The ‘Honest Conversation on Race’ Trap

Robert Weissberg, American Thinker, April 1, 2015

Good news: Starbucks customers need not worry that some barista will try to engage you in an honest discussion about American race relations. The whole idea was laughed off the stage and rightly so. One comic suggested that he’d prefer to talk about free will versus determinism with the folks down at Jiffy Lube.

Unfortunately, calls for such honest, forthright and frank dialogues are irrepressible. Recall Attorney General Eric Holder’s 2009 exhortation for a national conversation. Noah C. Rothman recently offered a catalogue of such calls in his February 2015 Commentary essay. The New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristoff suggested “a new commission [that] could jump-start an overdue national conversation.” Similarly, Peniel Joseph of Tufts University called events at Ferguson a “teachable moment that could lead to a National Dialogue on Race Day.” The journalist Troy Singleton opined that “Shying away from this difficult conversation will lead only to more incidents like Ferguson and its painful aftermath.” President Obama invited a “sustained” conversation on race “to move forward in a constructive fashion.” And on and on and on.

But, admonitions aside, let me try and finally eradicate this zombie-like idea. Trigger Warning: killing the very idea that a little talk, and yet more chatter can actually solve a deeply rooted problem that has persisted for centuries will not be a pleasant sight to behold. Those made uncomfortable by genuine honesty are advised to leave the room or, if determined to have a “meaningful dialogue on matters of consequence,” visit Jiffy Lube and seek intellectual enlightenment there.

Let’s start simple. Airing out differences on emotionally laden subjects (and yakking about race guarantees high blood pressure) is not always advisable. Actually, lots of harm can happen from ill-advised frankness. Those in happy marriage know that it would be unwise to turn their 25th wedding anniversary into a two hour tête-à-tête about each other’s annoying personal hygiene habits or spousal sexual ineptitude.

A frank discussion about race relations would be far worse. I can readily see a white person working himself up into a lather when recounting the sky-high black crime rate, the awful academic performance of blacks despite trillions in government help, the relative level of dependence on government handouts and the absolute lack of any gratitude for this assistance. To which an agitated black would respond with a similarly lengthy catalogue: the legacy of slavery and discrimination, innumerable incidents of police brutality, white denial of their pernicious racism and related sins that undermine black self-respect. And this would be only round one of a 15 round championship fight.

That every one of these items has been discussed ad nauseam for half a century suggests that the purpose of this dialogue is not to provide new information or to clear the air as one might spit out a spouse’s long annoying faulty hygiene in couples therapy. Nor could it be argued that contemporary Americans need a refresher course on race — almost every item in these prospective conversations spontaneously surfaces with once-a-month regularity thanks to the mass media’s infatuation with racially charged white-on-black violence (but not the reverse).

Why then the repeated calls and the unwillingness of whites to engage African Americans? Here’s why: nearly all whites (and many Asians, too) know that the invitation is a trap, a disguised ploy to advance the racial egalitarian agenda. An opportunity to advance racial progress is just the bait. Remember Chairman Mao’s a thousand flowers to bloom campaign. This was a 1956 plan to encourage ordinary Chinese to openly criticize the Communist regime so as to promote progress in the arts and sciences. Alas, in 1957 policy was reversed and those who had expressed criticisms were rounded up, sent to prison camps or executed. “Freedom to speak” was a subterfuge from the get-go. Mao called it “enticing the snakes out of their caves.” Closer to home, one wag whose name I cannot recall, nailed it perfectly: “We need an honest conversation so we know who to fire.”

What makes this invitation a trap is how “being bad” has now been transformed from acting bad to thinking bad. This is Orwell’s Newspeak “Thoughtcrime” (also called “Crimethink”) in his novel 1984. Here unspoken anti-regime beliefs, not actions, are deemed criminal since they can readily lead to oppositional behavior and thus must be extinguished in their larvae stage. Truth is irrelevant for certifying a Thoughtcrime; harm exclusively derives from whether the thought contravenes the official orthodoxy. Secretly believing that diversity is a liability is a Thoughtcrime.

Promoting an honest conversation about race will be, as per Mao, “enticing the snakes out of their caves.” Racists will now publically confess their crimes and, to add insult to injury, pay for an overpriced cup of coffee to boot! Critically, costs will be asymmetrical: whites who speak negatively about blacks will face punishment; by contrast, blacks slandering whites are just being frank, honest, and forthright and otherwise acting commendably. So, a white who tells his black conversation partner that blacks disproportionately commit more violent crimes is guilty of offensiveness even if this Starbucks customer totes along stacks of government-issued documentation. By contract, no proof is demanded if the barista responds with crime rates are identical so statistical differences just reflect unequal police enforcement. To be blunt, no forthright white can escape being pummeled in such conversations.

Now for the truly troubling bottom line: calls for honest discussions of race are yet one more step toward totalitarianism insofar as stamping out “bad thinking” apart from bad behavior virtually defines totalitarianism. At it gets worse: blacks will interpret this newly expressed hostility to them as more proof of society’s innate racism and the upshot will be demands yet more sensitivity training, speech codes, more Directors of Diversity and Inclusion and similar fixes to stamp out bad thinking among infected whites. What begins as a request for a tall soy latte can now, speaking figuratively, end up with a trip to the rack.

To be sure, today’s fans of these conversations are not yet calling for punishing “bad thinking” but rest assured, those who take the bait and express heresies will be punished though well short of being burnt at the stake. A single heretical utterance almost guarantees attention from self-appointed social justice warriors who will dig deeper to uncover an “alarming” pattern of racist blog posts, Facebook entries and who knows what else, all to be publicized and sent to the person’s employer (that these conversations can be so easily and secretly recorded further adds to the Stasi possibilities). If the employer claims that these utterances are irrelevant to the person’s job, there may be threats of a boycott, a Department of Justice investigation or soliciting complaints from other employees about working alongside of a now exposed racist co-worker.

Better to avoid any frank discussion of race save among one’s most trusted friends. If asked to join the “conversation” insist that you know nothing other than there is no such thing as race, it is socially constructed and those who talk about race are fueling hate.

Topics:

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • David Ashton

    The Appendix on “Newspeak” at the end of “1984” repays careful study.

  • JohnEngelman

    I would love to add something, but I can’t. Robert Weissberg said it all. I just hope he remains employable after this.

    • CM732

      I think he did it subtly enough to get away with it. Was a breath of fresh air reading an article that seemed the unaltered thoughts from someones head to the written word. Great article.

    • Usually Much Calmer

      He is retired from academia. He wrote for and was fired from the National Review (which may yet become a badge of honor).

      Gotta love those scrappy folks with nothing to lose.

      • InAFreeCountry

        I’m sure John Derbyshire would concur.

    • tetrapod

      My thoughts exactly. Let’s hope American Thinker is more supportive of Weissberg than National Review was of Derbyshire.

      • JohnEngelman

        It is outrageous how undeniable facts that are congenial to race realism are being suppressed in what is supposed to be a free society, Unless you attribute intractable and significant racial differences in average intelligence, and rates of crime and illegitimacy to white racism you risk losing your career.

        I want so much for there to be a conversation on race, but I want it to be honest, public, and uncoerced. Scientists should be able to express what they know about race differences. Ordinary citizens should be able to talk about what they have experienced from people of other races, and how they feel about it.

        • Lexonaut

          “I want so much for there to be a conversation on race.”

          ——————————————-

          We need also to have a conversation on the benefits of old fashioned unfettered capitalism. To call today’s statist US economy “capitalism” is also Orwellian.

          • JohnEngelman

            Old fashioned unfettered capitalism benefits the rich at the expense of everyone else. That is why Franklin Roosevelt was elected once and reelected three times fettering capitalism.

          • Lexonaut

            So, for example, Andrew Carnegie “stole” from “everyone else” to create US Steel, lowering the price of steel by a factor of ten. Till then “everyone else” had been rich. John D. Rockefeller made things even worse, “stealing” oil from “everyone else” and lowering the price of his product also by a factor of ten.

            Yup, makes sense to me. Economics is a zero sum game in which the only way that people get rich is to steal from other people. I understand now. Thanks for the education.

          • JohnEngelman

            What is in the interests of employers is frequently not in the interest of employees. This is particularly true in the case of immigration policy. Employers benefit from more immigrants to lower wages.

          • Lexonaut

            I am the son of card-carrying NYC 1930s labor union CPUSA members. I grew up hearing all the nonsense about the poor downtrodden workers and the evil rich employers.

            If you don’t like your job, find a different one with, if necessary, a different employer. If you don’t like any of the employers then start your own business. What’s that? You don’t have the money to start your own business? Well, that’s the purpose of rich people in a capitalist economy — to give employment to those who want it, and to invest in the startups of those who want things to change.

            Early 20th century Texas wildcatter Dad Joiner used to say “I’m often broke, I’ve never been poor.” That’s the difference between productive people and perpetual whiners.

            Rich people are the price a capitalist economy pays for having a prosperous middle class. There’s no point in talking about the poor — they either do or do not want to work. If they do they can easily become middle class. If they do and start businesses then then may (may) even become rich,

            If you take a million from a successful business owner at the point of a gun and give it to a person who is poor in the Dad Joiner sense, which is the modus operandi of your beloved socialism, in a few years the business owner will have recreated the stolen million but the poor person will still be poor, having blown his received million on living for the moment.

            Neither Andrew Carnegie, nor Henry Ford, nor John D. Rockefeller, ever forced consumers (known to you as “the masses”) to buy anything. The profits they made reflected the savings/betterments that consumers gained as a result of buying from the “robber barons” rather than trying to drill for their own oil in their own backyards.

          • JohnEngelman

            Rich people are the price a capitalist economy pays for having a prosperous middle class.

            – Lexonaut

            Our middle class is becoming less prosperous because the rich are getting richer. Economic growth is going to profits, rather than pay raises.

          • Lexonaut

            What’s happening here is government fast expansion of the money supply creating another asset bubble. (Check out the prices of art, housing, etc.) The money is created out of thin air by the Federal Reserve system, which injects it into the bond market, from which it spreads to the stock market and then on to other asset plays.

            If we had a metal-backed currency such as existed in the period of enormous economic growth from the 1830s up to your beloved FDR, this would not be happening. This is not a fault of capitalism, it’s a problem of government intervention in the economy. (On a larger note, to quote Milton Friedman, “Capitalism is what people do when you leave them alone.” )

            And now a Russian political joke from Soviet days …

            “Capitalism is the exploitation of man by man whereas communism is exactly the reverse.”

            Capitalism has worked everywhere it has been tried though it has cyclical hiccups. Under socialism the hiccups become permanent, and under communism the economy is simply destroyed.

            At least you stand up for what you believe in, John, without resorting to name calling.

            Toward the end of his life my father was starting to make serious money as a Wall Street business analyst and business appraiser. We moved to a nice apartment in Forest Hills, and the cleaning woman came twice a week.

            My mother rationalized it all by crowing “See, even communists can have maids.” My wife, at the time my girlfriend, asked her “But who will be the maid’s maid?” My mother was left speechless.

            The answer of course is that under unfettered growth such as we had in the USA for the century following the digging of the Erie Canal, today’s maid becomes tomorrow’s nouveau riche, able to hire a maid who in turn will rise, and so on.

            I agree with you about immigration. It’s going to destroy the nation. What black people don’t understand is that they are about to be displaced as the liberal pets. The Latinos are not going to take any crap from blacks the way we whites have been doing, and the black gravy train is going to come to an abrupt halt once the dollar collapses, if not sooner.

            Must run. As always, a pleasure.

          • JohnEngelman

            Don’t think in terms of capitalism versus socialism. Think of various combinations of both.

            What seems to work best is a mixed economy, which is called “Social Democracy.” Countries with social democratic economies were less effected by the Great Recession.

            From the inauguration of Franklin Roosevelt in 1933 to the inflationary recession of 1974 the American people benefited from a broadly based economic expansion.

            Since the inauguration of Ronald Reagan, with an all too brief intermission during the Clinton administration, the clear majority of economic growth has gone to capital, and to those who were already earning the highest incomes.

            Most Americans do not benefit from tax cuts from the rich. Most do benefit from a well financed public sector of the economy paid for by high taxes on the rich.

          • Lexonaut

            Wealth is not money. Instead wealth is the means of production and distribution. If government taxed the rich to create wealth I would be less unhappy because at least the money would be being used productively albeit inefficiently.

            But your beloved hybrid economy governments don’t do this. They take from the rich to finance consumption, increasing numbers of unproductive/counterproductive government workers being the primary effect, with increasing numbers of unproductive/counterproductive slothful non-woirkers being the secondary effect.

            Keynes meant there to be a one-time government spending kick start for each major recession — a jolt of adrenaline to the economic heart. He did not mean that we should turn the economy into an adrenaline junky, which is what we have done.

            You and your fellow lefties for some reason think that the act of working in government somewhow bestows wisdom and humanity on people, making them superior masters of the economy. For some reason you cannot stand that private enterprise runs dozens/hundreds of simultaneous economic experiments, with the fittest approaches surviving and their developers rewarded with a fraction of the net societal savings that their methods generated.

            Counting up the various tax biurdens on middle class America (and as a former business owner I can assure you that the employee pays both sides of social security) from all levels of government shows the total to be between fifty and sixty percent. This can’t be sustained, John, even if you view it as fair and just.

            The workers are in chains, to be sure — chains forged by oppressive redistributionist government, not evil capitalist robber barons.,

          • JohnEngelman

            The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top. By taxing the rich heavily and spreading the wealth around left wing democratic governments counteract this tendency. That is why there has nearly always been more job creation per year under Democratic presidents, why there has usually been more economic growth, and why since 1960 the stock market has grown over twice as much under Democratic presidents as Republican president s.

          • Lexonaut

            “The natural tendency of capitalism is to accumulate wealth at the top.”

            ——————–

            That’s part of the truth. The rest of the truth is that the accumulated wealth is made available for investment in business projects chosen by business people, not government bureaucrats who know nothing about business.

            I will feel good about government, and the left, when all of you take vows of poverty and give your limited wealth away to The Workers voluntarily. Only then will you be able to claim the moral high ground that allows you to instead be generous with productive people’s money rather than your own.

            I’ll give you the last word.

          • CM732

            I agree. Why would I want to become a serf to the rich as is happening now? I agree with capitalism but it needs socialist checks to ensure that we do not all become slaves to those with money.

          • Lexonaut

            People like you are commendable. You’re always very generous with other people’s money, especially if the intended recipient is you.

            Getting the government to force the payer to become your slave is a noble strategy since it keeps you from having to get your hands dirty by being forced to labor for some evil rich person.

            As they say in NYC, a break please give to me.

          • CM732

            Hey Lexonaut. If we did not live in a society that has fractional reserve banking and people living off interest we could look at your option. At the moment we are dealing with people who have taken wealth by stealth. Yes I will happily steal the power back off them (the super rich).

  • I think Weissberg is constructing his criticism of the honest conversation about race mistakenly thinking that that is what is literally desired here. Honest conversation about race is just code for a one-way preening sermon about race combined with a constant parade of self-flagellating trip the confessional boxes on our part.

  • Steve_in_Vermont

    It’s not uncommon for people to be having frank and honest conversations about race all the time, in small groups and among friends. But in public? On the record? You have to be kidding. And forget posting your opinions on Facebook or the media. There are exceptions, folks like myself who are retired. When I was working I was “Mr. PC”. Now, not so much.

    • TomIron361

      like myself who are retired
      ——————————-
      Interesting you say that. When I was in Vietnam, sometimes I didn’t care about things. Now that I too am retired, I’m back to feeling the same way – [Frankly, I don’t give a damn]. Not a good thing for anyone who tries any of the PC malarkey on me.

    • SentryattheGate

      My southern town has twice a month mandatory classes for employees of the city, the county and the utility company, regarding diversity. It is brainwashing to accept not just affirmative action but ultimately to accept the flood of diversity coming w/o complaint! You can lose your job if you do not attend and if you speak out against being told to have no backbone or survival instinct!

      • Yancy Derringer

        Twice a month? Twenty-four of these classes in one year? Ridiculous.

      • Alden

        Are there any White government employees left in the south?

        • SentryattheGate

          I’m noticing less and less white faces among the employees at the public utility and government offices; almost ALL blacks. And I observe that many are inept at their job! (Not surprising from what I’ve observed working in school.) When lines get real long, things get jammed up, the white workers get sent out to get things running smoothly again! There are many Hispanics now too, and lately Asians and Indians, even older ones!

      • Steve_in_Vermont

        Under the Constitution you have freedom of speech. Under the current system someone else will determine the limits of that “speech” and the consequences of failing to abide by their limitations. With unions less relevant there are fewer protections for workers and employers, wanting to avoid controversy, will take the path of least resistance and fire anyone who is not viewed as “PC”. There are two standards, one for “minorities”, the other for whites. Perhaps when whites become a minority we can regain this right.

        • SentryattheGate

          Don’t count on “minority rights” when we are the minority! Several years ago, I heard that some big US cities (I remember L.A. and Chicago being among them), had banned the use of the word “minority” (as offensive, belittling etc) in city and county councils. I told my kids that the reason was probably to avoid “minority rights” in the future when we are that minority!

      • Earl Turner

        Georgia is rapidly turning dark blue politically. All of the South, really.

  • Hilis Hatki

    Everything that can be said about “race” has been said and most people don’t want to hear it so they keep wanting to talk hoping to hear that which will validate their illusion of the world. Or “lets keep talking till you see things my way.”

    • connorhus

      As one of the few White Men in America who truly has very little to lose from speaking his mind I have had a number of conversations about race and they are as this article says simply a trap. Also there is nothing you can say to a Liberal Multi-Culter they will listen to anyway.

      Want to see them have convulsive fits? Tell them Black pregnancy/gestation periods are usually 5 days shorter than Whites or that Black spines connect further back on the skull than Whites. Among other racial facts these will send them into mouth foaming spasms of rage even though they are facts. They will never listen except to find some way to use their “gotcha” play.

      • Tarczan

        Smaller brains, too.

      • Sick of it

        You can talk about the surface area, and relative complexity, of their brains. You can talk about IQ until they start screaming and run away.

        • USofAntiWhite

          I’ve yet to meet a leftie or even an educator that will admit IQ testing has merit. They know it’s true so they completely deny 100%.

          • John Smith

            Why do so many educational institutions demand standardized tests in that case?

        • Raymond Kidwell

          There are intelligent black people and dumb white people. The problem is a difference of averages. Then when blacks on average do less well, it is blamed on society, and we need more affirmative action etc. I think just treating people as individuals would solve most of those problems. Instead, it seems to be like liberals are more obsessed with race than conservatives. If a prison has more blacks than whites, they shout racism. If a black person has a marginally lower income, they shout racism. And their solution to this racism is always racist policies against white people.

          So I would think in the modern era its the conservatives fighting against the racism of the liberals. I think we shouldn’t be required to check a box saying what race we are, there should be race based admissions or hiring, or any other such quotas. And anyone who shouts that black/hispanic failure is the fault of a white man should be sent to sensitivity training to learn more compassion towards whites.

          • John Smith

            It’s the numbers of each – intelligent blacks are at least an order of magnitude lower in frequency than whites above one standard deviation above the mean.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            The problem is people mostly live in neighborhoods segregated by social class, education and income. Your typical wealthy white family lives in a nieghborhood that has black people fairly similar to themselves. Meanwhile people in the ghetto are getting eaten alive by psychotic and mentally retarded behavior which the liberal elite denies exists. it’s society’s fault that serial killers exist, rapist, vandals, morons etc. it has nothing to do with genes. Pretty easy to say when you don’t have to live around it.

          • Robert Smith

            I wonder what the difference between black vs. white income is in the NBA.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            Ok, let me school you on this game. When it comes to the NBA: Blacks are superior to white people. They jump higher, have bigger **** and just all around “cooler” people. When it comes to a white businessman making ten cents more than his black counterpart, race doesn’t exist, any difference in racial outcomes is racism and results in ignorance etc. See how it works?

            When an Asian does better on math, it’s because he’s superior. Indians are superior. If you bring up actual I.Q. scores and demonstrate that whites actually score higher than Indians- you need to be silenced. You just uttered something horribly racist. You’re ignorant.

            It’s not about a pursuit of truth or an “honest conversation”. It’s just an endless attack against white males and western culture. Hopefully more whites will wake up to that fact and stop supporting the nonsense.

          • Indians are not remotely superior. I worked with two quite incompetent Subcontinentals with PhDs they must have got out of a vending machine.

          • WR_the_realist

            There are about a billion Asian Indians and within that huge population there is a lot of variation. The smartest Indians are very smart indeed, and I know of some impressive results in mathematics by Indians. But the average IQ of Indians isn’t very high and many Indian STEM workers just learn to game the various certification tests and are just mediocre programmers and engineers. But they do help keep wages low, so industry loves them.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            To make an example of you two. For telling the truth or even stating your opinion you are going to lose your job, be kicked out of school etc. In fact, I think we’ll open an FBI file on you. You’re a national security threat. When you give a public speech stating that white people are inherently evil racists and inferior to all others, then we might think about letting you into normal society. That’s how we have this honest conversation- with the use of threats.

            I wonder how long threats and intimidation will keep the average white populace subdued.

          • Raymond Kidwell

            There are smart minorities, but I think the biggest difference is any non-white male with an I.Q. over 120 (who can basically do well on an SAT or basic tests) gets a free ride through college or possibly close to free ride in terms of business loans etc. By contrast there are highly intelligent white males working in factories etc. who are denied those opportunities because of the color of their skin.

            To me, it’s the height of stupidity. How can the United States compete with a nation that uses all of it’s talent? It’s no better than denying smart black people the right to learn how to read simply because they’re black.

            The real racists are the liberals, Marxists etc.

            And that’s why if I go to a doctor or some other professional and he/she is not white, I always have to wonder how qualified the person is. Did they get to where they are just because of the color of their skin or are they actually highly qualified to do the job?

            I have dealt with a seemingly inept white male public defender, and a low life Jewish manager before, but most of the time when I deal with incompetent professionals they tend to be females or minorities and almost always affirmative action is involved somewhere down the line. It really harms everyone besides being morally wrong.

            So my problem is not with the Indians per se but rather with the racist liberals who give Indians special privileges and then try to falsely portray them as smarter than white people.

        • Bo_Sears

          Your mention of IQ brings to mind a technique that Resisting Defamation uses, and that is to demand that IQ testing be resumed for the diverse white American students & job applicants.

          When the oppressors see or hear the two-digit IQ label, they freak out, and it provides a teachable moment for them to begin to understand that we as a demographic have an interest in our children, but that other demographics should be able to have or not have IQ exams. A little like vaccinations!

          But it can be fun to discuss IQ exams for young and diverse white Americans…and it is actually a good idea. If members of some demographics want waivers from IQ exams, okay, but they are stripping us of our rights toward our children by removing this tool.

    • The All Seeing Bry

      Right. We had an honest conversation about race up until about after WWII, then the word equality started floating around.

  • Brady

    EVERYBODY:

    Read Robert Weissberg’s article “in Defense Of The Racial Spoils System” in the March 1999 issue of AR so you know where he’s coming from. Then read Jared Taylor’s refutation of it. Taylor’s assessment of Weissberg’s position “defeatist in the short term and suicidal in the long term” is just as apt for this article. Mr. Weissberg is a coward who just wants to live his comfy life while society declines. He wonb’t face up to the fact that social decline will make such a life harder and harder.

    White folks, show some backbone. Social justice warriors are not omnipotent. They can be beaten, if you stand up to them.

    • TrueNorthFree

      I agree. We must speak up, loudly! We must begin educating those who spread the ivory tower meme of “white privilege”. We must get our act together and spread our own memes widely on social media. Let’s get our message out there!

      • Charles Martel

        White privilege is evolution that’s why Asians have it also. I hope I am not wearing that shirt when they come to round us up.

    • Alden

      Someone named Weissberg in favor if affirmative action? I’m shocked, shocked I tell you.

    • The racial spoils system is fundamentally indefensible. It has produced as its main results multigenerational welfare families headed by single mothers and institutionalized incompetence in public-sector offices. Furthermore, it must eventually collapse as the US continues to import Third-World hordes and immediately put them on public assistance.

    • 3G4Me

      Absolutely. Unapologetically make your position known (“Yes, I believe in HBD”) and then refuse to argue or debate with ignorant White leftists or any black or mexican – I like the response in some books I just started reading and am immensely enjoying – use 5 words only: ” I have nothing to say.”

  • Frank_DeScushin

    What’s there left to talk about? All studies, polls, and anecdotal evidence show that blacks and whites view the same matters completely different. Despite an incessant race “dialogue” since the 60s this chasm not only remains, but hasn’t narrowed at all. At this point, only a complete fool thinks that dialogue will solve black-white differences and every white knows he’ll be berated for being truthful, so why even engage in the conversation?

    • Reverend Bacon

      I wonder if one just looked at 3-sigma blacks (IQ approximately 130 and over), would one find the same monolithic thinking? In general, when people can’t understand the logic behind something, they fall back on their emotions. Blacks clearly have been emotionally pre-conditioned to think a certain way. Perhaps whites of average or lower intelligence are also emotional about the issues, but depending upon their environment may have different emotional reactions. For example, the vapid whites from places like Austin, Texas (8% black, or so) may have been emotionally programmed to believe that Racism Explains Everything. A lower-middle class white from Philadelphia or South Boston may have seen enough of the black undertow to have a different, equally non-analytic, emotion.

      I have had some racial conversations with such blacks, and my conclusions are mixed. But they were all much better conversations than the arguments I’ve had with a white liberal of lesser intelligence, especially ones who’ve been cloistered in places like Austin.

      • SentryattheGate

        Some conversations I’ve had with older blacks showed how disgusted and disappointed they are with younger blacks; their drug abuse, their irresponsible breeding and lack of parenting, their promiscuity, criminality, and their glorification of all that via black “culture and music”.

        • Alden

          That is what they told you Who knows what they really thought.

      • BlueSonicStreak

        My experience has generally been that most intelligent blacks cloistered in liberal academia will repeat the liberal party line, but intelligent blacks who have military experience, run their own business, have traveled the world, etc., will be less likely to believe in white privilege and more critical of other blacks.

        So it depends on life experience as much as IQ.

        • Reverend Bacon

          Yes, very much so. The rabid anti-racists have either never lived around blacks at all, or have lived around those ivory tower blacks “cloistered in liberal academia,” a phrase which I will steal. I was that way, until, ironically, I went to liberal academia, but had to live in a ghetto. I saw two very different types, and I eventually realized that one was more common than the other.

    • The All Seeing Bry

      Only engage in the conversation will fellow Whites.

  • Frank_DeScushin

    I can’t begin to tell you how many websites I’ve been banned from because the people who purport to want an honest conversation on race don’t actually want an honest conversation on race.

    • JohnEngelman

      They want a monologue. They want to do the talking. They want us to look like children being scolded for having done something we know was bad.

    • LexiconD1

      Preaching to the choir…

    • Max

      What in past times was called honesty is hate according to the current orthodoxy.

    • BlueSonicStreak

      I used to get upset over being banned somewhere, and now it’s like par for the course. The real test is how long it takes them.

  • Tarczan

    When someone brings up race and indicates the typical liberal viewpoint, I ask them if we can have an adult, intelligent conversation about it without name calling. When they say yes, I hit them with the sad facts of race in America and the world. Crime rates, school, military and police and fire test scores, economic outcomes, urban decay, etc. The talk doesn’t stay adult for long, but I’ve enjoyed myself meanwhile.

    • LexiconD1

      I’ve been banned for doing that.

    • TrueNorthFree

      Yes, and it needs to be said, over and over! People CAN be educated and people can be woken up. We have all been heavily indoctrinated for decades by the “diversity and multiculturalism” message and people need to hear a different message from us!

  • TruthBeTold

    This is similar to the Reid Technique. It’s what the police to use trick someone into giving a confession. This is why you hear about false and coerced confessions.

    Instead of a confrontational good-cop/bad-cop scenario, they lull you into believing you’re friends and that they care about you and your well being. Once you get sucked in you’ll confess to anything.

    It works too well.

  • Lygeia

    I’m done with Starbucks.

    I’m not shopping at their stores or buying their coffee at the supermarket anymore.

    • Charles Martel

      I went to Starbucks but I was too late for their thing.

      • InAFreeCountry

        Sorry you missed their Black Panther Party.

  • JohnEngelman

    We have an honest conversation on race on American Renaissance every day.

    Where is the liberal applause?

    • Usually Much Calmer

      Hey there! Go you.

  • De Doc

    Those conversations are classic Catch 22s. Whites cannot ever get out of assuming some form of guilt in such one sided confrontations.

    • John Smith

      “Have you stopped beating your wife”?

  • JohnEngelman

    Robert Weissberg (born 1941) is a professor emeritus of political science at the University of Illinois. He is the author of twelve books on politics and pedagogy. He has published numerous scientific papers in leading journals in political science.[1] Weissberg has also written for magazines such as Forbes, Society, and The Weekly Standard.[2][3] He has also been a speaker at American Renaissance Magazine conferences[4] where he has been outspoken about his belief in the average mental differences between races…

    In April 2012, in the wake of the John Derbyshire firing, National Review ended its relationship with Weissberg, noting that the editors only recently discovered that Weissberg had “participated in an American Renaissance conference where he delivered a noxious talk about the future of white nationalism”.[11][12] However, in an article reflecting on the affair, American Renaissance founder and editor Jared Taylor noted that, during his talk at the conference, Weissberg himself declared that “any movement based on white racial identity is ‘dead on arrival,'” and characterized Lowry’s subsequent denunciation of Weissberg as an example of “cringing” in the face of political correctness: “NR made no friends by cutting off its smartest contributors. It earned the contempt of both its supporters and its enemies.

  • Dale Warner

    A conversation about “race” is a little difficult when all of academia and media tell us that it is a constructed term, presumably about the myth of white privilege. And that it is also the most real category in this century.
    But a revealing conversation can be had over a period of time. Here we called it “100 Round Tables” and the goal was to have 100 highly diverse groups of 4 to 8 persons meet monthly to discuss specific issues like (a) how many young Americans are we willing to have bleed out on the beaches of the Black Sea or the Mediterranean Sea in an invasion of Southwest Asia, or (b) should the USA allow Hawaii to secede and be a kingdom again, or (c) should municipal revenue be generated by taxes or by bonds, or (d) should Puerto Rico be allowed to secede as an independent republic.
    The topic can be almost anything, but by having members of four demographic affinity groups give their point of view, this automatically exposes demographic differences, thus an indirect discussion on “race.” My friends prefer not to use terms like “race” because it is so locked into stone, and instead focus on terms like supremacy (another’s claim to have the right to name & label you), bigotry, and hate.
    The focus on “race” is a trap because it both exists and not exists. Sometimes it exists, but many times others deny it exists. Thus the delicacy of “demographic affinity groups” as a category to deal with is far superior to “race.” It sheds light, not heat.

  • Evette Coutier

    Once you own it and wear it with pride, a race realist cannot be backed into the corner with an honest conversation on race. There is no honest conversation when you pander to feelings over factual reality.

    • TrueNorthFree

      “Once you own it and wear it with pride, a race realist cannot be backed into the corner with an honest conversation on race.”

      I would add that once you own it and wear it with pride, a race realist can educate people .

      • InAFreeCountry

        Many don’t wish to be educated, they feel like they’re thinking wrongly. Cognitive dissonance is strong.

  • LHathaway

    “We need an honest conversation so we know who to fire.”

    I read that very article posted here I do believe.

    “I can readily see a white person working himself up into a lather when recounting the sky-high black crime rate, the awful academic performance of blacks despite trillions in government help, the relative level of dependence on government handouts and the absolute lack of any gratitude for this assistance”

    This is just what they want! Whites ‘reacting’ to their talking points. We need to talk about our own issues. When it comes to crime, It’s time to start talking, not about black crime or black criminals but about white victims of crime. Except that even race realists don’t care about them.

  • Fighting_Northern_Spirit

    I seem to recall that Clinton made a conversation about race a centerpiece of his second term also. This nonsense has been brewing for a long time.

  • I am still outraged by how the media and our government allowed those poor college kids to be dragged out in the open, in front of the entire country as well as to be kicked out of school. All they did was say racist things in private among their friends. Heck, if I had been held to the same standard as these kids these days, I would have been kicked out of every college and high school I ever attended, along with most of my friends and I would have been declared public enemy number one!

    • Alden

      One if my sisters was fired from her first job because a black woman to whom she had never spoken claimed my sister called her the N word

  • FozzieT

    For now. That middle finger could soon turn to the barrel of a gun.

  • humura

    3 cheers for Jared Taylor for conducting the real dialog on race. And when he holds a conference, it is clear that the elites want to shut him up and bar the conference.

  • FozzieT

    On the plus-side, I have seen quite a few “honest conversations about race” in the comments sections in online news stories about obvious black crime (especially when the black perpetrators are described as “youths”). Perhaps there is an awakening happening?

    • SentryattheGate

      From what I see, increasingly more Whites are “vomiting up” the PC BS that has been stuffed down their throats for too long! It won’t stay down, it doesn’t digest!

    • InAFreeCountry

      The fatigue is growing stronger, especially since August and the riots in Ferguson. That’s when I personally started questioning things. Why are black people more prone to violence and crime? Why is it always the White Man’s fault? Why can’t we all just get along?
      So, I researched things, as one does. I find that I am not racist, but a realist. Things start making sense, and once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

      • bv

        Most of us are cowards and will keep the blinders in place.

  • A Freespeechzone

    Part of the problem is that most anyone who works for a large corporation can lose their job for being outspoken in ANY forum that gets back to HR.

    Look at the police officers that were terminated for alleged racist texts off hours on there PERSONAL cell phones.

    This is just another attempt to silence the masses—if millions defy, what can they do?

  • ozamataz

    I honestly don’t like blacks. End of conversation.

    • bv

      Thank you for your honesty. Would you care for a last cigarette with your blindfold?

      • Pa Guy in NJ

        It does seem to be coming to that. It’s scary that today we have actual hate groups that have the full support of the gov.

  • Speedy Steve

    I’m not racist; I just notice things, which could possibly be worse.

  • American Tax Payer

    I agree. It’s time to stop talking and start stocking.

  • bubo

    This insane, absurd focus on race above and beyond everything else will be our nation’s downfall. So much productivity gone. So much money and hours wasted. Education system wrecked. Cities ruined.

    Homogeneous societies like Japan and Korea will own the 21st century while the west and especially America will be in ruins.

  • cranky_1970

    “If asked to join the “conversation” insist that you know nothing other than there is no such thing as race, it is socially constructed and those who talk about race are fueling hate.”

    You shouldn’t say that either. To say that all race is a social construct is to assert that there is no such thing as innate blackness, yellowness, or brownness. That all people can be made to act and feel the same in perfectly organized society. That is an assertion that there exists ideal conditions under which there is no need for protected status for non-whites. That’s heresy.

    When asked to engage in a frank discussion about race, just say,”It’s complicated.” If further pressed, say,”It’s above my pay grade.”

    • There’s always “I do not respect you enough to have an ‘honest’ conversation about the weather, let alone racial politics.” That one shuts the whiners up pronto.

      • bv

        I’m self employed and keep my identity hidden, otherwise I wouldn’t broadcast my views publicly. There’s too much to lose and nothing to gain from it.

        • I have nothing to lose and very much to gain. My family and all of my friends know I am a racialist and have been to federal prison. That’s actually quite OK. I know I’d eventually be “outed” as to what I am, anyway, so I pre-empt the Cultural Marxists.

          I don’t even want a job anymore. What for, so I could work to pay taxes to support N’DeShawntavious’s multiple “baby mommas”? The hell with that! I turn 49 soon, and life’s too short for nonsense.

          I will not voluntarily be a sucker ever again. I’ve been there, done that, and hated it.

  • JackKrak

    We want to have an honest, open discussion on race!

    Before we begin, though, here’s a list of topics, statistics, truths and arguments that will be not tolerated….

  • USN Veteran

    Someone that says that they want an “honest discussion about race” most certainly doesn’t in the same way that every woman that says they’re for “equality” is not. When you discuss what equality would really mean to a woman, they lose steam rather quickly.

  • 3G4Me

    I think we’ve read some of the same books! I only recently started them, but I’m loving them.

  • Donald

    An “honest” discussion about race has all the repercussions of, “Do I look fat in this?”

  • Realist

    Idiot whites brought them here as cheap labor.

  • ElComadreja

    There’s no point in having any type of conversation with our intellectual inferiors.

  • mikefromwichita

    This is nothing new. It was the Drill when I was in USAF in the early’70’s.