Posted on December 26, 2014

Racial Indoctrination

Clement Astor, American Renaissance, December 26, 2014

Subscribe to future audio versions of AmRen articles here.

Tired of Anti-White Propaganda

One of the most ominous phenomena in the last two decades has been the embrace by corporations and other organizations of anti-white zealotry masquerading as “diversity.” This is not just tucked into obscure mission statements that no one reads; it is part of mandatory programs of indoctrination for employees. What follows is my own experience of indoctrination in black grievance and bizarre socio-political theories that were once confined to the classrooms of radical universities.

In the 1990s I was working for a multi-billion dollar technology-based company. As far as I could tell, there was never any racial or ethnic animus that could even have suggested a need for classes in “race relations.” Training of this kind was mandatory for everyone in the company, and we got no advance information about the course except that it was about race relations.

The employees in my two-day class of 30 ranged in age from their twenties to their fifties. All were educated people in either administrative or technical fields. Most were white, with some blacks and other minorities.

We arrived in a training room with two rows of chairs facing each other. The instructor was a black man, accompanied by a drab-looking white woman who sat at a desk at the front of the room.

The setup reminded me of military boot camp, in which a drill instructor parades back and forth before the recruits to indoctrinate them in the ways of the military. That turned out to be a good analogy.

The instructor brusquely introduced himself, but only disclosed part of his background, and did not identify the white woman. The indoctrination started with seemingly innocuous questions to each participant about how we felt about relations with people of other groups. Everyone gave positive, even idealistic replies. The instructor attacked and picked apart virtually every answer. Some participants protested they were sincere in their replies but the instructor made them stand in front of the class and then asked them whether they would turn to someone of their own race if they needed help. The resistors conceded their prejudices and sat down.

The class then proceeded with the instructor becoming increasingly surly and confrontational, often raising his voice to make his points. He went through a litany of the effects of historic racial prejudices in American society, and likely still to be harbored by the participants.

The class was almost entirely about white “racism,” so the instructor picked on whites and it was mostly whites who replied. One young black employee, however — a nice guy — walked out of the room in disgust. The instructor then proclaimed, “They got to him!” “They” were not defined, but the implication was that the white establishment had tricked this young black man into believing that American society was not prejudiced. The instructor then ordered the drab white woman to bring the man back to class.

At the end of the first day of this treatment I was angry. The class was not a dialogue, but a diatribe.

Day two opened with the instructor now smiling and engaging. What a shock! He then vouchsafed one of many “revelations:” that his nasty treatment on the first day was to show us how it felt to “be a black person in American society.” Needless to say, I have never seen such loathsome treatment of blacks by whites. Instead, what we experienced was how blacks can treat other blacks, and other groups as well. I suspect that the young black recognized this for what it was and could not stomach it.

Our instructor had a grand theory. “What do you believe is the root cause white racism towards blacks?” he asked the class. There was no reply. “Because whites do not want their daughters marrying black men,” he shouted. He then excoriated whites for causing so much agony for blacks over the years just because they didn’t want their women engaging in miscegenation. He also complained of a Navy admiral who did not want this instructor on his base because “he did like the idea of a white woman kissing a black man.”

The instructor was apparently not worried about miscegenation of black women with white men because he never mentioned it. As an incentive to holdouts who didn’t want to hand over white women to blacks, he explained that blacks might eventually be genetically dissipated in America through miscegenation.

The instructor also claimed that the hostility and prejudice (in reality fear for their lives and businesses) of Asian shopkeepers toward blacks in Los Angeles were learned from whites. I thought this was nonsense and said so to the white woman during a break and she surprisingly agreed with me. She explained that this falsehood made a greater impact on the class, or words to that effect.

The woman also revealed some of her own thinking in one of her rare comments to the class. She said she had children, and that she had to be away from them a great deal of the time because of her work on the racial grievances circuit, but she could devote herself to this higher calling because if anything happened to her on the road “someone would take care of them.”

The instructor taught us about “Sun People” and “Ice People.” This theory originated with Dr. Leonard Jeffries of City University of New York, who claimed that whites are cruel and aggressive because they have lived in cold climates, while blacks and presumably other non-whites (perhaps excluding East Asians) are communal and loving. Smiling, with a glow on his face, the instructor said he was looking forward to the day when the Sun People would dominate the earth.

The culmination of the class was a “hands on” psycho-babble analysis of each of us. He held my hands, closed his eyes for a few seconds, and then said “you are hurting people.” I took this as a compliment coming from that bastard.

In the days after the class I was angry, and talked to a few of my classmates. They agreed that the instructor was over the top in some of his points. I do not know if anyone complained to management, but the next year’s race-relations class was given by a different, and mercifully banal firm.

Looking back on the class years later, when I was more educated about racial realities, several things struck me. First, if a white instructor had abused participants the way this one did, he would have been reported to management, and walked out by security. Whites have been conditioned to be neurotic about “white guilt,” and to drop their natural defenses against such aggression by blacks. The instructor often showed sadistic glee when berating white participants; he knew he could get away with it.

The brief moment of candor from the drab white woman confirmed that exaggeration and falsehoods are considered legitimate tools in the indoctrination process.

Of course, the racial grievances industry was created with the assistance of whites, and is supported by them though legislation and financial contributions. I doubt that any group of people in history has ever paid to be lectured about how evil they are. In our case, this included admonitions about encouraging white women to have sex with blacks — perhaps as the ultimate expiation for our sins.

So what should you do if you are faced with a mandatory race relations (grievances) program at work or at your university? Should you argue back, or just take the nonsense?

First of all, don’t do anything that could get you fired. You should not say anything against the overall goals of the program. Never say that “diversity” is a misplaced priority, or cast aspersions on any specific group. Something that could make a difference is whether instructors are company employees or outside contractors. If they are outsiders you probably have greater latitude.

You can cast enough doubt in the minds of the participants to undermine the course just by pointing out the flaws in the logic, facts, consistency, and fairness of this kind of instruction. Be cool, logical and persistent, and your instructor may become (more) irrational and lose composure. That will mean a loss of credibility. Refuse to be drawn into invasive, personal questions.

Report any abusive treatment to your human resources department, and if you can get a group to back you your appeal will be much more powerful. If the instructors are outside contractors they may never be invited back. If they are employees they may get poor performance ratings. At the very least you can perhaps influence your organization to drop the most offensive, anti-white parts of the indoctrination.

One of the most important things you can do is identify any participants in the class who may be sympathetic to your views and draw them out. You may have to break the ice, but after that, others will follow. People are conformists. Most are afraid to be the only one to go against the herd, but once you speak up, it will be much, much easier for others to do the same.

A minority of one may seem like a kook, but a minority of two is a faction. It will change the entire dynamic of dissent if you have even one ally. You can be sure you will have one if you already have an understanding with someone who is going to be in the session with you. Talk things over ahead of time if you can. Going in knowing you have allies will boost your own morale.

Too many whites hang their heads and let some white-hating swine insult them. When you fight back, you are fighting back for all white people. It’s about time.