to popularize a guilt-ridden “whites are to
blame and must pay back” attitude to lobby for special race-based privileges
for blacks in the hope of making-up for “past injustices.” The attitude
rationalizes governmental and private sector affirmative action programs of all
sorts. For instance, according to the 2010 census Blacks comprise
only 12.6 of the United States population, but one never would know that by the
black-favoring imbalance on so-called “legacy” television, such as ABC, NBC,
and CBS. Try color coding and then counting the faces that you
see there and what I say will be obvious, since, on an objective purely
statistical basis, only 13 in 100 televised faces should be black.
The whites are to blame and must pay back attitude
also explains other racial asymmetries such as the perverse sociological
definition of racism asserting that only whites and not blacks can be racists
and the justice system default assumption that white attacks on blacks are “hate
crimes” while black attacks on whites are “random acts of violence.”
Many white psychologists are the most ardent
proponents of white-bashing “science.”
Most probably are well-meaning but shallow thinkers who have been no
less racially brain-washed than the national audience that they hope to
influence. As a psychologist myself, I
regularly am inundated with one inane study after another. In a self-serving “misery loves company” and
“woe is me” spirit, I present one such study here to illustrate what I must
tolerate whenever I crack open a psychology journal that mentions race.
The study I have chosen is: Prejudiced behavior without prejudice? Beliefs about the malleability
of prejudice affect interracial interactions by Priyanka Carr, Carol Dweck,
and Kristin Pauker (all presumably white psychologists) published in the
September 2012 edition of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Since I already have let the proverbial cat out
of the bag, you know that the study of prejudiced behavior really means a study
of white prejudice only. Equally obvious
is that “black” is the group prejudiced against. Since white prejudice is the default
presumption, the authors could not have been funded if they had intended to
study that “obvious and indisputable fact;” they had to find something more
obscure to investigate.
So what did Carr et al do? They set out to prove that white people’s
“beliefs” about prejudice can produce prejudiced “behavior” beyond what any
explicit or implicit conventional prejudice “measure” could detect. They concluded that whites who believed that
prejudice is a fixed, rather than changeable, trait were:
…less
interested in interracial interactions (Studies 1a–1d), race- or
diversity-related activities (Study 1a), and activities to reduce their
prejudice (Study 3).
…more uncomfortable in interracial, but not
same-race, interactions (Study 2)
And … that a fixed belief, by heightening
concerns about revealing prejudice to oneself and others, depressed interest in
interracial interactions.
Further, … Whites who were taught a fixed belief
were more anxious and unfriendly in an interaction with a Black compared with a
White individual …
Priyanka Carr, Carol
Dweck, and Kristin Pauker had no interst
whatsoever in determining whether black people’s “beliefs” about prejudice can produce
prejudiced “behavior.”
Now why in the world
would some whites think that race prejudice is a fixed, immutable trait? Could it be that they are relentlessly
bombarded by Jeremiah Wright, Louis Farrakhan Muhammad, Sr., Al Sharpton, Jesse
Louis Jackson, Sr., and a host of others who forever carp about how our white
racist society is replete with both overt and hidden “institutional
racism?” Could it be that some whites
accept the absurd proposition that white people cannot know what it is like to
be black while blacks not only understand what it is like to be white but also
are able to read white people’s sinister minds where race is concerned. Could it be that some whites have become aware
of psychological propaganda suggesting that the “pale” ones, but not the “dark”
ones, commit virtually imperceptible, offensive “racial
micro-aggressions.” That is, according
to Tori DeAngelis (Monitor on Psychology,
February 2009, Vol 40, No.2) of the American Psychological Association, “Some [white]
racism is so subtle that neither victim nor perpetrator may entirely understand
what is going on—which may be especially toxic for people of color.”
The concept of racial
micro-aggressions and studies, such as the one done by Priyanka Carr, Carol
Dweck, and Kristin Pauker, teach white Americans to treat racial issues as
no-win situations. That is why whites
are less interested in racial issues, more uncomfortable with cross-race
contact, fearful of considering prejudice, and more anxious and unfriendly in
white-black interaction.
Psychologists and other
social scientists learn about conditioning from their earliest days in
school. They know how vulnerable we all
are to anti-white, pro-black, relentless cradle to grave cultural conditioning;
they know how to manipulate public opinion. For decades, the social scientists have
applied their knowledge to excuse blacks for all their shortcomings and to
inculcate racial responsibility and guilt in whites. Think about the state of race in America and
then decide whether social scientists have helped us resolve our racial
conflicts or whether they have aggravated them.
Think, too, about how the racially biased media
have played up pro-black, anti-white “data” that social scientists provide. Just as I gave you one of a thousand studies
to support my views about the racially one-sided social scientists, I will give
you one example of the racially one-sided media.
Everything that I wrote thus far in this current
blog was done on August 26, 2012. The
next day, as I rode in my car, I experienced a direct, real-time validation of
what I had written when I listened to “Tell Me More,” a so-called public radio
show hosted by Michelle Martin, an African American. The show began with a teaser introductory statement
wherein she said that Mitt Romney has not earned black support and that many
blacks regarded his joke about not needing to prove where he was born as—you
guessed it—racist.
Now, before I begin to comment, I must preface
my remarks by acknowledging that Michelle Martin usually comes across as what
my wife would call a “sweet person.” Martin
typically speaks softly and invitingly in a generally positive, accepting tone,
although one would expect that of a talk show host.
In any case, Michelle was uncharacteristically
brusque on August 26 as she spoke to her “guest,” Tara Wall, an African American
conservative commentator and senior communications adviser to Mitt Romney. I had a distinct impression of Michelle
Martin being irritated by the thought of a black turncoat, perhaps an Uncle
Tom, if you will pardon the gender contraction.
I will spare you a blow by blow recital of the
dialogue. The issue most relevant to
today’s blog is that Martin’s pre--interview introduction presaged the
interview itself perfectly. She noted
that a recent NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll found 94% of blacks in support of Obama and 0% for
Romney. That is right, zero percent! The host suggested that Mitt Romney is
totally, unilaterally responsible for his “failure” to gain the black
vote. There was no thought of the
possibility that the one-sided black vote is an example of pro-black racism,
that because Romney is white and biracial Obama pretends to be all-black, Romney
has virtually no chance to win a substantial number of black votes.
If Mitt Romney had gotten 94 % of the white vote
and Barack Hussein Obama had gotten 0 % of the black vote, Michelle Martin,
popular media, psychologists, and social scientists
everywhere would be singing their “I told you so song” about virulent white,
anti-black racism in America that makes it impossible for any black person to appeal
to the white electorate. That anti-white
coalition, no doubt, would cite biased psychological prejudice studies to
support their pro-black position on the matter.
