Racial Dialogue in America: The “Racist Rant” That Almost Everyone is Condemning, but Won't Link to

By Nicholas Stix
Revised at 5:47 a.m. on Tuesday, March 25, 2008

Every time a black says he wants an “honest” dialogue about race, I reach for my wallet with one hand, and for my pistol with the other. Now, it is Senator Barack Hussein Obama, the “black” candidate for president, who says he wants “dialogue.”

Obama doesn’t want dialogue on race, any more than black people do. Dialogue for them means lecturing, hectoring, and otherwise abusing whites, lying to our faces about race, the more egregious lie the better, and daring us to tell the truth, so they can curse us, assault us, and have us arrested or professionally destroy us. “Dialogue” for blacks and those who claim to be black, is simply yet another occasion for the exercise of black racial power, i.e., the kind they always insist they don’t have.

Go ask Geraldine Ferraro what she thinks of Barack Hussein Obama’s kind of honest racial dialogue. When Ferraro spoke a home truth about Obama’s racial advantage in the presidential race, he immediately demanded she be fired as a Clinton campaign advisor, and she was (officially, she resigned, but she was fired).

Senator Obama is America’s greatest living orator. So much the worse for oratory. As with the lawyer joke, you can tell when the Senator’s lying, because his lips are moving. He lies about his knowledge of the beliefs of his black supremacist pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, he lies about the Jena race hoax, he lies about his own white grandmother, for crying out loud! As I have said of Rudy Giuliani, Barack Hussein Obama is a liar of presidential proportions.

A blogger who goes variously by “Old Guy”/“Old Punk” wrote an essay that all right-(left?)thinking people are denouncing, “Dealing with It.” OG/OP took Obama’s call for “dialogue” about race seriously.

That’s always a mistake. When someone, be it a “professional” diversity trainer or a regular, backstabbing supervisor has everyone meet in the office for a “frank” discussion about race, you know it’s a set-up, and that you must be as dishonest as possible, if you want to keep your job. The “facilitator” running things will look to get a white staffer to say something true, so he can he humiliated, sacked, professionally whitelisted, and made an example to the others.

The properly dishonest way to respond to such invitations is to speak softly—tears help greatly here—about how one catches oneself sometimes in stereotypically racist thoughts and reactions to blacks. Talk about your desperate need to overcome your racism. Someone may pat your hand, or even give you a hug.

Of course, you may still find yourself out of a job. After all, you just admitted to being a racist, which for people otherwise categorically opposed to capital punishment constitutes a hanging crime.

On second thought, it’s probably better to just nod and murmur approvingly with the rest of the herd, whenever the facilitator or a black staffer says something condemnatory of whites, and hope and pray you’re not forced to speak.


Been There, Done That

Barack Hussein Obama’s call for a national diversity training session is a case of déjà vu all over again. Early in President Clinton’s second term in office, he set up an equally phony, rigged, “national conversation on race.” Like Senator Obama’s “dialogue” on race, it was to be a monologue. After initially choosing only Democratic shills for his panel, which was chaired by black Duke University history professor and race hoaxer John Hope Franklin, for one episode Clinton added a token Republican, neo-conservative scholar, Abigail Thernstrom, for the purpose of harassing and humiliating her on live, national TV, as a proxy for all white critics of affirmative action.

(Clinton, who as president successfully fought every attempt to limit affirmative action, also got a measure of personal revenge against Thernstrom, who had just co-authored, with husband Stephan, the seminal study, America in Black & White. According to the Thernstroms, Clinton had broken the law, by having his aides, Christopher Edley and George Stephanopolous, violate Supreme Court decisions limiting affirmative action.)


Cry Uncle

The first thing you see at Old Guy/Old Punk’s post is a youtube set-up for a non-existent movie. Disney’s Song of the South (1946), which combined live action and animation, won two Academy Awards, and was long considered by many folks to be one of the greatest movies ever made. It’s based on Joel Chandler Harris’ Uncle Remus tales, which are still available, both in book form and for free on the Internet. (So, the Internet is still good for something).

Song of the South is a non-movie, because it cannot be bought in these Untied States. The “honest dialogue” people decided that it is racist, and demanded that Disney cease distribution of it. Disney, of course, caved in, because that is the way of honest racial dialogue. And so, I can’t see it or show it to my son. (A couple of years ago, I saw offers to purchase downloads of Song from the UK, for over $200 US.)

(A special Oscar was awarded to star James Baskett, the white-haired baritone singing the Oscar-winning song, “Zip-A-Dee-Doo-Dah,” in the clip at Instapunk, “For his able and heart-warming characterization of Uncle Remus, friend and story teller to the children of the world, in Walt Disney's Song of the South.” One year later, Baskett was dead, at 44, of heart disease.)

The pretext for the hellfire and damnation being wished upon Old Guy/Old Punk is his use of the N-word, but he could have censored the entire section in which that term appears, without being vilified any less. These days, all you have to do is question affirmative action, in order to be vilified as a “racist” by the “honest dialogue” people.


The Test

In January, 1994, I went on a date with a biracial social worker (a field I had also worked in) who was 27, if memory serves. Her late Korean mother had met her black American father in Korea, where he was stationed in the Army.

We had a wonderful time. I know it was mutual, because not only did she act like she was enjoying herself, but she stayed out with me for 11 hours on a first date. This lady was no pushover; had she not been enjoying herself, she would have called it quits early. We saw a Chinese-American chick flick with an ensemble cast called The Joy Luck Club, had dinner, and hung out in the Union Square area of Downtown Manhattan.

She was attractive, intelligent, and except for one thing, personable. Although she was estranged from her father, whom she made no bones about disliking, she racially identified entirely with him.

At some point during the afternoon, she gave me an obvious loyalty test. Had I decided to pass it, I likely would have had a pretty good shot at earning her affections. She told a story about a young black man being pulled over by the police just because he was black, and insisted that it was an instance of a universal experience of all young black men.

The problem is, she was lying.

I had the choice between assenting to a lie and possibly getting involved with a very desirable woman—as long as I compartmentalized her racial dishonesty and bullying—and losing out.

The “choice” is an after-the-fact consideration; there was nothing to think about. In eight years in New York City, I’d experienced enough of black racism, black racial privilege, and black racial lies to last a lifetime.

Most men have to make a lot of compromises with the opposite sex, if they don’t want to spend their nights sitting alone in saloons or Dunkin’ Donutses, but lying about race to a race-obsessed woman was too much for me.

A day or two later, when I called her, and she said she didn’t want to go out with me again, she admitted it was because of the test.

She was an “honest dialogue” kind of person; they had a zero tolerance policy towards truthfulness in racial matters then, and have only gotten worse since. As far as my date was concerned, I might as well have used the “N”-word.


The Wrong Kind of Dialogue

Old Guy/Old Punk:

Obama says we should talk about race. He thinks that will help him. It won't. Most of us have spent a lifetime absorbing the lesson that seeing what we see automatically makes us racist. Do you want to talk about it? Do you? Really?

There are a few areas where, by virtue of age and experience, I think I can speak for the overwhelming majority of Americans. We want to get past racial problems. We recognize that slavery was a sin and that we have a moral obligation to see to it that our institutions and our own behavior are fair to everyone. We share a yearning so fierce that it amounts to an ache for a color-blind society in which all may prosper on the basis of abilities, not skin color. It is this intense emotion which facilitated the honeymoon period of Obama's campaign for the presidency.

But the color-blind society has not been achieved. What's more, we are constantly told -- lectured, hectored, propagandized -- that this state of affairs is our fault. We tend to accept the charge because the truth is we don't spend all our time thinking about race, and so we defer to those who think about nothing else because, well, we almost never get up in the morning thinking about how privileged we are to be white, which we've come to accept as yet another of our endless insensitivities about race….

I don't hate black people. I can't pretend to be color-blind because absolutely nothing in my culture will allow me to be. I admire Thomas Sowell, Duke Ellington, Roberto Clemente, Muhammed Ali, Alexandre Dumas… The bald truth of the matter is that they're better than I am, and it doesn't arouse a flicker of racial feeling in me to acknowledge it. They have enriched and elevated my own experience of life.

On the other hand, I am sick to death of black people as a group. The truth. That is part of the conversation Obama is asking for, isn't it?... Every day I see young black males wearing tee shirts down to their knees -- and jeans belted just above their knees. I'm an old guy. I want to smack them. All of them. They are egregious stereotypes.

Read the whole thing, which is beautifully written.

The condemnation was instantaneous. Not only did the honest dialogue people condemn the “racist rant,” but they condemned the Goliath of Republican bloggers (among others) for linking to an Easter presentation posted next to Old Guy/Old Punk’s essay. Of course none of the honest dialogue people would link to that which they excoriated; you don’t let people read such obscenities (even though you oppose all obscenity laws), you censor the source, get their blog shut down, track down and professionally whitelist the purveyor and his friends, and arrest, torture and execute them all.

I’m going to focus on one of the comments attacking Old Guy/Old Punk.


Faking Sincerity

JasonC 2008-03-23 09:39:00

great dialogue there. just another hateful old man who's convinced himself his own grossly limited perspective says something profound about american society as a whole. tell me, have you ever, you know, talked with any african-americans? i don't mean someone you've seen on tv... a real, honest to goodness black person... a real conversation? i know it sounds scary, but you might learn something (another scary thought, indeed)
i feel sorry for you.

“jasonC” doesn’t feel at all sorry for the essayist; that’s just his way of sounding morally superior to him. I quoted his comment because of the socialist talking point it expresses: ‘People who are right-of-center—you know, racists—think the way they do, because unlike progressives, they lack any experience with African-Americans.’

In 1975, when I was a juvenile delinquent and participated in the federally-funded, black supremacist Youth Justice Program, I did an internship with an agency that funded the YJP. The money came from the Safe Streets Act, and was routed through the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (I don’t recall if I was at LEAA). The woman who supervised me gave me an article to read on “stigma avoidance,” and I incorporated it into an essay I wrote on the need for the program, which was over 90 percent black, to be more integrated. If there were more white kids, I reasoned, less stigma would attach to being in the program.

I was writing the same sort of nonsense as jasonC, but my excuse was that I was only 17 years old. In the real world, most grown-ups have to put a lot of distance between themselves and black people, before they can “sincerely” express such dishonest views. The alternative is to find black protectors, and continually sell out other whites to racist blacks, like the white opportunists I crossed paths with in social work and the Asphalt League of urban academia. Otherwise, you constantly suffer racist, black brutality, which is kind of divisive, in its own way. At least in the YJP, while I took some bad beatings (and the occasional murder attempt), I was able to stand up to, and thereby earn the respect of some blacks. And the honest dialogue people hadn’t yet taken over. Those were the good, old days.

* * *

A tip ‘o the hat to VDARE’s James Fulford.