FROM Gedaliah Braun’s book Racism, Guilt, Self-Hatred And Self Deceit: A Philosopher’s Look at the Dark Continent:

Many who agree with my views feel that I somehow ought to put them in a ‘nicer’ way.

The problem with trying to make these ideas more ‘palatable’ is precisely that you are giving in to the psychological warfare by which whites are being intimidated, bamboozled, browbeaten and blackmailed. Camouflaged ideas will still be deciphered – otherwise the whole exercise would be otiose. But the psychologically astute ‘angry’ black will immediately pick up on the fact that I felt the need to ‘cloak’ my ideas and will – instinctively – ask himself why is he doing this? Answer? Because this whitey thinks that what he’s saying is bad. And I know how to fix his ass! You racist mother, here I come!

Trying to somehow ‘sweeten’ the truth in order to ‘sneak it by’ the reader is playing into the enemy’s hands and ‘giving the game away’, because by doing so you are, by implication, granting the crucial premise – that any talk of racial superiority is bad (which is why it must be disguised), and that if I believe such things I should be ashamed of myself and hence that the black man has a moral claim against me and so has a right to be ‘angry’ – etc.

In short, anyone likely to be ‘outraged’ by a discussion of racial differences is much more likely to be so precisely if he thinks others expect him to be; and trying to disguise your intent will itself increase that expectation. In the absence of such expectations the response is likely to be very different. The psychology of the bully, after all, is to pick on someone who’s afraid; dissembling here signals to these psychological gangsters exactly that, thereby precipitating the very attack one is trying to avoid by such ‘sanitizing.’

— Comments —

Dianne writes:

Wow. Super good. So agree.

Thanks for these excellent posts, Laura. I don’t think there is much out there like your site; not that I’m aware of anyhow.

Laura writes:

Thanks.

Kathy writes:

I agree with Dianne. Always excellent posts.

People who want speech about ideas framed in “nice”, are more concerned with feeling than thinking, emotion than truth. And truth always has to come first. It’s also very effeminate. It is a tactical response of women who are angered or unwilling to accept alternate views, to accuse a direct and truthful speaker of being “mean” or “crude”. It often happens when they themselves have been mean or cruel, but always in a manipulative or indirect, passive way. It is a deflection from their own behaviors.

Mr Braun makes excellent points. But, I think hustling American blacks know there are racial differences, and know their demands for preferences indicate their understanding of it. But in our inverted world, they have bought into the inverted idea that white excellence and achievement is “privilege”, and in fact being white is a “privilege”, even though whites are the officially designated underclass now. Stoked with propaganda to scapegoat whites for every evil in the world and appropriating white achievement, some truly believe they will no longer be compared to whites if whites are gone.

 This hedging and “niceness” in avoiding hard facts, truth, about racial differences on the part of whites is simply seen by blacks as obsequious submission to them. Period.

Laura writes:

So true. And that boils down to more violence on the street.

Please follow and like us: