Shattering the Myth of Racism
by
Matthew T.
Nuenke
www.neoeugenics.com
Chapter 1: Why it is necessary to study racism and the differences between races.
Making Whites feel guilty. "Guilt can have its pro-social uses. Imagine a society in which no one felt remorse for any transgression that he or she performed. Many social commentators have noted that the success of Martin Luther King Jr.'s campaign to desegregate the South was due, in part, to the guilt feelings induced in many white Southerners when his nonviolent actions were met with billy clubs, fire hoses, and attack dogs. Nevertheless, many effects of guilt are, of course, not positive; many guilty feelings are undeserved. Guilt can be induced by reminding the target of past sins that have long since been atoned for, by making small transgressions loom large, or by making it appear that the target is responsible for a crime that he or she did not commit. Once we are filled with guilt, our thoughts and behavior are directed toward ridding ourselves of this feeling. The end result is, at best, the manipulation of our behavior and, perhaps at worst, long-term damage to our self-esteem." (Age of Propaganda by Pratkanis and Aronson, 1992, pg. 78)
Whites have an obligation to try to understand race and racism if for no other reason than we have been made to feel guilty for our past actions. In the past, people everywhere made comments regarding another's race or ethnicity and openly used racist terms in regards to others. This wasn't just a Western phenomenon, but was universal and has been the norm since humans started to form communities. This openness towards how one feels about others however started to change around 1930, and was brought about by several factors.
First, Marxists from Eastern Europe, made inroads into major departments in universities, especially in social science and cultural anthropology, but also many other areas such as psychology, education, philosophy and history.[i] During the turn of the last century in the United States, public opinion was molded by religious institutions, business, and the military. By 1930, public opinion was increasingly molded by academia, the media and government.[ii] The actors and institutions that determined how a citizen should view themselves and what behavior was proper had changed drastically. For the first time the average American citizen, who was overwhelmingly White, was made to feel guilty for various sins.
How far the American mindset has been pushed towards a Marxist worldview struck home when President George W. Bush recently stated that there was too great of a gap between Anglo's homeownership and that of Blacks and Hispanics. He was introducing a plan (circa June, 2002) to increase the number of homes owned by minorities, and he lapsed into a Marxist argument where we have substituted race for class envy. This Marxist egalitarianism has so penetrated our way of thinking, has become such a norm, that Bush's statement passed without notice. If he had stated however that there were too many Blacks working in the postal service compared to Anglos (White Anglo-Saxon Protestants), he would have been attacked as a racist. So the question is, why are only Whites universally made to feel guilty for the world's sins?
This egalitarian norm was discussed at length in the 2001 book entitled The Race Card by Tali Mendelberg. A well researched book on how guilt and conformity have made Whites accept almost any and all forms of censorship against racial realism, he discusses how George H. Bush used the release of Willie Horton, a Black man in Massachusetts when Dukakis was governor, to push the fact that Dukakis was weak on crime. The book details how race has become a taboo in politics, and that if any White uses race to win an election it will backfire - Whites will always reject any racial appeal without further consideration. Note however that this only applies to Whites, while other minorities are encouraged to use race in furthering their own causes, as is so well illustrated by Jesse Jackson and his co-extortionists.
Mendelberg writes:
"A new political norm often arises from the concerted actions of a social movement seeking to ameliorate the powerlessness of a group. To gain substantial numbers of adherents, however, a new political norm must be communicated actively and deliberately by influential leaders. The cooperation of influential leaders is necessary especially if the new norm competes with an opposite established norm. The most effective way to combat an old norm and establish a new one is to pass landmark legislation, to issue momentous judicial rulings, and to engage in other highly salient signals of commitment to the new norm. Discrediting the adherents of the old norm is also an effective way to undermine the old norm, but must be supplemented by actions that actively establish the new norm. Once the new norm has passed this initial stage, it may be communicated more passively. Candidates imitate the successful strategies of other candidates who adhere to the new norm. Politicians strive to anticipate and avoid the censure of influential elites who have signaled a commitment to the norm. Voters learn about the new norm from cultural elites and socialization agents in a gradual process of cultural and social diffusion, with successive generations internalizing the norm in an increasingly more effective way. The norm then becomes descriptive - providing information about what a typical member of the culture does, about how everyone acts; and, more importantly, injunctive - providing information about what actions a typical member of the culture approves or disapproves, about what everyone condones. At its most powerful, the norm is internalized and becomes personal - specifying how one's ideal self would act."
What doesn't seem to puzzle Mendelberg is how we came to adopt a Marxist egalitarian norm of behavior. He never mentions it or questions it, it is just assumed to be correct, and any previous norms are just assumed to be false. This is of course true of all dogmas; all other ways of thinking are just wrong, understood to be so without discussion. So Whites now behave in such a way that any time race is discussed, Whites must be made to feel guilty. This has effectively disarmed Whites from acting in concert for their own benefit and that of their children and their children's' children. We have been effectively neutralized in defending our own interests. To do so will bring on charges of racism - and we will be compared with the Ku Klux Klan. However, we are not the Klan and would never be part of anything resembling the Klan - not in a modern cosmopolitan world. Those days are forever past, never to be revived.
Another error made by Mendelberg was to assume that the cause of this new egalitarian norm was "to ameliorate the powerlessness of a group." If he is referring to Blacks, the fact is that the egalitarianism or socialism was well established decades prior to the civil rights movement, as he admits to in his book. If this is true then, the egalitarian norm we have been forced to adopt as the new secular religion had nothing to do with Blacks, and everything to do with the shift in social control from religious/business/military to the new academic/media/political control that guides our institutions today. These new guiding lights of proper groupthink have been thoroughly accepted without question in an egalitarian/anti-White (male) bias. As Marxism penetrated our institutions, it substituted race-conflict in place of its failed class-conflict. To illustrate just how absurd this indoctrination has become, there is no better book than Joseph L. Graves Junior's 2001 book entitled The Emperor's New Clothes: Biological Theories of Race at the Millennium. Now before proceeding, I must mention that Graves is professor of evolutionary biology at Arizona State University West, so he should be well aware of research that has been ongoing with regards to intelligence and brain size. Still, he is so blinded by dogma that he actually states: "In other words, if Europeans really did have larger heads and larger brains [than Blacks], and if these features did determine intellectual ability, we could not label a scientist reporting these facts as racist (p. 23)." So based on this one observation, Graves should never call another scientist as racist, because the correlation of intelligence with brain size gray matter, has been well established at 60% and climbing, thanks to modern tools for non-invasive measurements of brain component sizes. This book illustrates effectively just how absurd the arguments have become in trying to hold back the advancing sciences of intelligence, behavior genetics, psychometrics, etc. Almost on every page, Graves manages to mutilate and distort logic and rational inquiry in order to prove that races don't exist. Graves fails so miserably, and is praised so highly by other academic Marxists, that one has to wonder how collectively out of touch they must be? .....Continues...