On March 25, 2014, five white girls were arrested and
charged with assaulting a 19-year-old black Temple University student and her
boyfriend as they peacefully walked along the avenue. When the young man tried to repel the
attack, one of the girls struck the black woman in the face with a brick so
violently that she subsequently needed surgery.
The girls then ran away.
Oh. Sorry. I got that wrong. The attackers were black and the victims were
white. Of course, none of the news
accounts that I read mentioned those racial realities, despite clear evidence
in the surveillance video. Had blacks
actually been the victims and whites the attackers, you can be sure that race would have been trumpeted
all over the media, followed by outrage, and protest marches.
Sam Newhouse, reporter at www.metro.us/philadelphia, suggested
that the same attackers are being investigated for two other neighborhood
assaults in which young female college students were punched in the face. Once again, the race of the victims was not
disclosed, but you can bet that they are white. Newhouse mentioned that “Temple sent out an
email Monday, warning students to avoid isolated areas and to keep aware of
their surroundings.”
Anyone who has read this blog knows that I have discussed
black-on-white racial violence many times. So why did I bother to mention the most
recent “routine” inter-racial attack? It
is because the very same day that I saw the brick attack piece I read a
psychology journal article entitled, “Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I.
A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions.”
The article described a “research contest” [I
am not joking, a research contest] comparing various strategies for reducing “implicit
racial prejudice,” another subject addressed by me in this blog. As I have explained previously, implicit
racial prejudice is racial bias located in a person's unconscious with researchers deciding who
is biased and, often, why.
Guess what. The “study”
[and I use that term very loosely] only scrutinized the unconscious prejudice of
whites toward blacks rather than looking at prejudice in both races. Why? Because
this study and the hundreds, if not thousands of others like it, is not
science; it is racial manipulation. [See
my blog post "Experts in Self-Serving Racial Manipulation"] The investigators have an anti-white opinion that they
are hell-bent on proving. And, as you
know, if you design a study to prove a point and play with the data long enough,
you will “discover” exactly what you wanted to discover in the first place.
Now for the punch line, if you’ll pardon the expression. The authors write that “21 of
27 successful attempts at reducing implicit preferences linked positivity with
Black people and negativity with
White people… For example, participants in the Vivid Counterstereotypic
Scenario [4] imagined being assaulted by a White man and rescued by a Black man.”
Wading through the psychobabble, this means that when an individual views a fanciful scenario with blacks as heroes and whites as villians, he is less
likely to have what the researcher believes is UNCONSCIOUS prejudice against blacks. The lesson for the race mongers is clear: relentlessly barrage white people with racial propaganda that simultaneously depicts virtuous black people and wicked whites ones; ignore any black wickedness and any white virtue; do this long enough and a brave new world of racial harmony inevitably will result.
So, while real white people are being attacked in the streets by real black people, your tax dollars are going to educate and fund the research of persons who are trying to make white people feel guilty about their supposed unconscious bias against blacks. There is virtually no attempt to determine the extent to which blacks contribute to real, overt physical racial aggression. And there is no effort to bring the races together to honestly look at the negative attitudes both of whites toward blacks AND of blacks toward whites in order to find effective ways to reduce them.
No comments:
Post a Comment