Racism Propaganda, Social Scientists, and the Media

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.

Old Crazy Joe and his friend, B.O.

The annual August 6 Peace Memorial Ceremony, 2012, Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park. 

At the end of his speech, Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda says, “I would like to conclude my address by offering my heartfelt prayers for the repose of the atomic bomb victims' souls and my best wishes for the future to the atomic bomb survivors and the bereaved families, and for the well-being of all participants today and the people of Hiroshima City.”

Joe Biden steps up to the podium and, after the obligatory niceties, begins speaking about the relationship between Japan and the United States; he then offers a political caution: “Look at what they [Republicans] value … And look what they’re proposing. [Romney] said in the first 100 days, he’s going to let the military write their own rules — unchain the military.  They’re going to drop more nuclear bombs on you!”

What would be the world-wide response to that Joe Biden rhetoric?

Biden’s Danville, Virginia comments to a half African American crowd “They’re going to put y’all back in chains” was the racial equivalent to the above hypothetical Hiroshimo remarks.  And anyone who thinks for one minute that the Danville quote was just another “old crazy Joe” misstatement just doesn’t understand the Machiavellian racial machinations of the Barack Hussein Obama clan. 

The Administration knows that African Americans have been sorely disappointed by Barack and  do not feel the passion necessary to guarantee the huge black turnout and the 95% plus black vote that he enjoyed in 2008.  Since good cop Obama cannot get away with overtly inflammatory race speech, old crazy Joe Biden, the bad cop, does the dirty work.  And once the message has been delivered to the African American community, Barack disavows responsibility, plays down the significance of the remarks, and reaps the “firing up the base” benefits at no personal cost. Thus, when asked about the “put y’all back in chains” remark, Obama tells People magazine, "The truth is that during the course of these campaigns, folks like to get obsessed with how something was phrased even if everybody personally understands that's not how it was meant."

To Obama, as to Bill Clinton, where verbiage is concerned one can always resort to the "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is” strategy."   Barack Obama and his water carrier, Joe Biden, use words to manipulate, not to inform.  Their language is the language of Humpty Dumpty in Alice in Wonderland who advises, "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."  If you do not agree with the Administration’s double speak, you must be mad, a Mad Hatter.

Obama and Biden care not one bit if their words stoke racial discord so long as it actives emotions that further the President’s personal, self-agrandizing agenda.  Obama et al know that they can say whatever they want, obfuscate around it, and ninety percent of mainstream media will support whatever rationalization they ultimately present.

Some African Americans, however, do see through the White House race mongering and are not afraid to say so.   According to the Washington Post (August 16, 2012), Douglas Wilder of Virginia, The nation’s first black governor, reacted to Joe Biden by asserting, “First of all, without question they were appeals to race.  The important thing I got out of this was Biden separated himself from what he accused the people of doing. As a matter of fact, what he said is they are going to do something to y’all, not to me. Not us. So he was still involved with that separate American.”  And the August 16, 2012 Daily Caller quoted Wilder as further saying,

The unfortunate thing for the president as I said yesterday, he doesn’t need this.  He doesn’t need anybody injecting race into a campaign in which one of the persons running is of a different race and that has been there all these years — the last thing Obama needs.

Like Wilder, The international media is coming finally to recognize Obama’s double standards, double speak, and double binds.  Detektor, Danish Broadcasting Corporation did a “mock Barack” segment on television showing that during news interviews with international leaders Obama used the phrase “strongest and closest ally” to describe our “special relationship” with each and every one of them.  He spoke those words with the very same cadence, inflection, and body language to characterize the United States’ relationship with Australia, France, Germany, Great Britain, Israel, Italy, Japan, Poland, and South Korea.   

Detektor also showed the disingenuous Obama in press conferences with leaders from Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and the Philippines during which he spoke of those countries as “punching above their weight” in world affairs.  Barack could not be bothered—did not care enough—to give the country-specific compliments needed to show our sincere appreciation for each nation’s long-standing support. 

One also must wonder why the President chose the “punching above their weight” metaphor.  Could the statement lay bare Obama’s underlying condescending attitude that “little” Denmark, Ireland, Netherlands, Norway, and the Philippines are not quite worthy of his attention.  If so, it would be consistent with Edward Klein’s The Amateur that quotes Barack as commenting, "I don't know why I have to spend so much time with congressmen from Podunk City just to get my bills passed."                

The narcissist Barack Obama thinks that he is so far superior to mortal men that he should not be constrained by conventional rules of discourse and conduct.  He can manipulate racial emotions because he sees himself as a racial hero and guardian of the black community.  He can schmooze or denigrate foreign representatives with inauthentic banter because he believes he has a magnetic personality and knows just how to “play” people to get what he wants.  Should anyone disagree with him or with his vice president, Barack Hussein Obama states or implies that they are “folks [who] like to get obsessed with how something was phrased;” in essence, persons who do not instinctively, blindly understand and accept what the Administration says must be dumb, little, or dumb and little.   

P. S. Thanks to my friend, Tad, for sending me the Detektor link.  It is only a 3 minute clip and well worth the laughs.   http://www.youtube.com/v/erYpXzE9Pxs%26    

They Could Have Been Barack Hussein Obama’s Sons

When race is in the news, the President is quick to personalize it, if personalizing makes him sound like a racial hero.  You remember that in 2009 he said that white police officer Sgt. Joseph Crowley acted “stupidly” when he confronted Obama’s black buddy, Henry Louis Gates Jr. who appeared to be breaking into a home in Cambridge, Massachusetts.   Obama’s comments included thinly disguised racial code talk, implying equivalence between the Crowley-Gates incident and the much ballyhooed anti-police “driving while black” myth that we hear ad nauseam.  And, in 2012, Barack claimed "If I had a son, he'd look like Trayvon,” referring to Trayvon Martin the alleged victim of George Zimmerman who the press called a “white Hispanic” to imply a racial hate crime.

Six months after Trayvon, in August 2012, we learn of a vicious assault against a 51 year old minority woman.  Although America has come to expect Barack Obama, Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other raceketeers to perform their customary evangelizing against the racial wrong, we have heard nothing from any of them.

On August 7, 2012, Elizabeth Hur of Eyewitness News described the anti-minority assaault:

Authorities say a family friend found the victim in the backyard, on her knees, crying and begging for her life to be spared.

When police arrived, they found her room ransacked, cabinets emptied and the victim, an Asian female with mental disabilities, beaten and robbed.

“They hit her in the face with a rock, they used rope and also sticks and a potted plant,” Lt. John O’Hanlon explained.

Police say the three suspects, described by the victim as black juveniles, ran away with the victim’s purse. Police were eventually able to identify the suspects as 7, 10 and 12-year-old boys.

Since the perpetrators were black, rather than white, this certainly could not be a racial hate crime.  Could it?

In fact, black-on-Asian attacks are a regular feature of life in the inner city.  On May 2, 2010, C.W. Nevius  http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/nevius/article/Dirty-secret-of-black-on-Asian-violence-is-out-3265760.php#ixzz23ZHY2LFS  of SF (San Francisco) Gate wrote, Dirty secret of black-on-Asian violence is out:

San Francisco's hidden truth is out. That's what community organizer Carol Mo calls the realization that Asian residents are being targeted for robberies, burglaries and intimidation by young black men.

"It is San Francisco's dirty little secret," said Mo, a former Safety Network Community organizer in the Sunset District. "It's not news to us."

Hundreds of people marched into Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting to express their fear, frustration and outrage. But so far the response has been disappointing, particularly from the San Francisco Police Department. It seems intent on downplaying the role of race and its impact in the community.

The recent incidents of black violence against Asians is the perfect opportunity to open a dialogue about racism. Instead, they are attempting to close the door.

City officials, including the Police Department, say these assaults are part of a larger crime picture where gangs of kids take advantage of a vulnerable group of small stature. But Mo participated in a 2008 survey by the Police Department in which about 300 strong-arm robberies were analyzed. "In 85 percent of the physical assault crimes, the victims were Asian and the perpetrators were African American," she said.

We see here Nevius complaining about the pro-black racial double speak ubiquitous in America.  Unflattering, objective facts about black youth, in this case black-on-Asian violence, are hushed-up.  Persons who try to sound the alarm are ignored, or their complaints are minimized.  When the evidence is overwhelming, the authorities water-down the issue by framing it as part of a “larger crime picture” rather than as black racism, pure and simple.

The sad truth is that black males are being reared in a subculture that turns a blind eye to outer-directed racial violence.  Moreover, while the Barack Obamas, Jesse Jacksons, and Al Sharptons of American rise up in righteous indignation whenever anyone in anyway suggests that blacks could be racists, they endlessly moan and groan about the horror, the “national tragedy,” of black-on-black crime.

Barack Obama needs to mount a country-wide campaign to ensure that his look-like sons receive proper, continuous fathering against violence. Paraphrasing Martin Luther King, Jr., I suggest that his sons must be explicitly taught that victims should not be chosen based on the color of their skin.  I bet Asian Americans agree.

The Give-Back Scam

Humanitarian.   That’s what we call someone who gives selflessly to needy persons in order to promote human welfare.  Those who assist in order to extract some personal advantage and those who support their own family or friends are not humanitarians, of course. In fact, there is an implicit belief that the less the giver has to gain and the more remote the recipient is from the giver, whether geographically, ethnically, or socially, the more noble is the giving. 

Many inner-city-oriented “give back” guys are quintessential scam-artists—the antitheses of humanitarians—pretending to advocate for the poor.  These scammers care for no one but themselves.  Most often, the give-backer is a high-profile businessman, performer, or athlete, trying to escape social censure or legal indictment, intent on rehabilitating his own tarnished image, or sometimes the give-backer merely is after self-aggrandizement, cold, hard cash, or both.

Stephen Fried, Philadelphia Magazine June 2012, wrote about one such scammer, Tyrone L. Gilliams, Jr., and it is from that article that I take the facts cited in this blog.

According to Fried, Gilliams has claimed to be a mogul and philanthropist, literally comparing himself to Andrew Carnegie, George Steinbrenner, and Walter Annenberg.  (Perhaps he took a cue from Barack Hussein Obama whose propaganda includes references to him as a 21^st Century Abraham Lincoln, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and John F. Kennedy, to name a few.)  The piece explains that Tyrone had been a Penn basketball player, rap show promoter, would-be minister, and investment wheeler-dealer.

The investment wheeler-dealer role is the one that has caused Gilliams grief because on February 29, 2012 he was arrested by the FBI for wire fraud involving a five million dollar scam that included deception of an authentic philanthropist.  Among other ways, Gilliams allegedly used the money for “paying off debts from previous deals gone bad; more than $25,000 for each of his kids’ Shipley School tuitions; charging meals and hotel rooms and airfares and limo services; taking $50,000 cash advances pretty much every week; and eventually paying for all the Joy to the World Fest events, a tab of more than $1 million. He even paid a Chester video production company to follow him around for an online reality show about his life.”

World Fest, said to be like a “hip-hop Academy Ball,” was the “give back” scam that Gilliams sponsored and for which he enlisted a host of high-profile black big-shots.  Rap superstar Sean “Diddy” Combs headlined the event, but don’t think that he did it from the goodness of his heart.  Rather, he pocketed at least $100,000 to participate in helping the “poor folk” who supposedly were to benefit from the event.  And, like any good rapper, Diddy interjected a racial tint saying, “This is my nigger, he’s one of my brothers, give him some applause y’all, Tyrone Gilliams, he’s my man Tyrone.”

The Tyrone L. Gilliams, Jr. story, then, has all that we have come to expect from bimps: a narcissistically-absorbed protagonist who uses race to lift himself up by treading on the very same inner-city black people that he pretends to love, illegal activity, and, of course, hyper-masculine swagger, or, as they say in the hood, “swagga”  And, oh, I forgot one last quote about Tyrone from one of his supposed friends:  “He got a gun and a license so he could carry it and look like a ‘big dog.’”  Just as all true humanitarians do!