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.