The twisted racial psychology of UBM and other liberals
Undercover Black Man’s own words, Conservative Swede offers an incisive analysis of the real racial hatred that drives UBM—a hatred of blacks
. Further, as CS shows, this is not just UBM’s own anti-black revulsion, as a self-hating partially black man (as I said
yesterday, since he’s no longer “Undercover,” a better name for him would be “Barely a Black”); it is the anti-black revulsion of liberals generally. It is because liberals secretly revile blacks that they can conceive of only two possible approaches to race relations: racist hatred on one side, versus liberal utopianism on the other.
Conservative Swede writes:
UBM wrote this:
P.S.: Re-reading my 2006 letter to Horowitz, I wondered what set of life experiences had brought Larry Auster to his grim assessment of the Negro people. Had he been a street cop in Harlem? A school teacher in the South Bronx?
An interestingly racist view, by his own standards, put forward by UBM here. He’s implying that working closely with black people in black areas is what could be expected to turn people to an anti-black stance. And he obviously shares your view about the “optical illusion.” You wrote in your article on racial differences in intelligence:
This insight explained for me the “optical illusion” of racial equality. I realized that the reason whites do not automatically become aware of the large differences in average intellectual ability between whites and blacks is that whites often deal with blacks on a superficial level where only the ordinary levels of intelligence are brought into play.
The idea put forward by UBM, about being a street cop in Harlem or a school teacher in the South Bronx, is exactly about leaving this superficial relation with blacks and entering a real and deeper relation. According to you, such an encounter would lead one to a questioning of liberal dogmas and a more nuanced view regarding the complex issue of the true differences between races. But UBM obviously has a much bleaker opinion of black people and black communities than you, so in his view such an encounter would lead to people ending up hating blacks. What in his set of life experiences had brought him to this grim assessment of the “Negro people” (as he now prefers to call them)? It appears as if our own Mr. More-White-Than-Black, subconsciously, actually despised black people.
But he’s torn on the issue in a way that makes him flip between extreme positions. It’s of course typical of all liberals only to see the possibility of extreme positions—such as either unfettered mass immigration, or hate and violence personally directed against immigrant individuals. But in the case of UBM, being mostly white and partially black probably adds a personal and emotional aspect to it. According to UBM, learning about black people and black communities could be expected to lead to hate against blacks as individuals (is he carrying such hate subconsciously within him based on his own encounters?). There’s only that extreme, or the maintaining of the utopian dogmas, where any investigation about differences among races is considered evil. A moderate and balanced position, based on facts and intellectual exploration, is inconceivable to him.
Conservative Swede adds:
Here is another important giveaway by UBM that supports my thesis. UBM writes:
- end of initial entry -
“I was a fool to think [Horowitz] could be shamed into doing anything.”
He here admits that his intention was to shame Horowitz—not to convince him or plead to him, but to shame him into denouncing you. Why opt for shaming, if one had substantive arguments?
Ben W. writes:
Regarding UBM, it appears to me that any discussion concerning race is “racist” when the topic of race is not regarded as a part of the political liberal agenda. If race is discussed in isolation (abstractly), then it is verboten. It has to be coupled with liberalism’s view of “social progress” which then makes race “palatable” as a subject.
If race is associated with liberal political progress and parallels social evolution, then to people like UBM racial discourse is acceptable. If race is disassociated from liberal political progress and decoupled from social evolution, then to people like UBM any racial discourse is unacceptable.
Of course when race is divorced from the prevailing liberal context, people like UBM will instinctively and automatically conclude that ANY language, any words, any statements concerning race cannot be objective in a general, abstract sense.
Stephen F. writes:
He is an evil, deranged person.
He preyed on your good will (which obviously showed you are not someone who hates blacks) to lure you into a friendly correspondence, probably in hopes of discovering more personal information he could use against you.
I wonder how many other people he sent anti-Auster messages to? Michelle Malkin?
His postings on VFR, in retrospect, show the false tone of a sociopathic liar. He uses his moderate (not great) intelligence to create the semblance of rational discussion, but something is missing.
He has been lurking on white-nationalist sites for a long time, and seems to have conceived a plan to promote himself as a writer by “exposing” people as “racists.” He apparently became offended by your attacks on anti-Semitism among white nationalists, which open up new possibilities for whites to view their own interests.
He gets by in life using his “cultural blackness” (his website shows he has extensive knowledge of jazz, black actors, black history, etc.) though he is white enough that he didn’t draw any attention at an American Renaissance conference! A confused, racially ambivalent personality.
I am only saying these obvious things because although UBM’s “thoughts” obviously are relating to prevailing liberal psychology, he is twisted in a way that defies normal analysis.
When you see the extent of our friendly e-mails extending over months (which all took place AFTER he had sent his letter about me to Horowitz and had succeeded in discrediting me in Horowitz’s eyes) then you’ll see how truly twisted he is. However, I don’t want to emphasize that aspect of the situation at present, because the main thing I have to deal with at present is his attack on me; and his attack on me could have happened without any personal correspondence between us, and without any exchange between us at VFR. His friendly correspondence with me does not demonstrate the truth or the falsity of his attack on me; what it demonstrates is his villainy. But, again, the fact that he is a villain does not prove that his statements about me are false. That is why I need to deal with his statements apart from his behavior.
Stephen F. writes:
Thank you for replying to my comment. I admire your clarity in distinguishing between Mills’s villainy and the truth or falsehood of what he says. I was so horrified by the former that I failed to keep this in mind.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at May 12, 2007 01:13 PM | Send
At root, his attacks on you were all based on trying to find bias, error, or contradictions which would supposedly disprove your objectivity. As you noted with great clarity, the search for “hypocrisy” is not a very productive approach. Whether your reasoned response was what enraged him or whether he simply picked you as one possible victim isn’t clear. [LA adds: I also said to him, after he ignored my long reply and simply repeated the same accusations as before, that he was showing a lack of reasoning ability. By his own account, that was what angered him and made him want to get back at me.] He tried the same tactic on Horowitz, also having sent Front Page Magazine money and also trying to tar Horowitz with “racism” based on black crime statistics quoted in Horowitz’s book Hating Whitey, so he may not be so discriminating.
By the way did you notice the irritated submissive quality of Horowitz’s first reply to him, something like “I had forgotten our exchange [where he promised not to run your pieces]. Now that you have reminded me that helps.”
Of course, you will always be vulnerable to such charges since you write from a particular perspective, a traditionalist patriotic American stance which acknowledges America’s historic character as a white-majority nation. You would have to drop what you are doing and write articles on black suffering at the hands of whites to prove your “objectivity” to such a person.