Are whites brain-dead—or toiling under the reign of fear?

(Comments on this entry begin here. Subsequent comments posted on February 15 begin here.)

Last Thursday I re-posted on the main page Paul K.’s excellent response to the demand by the Duluth anti-white racism campaign that whites uncover and excise their hidden racism, in order to raise blacks to a condition of group equality with themselves.

In my introduction I said:

His comment should be spread all across this country. If whites weren’t three quarters brain-dead, it—and statements like it—would be spread all across this country:

Later in the day, I had a long conversation with a friend about my comment. He said that brain-deadness is not the main problem with whites. He gave the example of his daughter, a VFR reader who said she liked Paul K.’s comment and wanted to post it at her Facebook page, but realized that if she posted it, she might lose her part-time job at a business where she has several black co-workers.

This led to a larger question: What can whites say—publicly and under their own name—in today’s society about race, without harming their job, their career, their social standing, their expectation of a pension, and so on?

Paul K.’s comment is a perfect illustration of the problem. It is certainly un-PC, but stated in reasonable terms. It does not express hostility to blacks. It does not say anything about genetic race differences in intelligence. It speaks of common black behaviors that have, in fact, been an object of concern among respectable social scientists, liberal media, and even black leaders. I believe that it’s not Paul’s references to blacks’ negative behaviors that makes his remarks objectionable by liberal standards and dangerous to the person quoting him, but rather his argument that only blacks can alter those behaviors that make whites avoid them, which further means that the demand that whites fix blacks’ dysfunctions is impossible, and that the belief that whites are racist for failing to do so is false.

This, then, is our test case. Could white people publicly quote under their own name Paul K.’s comment without putting their job at risk?

If the answer is yes, then my “three-quarters brain-dead” statement more or less stands.

If the answer is no, then brain-deadness is not the problem, but FEAR—rational FEAR that one cannot say such things without incurring significant damage to one’s well-being, the well-being of one’s family, and one’s prospects in life.

Also, if FEAR is the cause of whites’ silence, then that undercuts my long-held view that the conservative grass-roots of America are responsible for our plight along with the liberal elites, because, as I’ve said, the grass-roots conservatives, notwithstanding their grumbling, have not challenged the elites in a serious way but have at least passively accepted their rule.

I solicit your responses on this. Read Paul’s comment again and ask yourself these two questions: Would you be willing to post this under your own name? And, if you did post it under your own name, what would the effect be?

If, as I now expect, most people would not be willing to post it, because of the harm to themselves that they reasonably believe would result from posting it, then we have arrived at a clearer view of the nature of our society. The truth is that America—at least in respect to some of the most important issues facing us—is not a free country. The truth is that whites live under the tyranny of a false ideology that demonizes them as racists and aims at their collective harm; and that whites dare not publicly oppose this ideology, even with relatively mild statements, because of the fear of more particular harms that would come to them individually for doing so.

If this is indeed the nature of our society, where do we go from here? What form can conservative resistance to liberalism take (in this supposedly right-center country—hah!), if mild but substantive dissent from the liberal orthodoxy on race cannot even be quoted?

* * *

And here’s a further question suggested by the above. If you were in the position of my friend’s daughter, would you be willing tell your story publicly? Would you be willing to write at your Facebook page, “I saw an intelligent, reasonable comment on why blacks’ problems are not whites’ fault, and I wanted to quote it, but I dared not quote it because it could result in the loss of my job.”

- end of initial entry -

Kristor writes:

Yes. The whites that are not brain-dead are afraid.

But, the whites that are awake are also increasingly angry. Indeed, it is generally their anger that has awakened them. And if my anecdotal experience is any indication, whites are resurrecting their brains at an increasing rate.

apologia he gave on campus a few years back.)

Jake F. writes:

“Could white people publicly quote under their own name Paul K.’s comment without putting their job at risk?”

Absolutely not. Even if it didn’t get them fired, it would cause them to be seen as Neanderthals and bigots, and could severely limit their future career development. Stupid people who aren’t able to work in a diverse environment don’t advance.

“Would you be willing to post this under your own name?”

No. Part of the reason is that I’m sometimes in the public eye, so it could tarnish my company’s reputation as well as my own. I don’t deal with very many black public figures, but I deal with some; and many of those who aren’t black are staunchly liberal.

Conservatives sit down and shut up for the most part. I’m sure liberals did once upon a time, too; I’m hoping for a pendulum swing, such that conservatives can speak more freely, and I’m doing some work to make the swing occur, but I have to be careful in how I approach it. Quoting Paul K. or SBPDL or, sometimes, even quoting Lawrence Auster can be dangerous.

“And, if you did post it under your own name, what would the effect be?”

My bosses would question my judgment in a thousand ways. How, they would ask, could I say something that I know would embarrass them and the company? How could I talk about such a sensitive subject? (Those things are true even of people who agree with me, by the way.) And some would ask, How could I possibly be such a bigot?

Paul T. writes:

Since you’re soliciting responses, here are mine (as you know I’m writing from Canada but while there are some differences between the two countries, I’m not persuaded that they’re important on this issue):

“Would you be willing to post this under your own name?”

Not a chance.

“And, if you did post it under your own name, what would the effect be?”

Job vulnerability or job loss if detected, plus potentially increased difficulty in finding another job.

“If you were in the position of my friend’s daughter, would you be willing tell your story publicly?”

No, for the same reason.

“Would you be willing to write at your Facebook page, ‘I saw an intelligent, reasonable comment on why blacks’ problems are not whites’ fault, and I wanted to quote it, but I dared not quote it because it could result in the loss of my job.’”

No, for the same reason.

In terms of the “unfree country” vs. “brain death” hypotheses, I’m guessing that the second naturally follows from the first. Once one figures out that there’s no practical incentive to voice certain sentiments, but rather a strong practical disincentive, then the will to voice them (even, in time, to oneself) disappears. Most people have a pretty practical cast of mind. What’s the good of voicing things that can only get you into trouble? And if you can’t voice them, why even think about them? Safer not to. Think about them too much and you might blurt them out sometime. Most people have more immediately pressing things to think about, and disinterested inquiry is probably a minority taste.

Patrick H. writes:

I have wrestled with the very question you raise about publicly stating non-derogatory race realist opinions. My conclusion was and is (even before your recent post) that I could not do so without jeopardizing my career and job. I do not hate black people and I do not use derogatory language when referring to black people. However, after reading your blog and other similar blogs, I have come to believe: (1) that black people disproportionately engage in violent crimes and behavior; (2) some of this disproportionate behavior is intentionally directed at whites; (3) that the media has engaged in an intentional news blackout of black criminality; (4) that civil rights and other related laws imposed integration in all spheres of life to the detriment of both black and white people (and are unconstitutional); and (5) perhaps most controversially, that white females’ voluntary association with black males in a romantic relationship exposes these white females to severe and imminent danger.

With the exception of the last point, I do not believe these are controversial statements, yet were they made public under my name, I would be branded a racist scoundrel who hates black people. I have actually thought about doing my own blog, but have not followed through on this as the things I would want to discuss are things I cannot publicly say. So, I would tell the daughter not to publish this statement. It can and will be used against her in the areas of admissions to schools and employment.

I too wonder, where do we go from here now that we cannot freely speak about these issues without facing these very real and undeserved consequences. I will give it some more thought, but I just wanted to add my views on this topic.

Buck writes:

Of course we’re afraid. Only a fool or a man willing to pledge his life, his fortune and his sacred honor would risk the wrath that modern liberal society would bring down on him.

I made this comment at The Thinking Housewife the other day:

When a traditionalist conservative speaks the truth out of place, or out of bounds, we risk instantly being branded a “hater,” even though we neither harbor nor display any hate. The hate, or anger is all around us, simmering under the surface. We all experience the same thing. It takes only a gentle remark to break the social seal and release the hate or anger to the surface. That, of course, permanently ends any chance at the friendly dialogue that was foolishly sought.

Attorney General Eric Holder notoriously called all of us cowards for not speaking the truth to each other about race (setting aside that his Dept. of Justice labors to hide that truth). He said that our essence is that of cowards. If that is true, then it’s true in a larger sense. We need to live together and to “get along.” If we all always speak our minds, the streets will be on fire. So we talk among ourselves to feel sane. The overwhelming and pervasive power of modern liberalism reaches into every facet of our public or social lives and even into much of our private lives.

I generally feel like a leper confined to my colony; a parcel of shared bandwidth in the digital cloud. When I walk the ground among my neighbors, my mythical sores aren’t imagined if I keep my thoughts to myself. If I slip up, instantly the alarm pheromones are released all around and the room becomes agitated. Fight, submit, or withdraw. Sometimes it is members of our own family, people that we love. For the most part, we have to maintain vast areas of neutral ground, DMZs, in order to survive, as individuals.

I’m surely not the only one who sometimes feels like I’m living a secret life, wondering what the hell happened. Sorta like the yet un-snatched character of Donald Sutherland at the end in the movie, The Invasion of The Body Snatchers (1978). Yet un-snatched, un-controlled by the modern liberal pod people, for the most part anyway.

Hyperbole? Sure, but not by much.

Sometimes, I hear a little me on my shoulder (younger and good looking). But, he’s a lunatic who raves fearlessly at the room, while I just sit there, the likable, amiable coward that I am.

This was not the first time I have suggested that we live in fear. We cower in fear. Speaking the truth at every turn, publicly and forcefully, against the power of modern liberalism would isolate us from society. We might as well flee to a cabin in the woods.

Leonard K. writes:

My story is not about black and white, but it’s still related to the theme of fear. About 10 years ago, I was employed by a multi-billion dollar high-tech company. The work hours were flexible, and I normally started my day about 7 a.m., to avoid heavy traffic. One morning I came to the office as usual, and went to the coffee room. On a cork board on the wall, I saw an announcement that the company would send an official delegation to an annual “gay pride parade,” and everyone was encouraged to participate. I poured my cup of coffee, and went to my cubicle. I turned on my computer, and decided to check the Yahoo news. The first article that popped-up was titled something like “Spread of AIDS is increasing among male homosexuals.” The article was not critical to homosexuals; rather, it was sympathetic and concerned about their health. I printed the news item, then went back to the coffee room and pinned it to the board side-by-side with the “gay parade” announcement, leaving the latter intact. I repeat: I did NOT remove the “gay parade” ad. There was nobody in the office at this early hour.

Next morning, I came to the office and proceeded straight to the coffee room. The “gay parade” notice was there, but the Yahoo article was gone. I printed and fixed it to the board again. Another morning was a repeat of the previous. Then, one day later, something new happened. As usual, the Yahoo article had been removed, but there was something else replacing it. It was a two-year old (!) article from the company’s internal newsletter. The article told a story about an employee who used to display in his cube a poster that read something like “Marriage is a union between one man and one woman.” The employee’s manager demanded that he remove the poster because it was offensive to some. The employee refused to obey, and was fired for violation of the company policy.

This was an obvious threat, and I decided to stop the game. A year later, I left the company anyway, when I found a better job.

Matt writes:

Publicly endorsing Paul K.’s statement would be a permanent career-ending decision on the part of anyone who works in high technology or finance. I am sure the same applies in many other fields.

Charlie K. writes:

Your commenters’ opinions align with my own. The observations you describe likely would cost me my job if I made them in a way that could be attributed to me.

LA writes:

If a statement such as the one under discussion cannot be safely made, quoted, or endorsed, then that raises the question, what sort of statement CAN be made disputing the idea that whites are responsible for black failure and must do something to mend it?

I can think of one candidate offhand. It might be phrased like this:

“Provide us with evidence of this white racism or white privilege that supposedly causes blacks to fail. In the absence of such evidence, you are smearing whites as a race for something they have not done and that it is not in their power to mend. And that is anti-white racism.”

Another candidate is not a disagreement with the liberal position, but just the pathetic wish that the topic go away, because “race doesn’t matter.” This is the right-liberal position, about which Mark Richardson, in a blog entry on the Duluth anti-racism campaign, said:

Has there been opposition to the billboards? Yes, but from what I’ve seen mostly as a defence of the right-liberal position, that the billboards are racially divisive, we’re all just humans, can’t we forget about race etc. The problem with that position is that it doesn’t allow white Americans to assert a collective defence. And the attacks are likely to keep coming. In Duluth, for instance, there are left-wing churches offering courses titled “Cracking the shell of whiteness”….

Where is the pushback going to come from? It won’t happen if white Americans don’t identify with a communal tradition of their own. If white Americans take a right-liberal position, they will be left as individuals to complain about the situation, whilst being hamstrung in offering any real resistance.

James R. writes:

Regarding Brain Dead vs Reign of Fear, I have to speak up—or not speak up. About my own cowardice. These people, the open-minded, tolerant people, can and will ruin lives. This is why I asked you to call me James R., not by my full name, or even the normal online name by which I’m widely known and which can be linked to my real name. I couldn’t possibly say most of these things completely openly (of course I didn’t consider that e-mails will be tracked, but I should have considered it, since I know this data is saved and thus collectible too). I notice how very many of your correspondents are in the same boat, including “Paul K.”

The Left on the other hand can post under their own full name screeds about how their dissent is being crushed. But it’s really people who oppose them who have to hide in the shadows. I didn’t even used to be so “far right”—perhaps am still not. But you really cannot say things that even 20 years ago would have been sayable (I was thinking the other day about what NR used to print about the consequences of mass immigration) without having your livelihoods and prospects for a livelihood threatened.

We should be braver. But we’d have to be willing to go to the complete mat—to do what we’re unwilling to do (as you quoted earlier, it’s too late to work within the system, but too early for revolution. But then what? Well, it turns out we will do nothing till it is too late. But if it’s too early for overthrowing this ideology, then it’s mere martyrdom to speak candidly so that they can destroy your life. We’re metics now; it’s their country—the elite’s country, the Progressives’ country, whatever term one wants to use for them. We simply live here at their sufferance and as such must and ought to do as metics ought to do when living in the land of another people. Either that or be willing to do what it takes to make it our nation—again. Which we are not; and arguably it would result in so much bloodshed, since we have waited far too long, we have lost our moral/ethical chance to do it and simply must live now with our own failure to have done anything when it could have been done in relative peace).

If I’m right, we are the dead, not in the sense “brain-dead,” but in the sense Orwell put in the mouth of Winston in Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Kilroy M. writes:

You wrote:

“This led to a larger question: What can whites say—publicly and under their own name—in today’s society about race, without harming their job, their career, their social standing, their expectation of a pension, and so on? … Could white people publicly quote under their own name Paul K.’s comment without putting their job at risk?”

The simple answer to the above two questions is (a) Nothing, and (b) No. That’s why I use a pseudonym when contributing to VFR and other sites. The sad fact of the matter is this: if I were associated with anything non-mainstream (i.e. anything that is not explicitly liberal), I would certainly lose my job (albeit for a trumped up charge of “failure to communicate” or some such non-reason used by ideological enforces of the managerial state) or otherwise my existence in the workplace would be made so uncomfortable that I would probably just quit eventually and try to move on. I’m about to inherit a massive mortgage. Standing up for the truth these days can literally leave you homeless and hungry—especially in these economically turbulent times. This is no trivial matter. It may make people like yourself angry that others of our ilk don’t stand up and speak up, but that same thing makes people like me furious that I can’t risk it.

If, on the other hand, I came to work wearing a Che shirt, and wrote an email addressed to all my colleagues saying that Mao was a great man for industrialising China, and then said that I would vote for the Australian Communist Party at the next election, nay, that I just became a member of it, and then said that all white people and our civilisation was inherently evil and deserved to be eliminated from the face of the earth, it would all be greeted with chuckles—in the absolute worst case scenario I would probably be seen as a bit quirky (n.b. all these things I have actually witnessed in various colleagues over the past couple of years, none of which ever get any trouble, some of which have climbed the ladder of promotion since then).

So yes, as you say, our society is sick on a profound level. Going Norwegian on the System is not the answer. I don’t know what is. I too would be glad to hear others’ suggestions as to where to go from here.

February 15

Steve Polychronopoulos writes:

A few people can get away with objecting to race hustling under their real names—essentially all professional conservative writers. The names that come to mind are Steve Sailer, Jared Taylor, a few others from VDare and Taki’s. These people derive their income from writing such things and not from wage employment or a business.

I honestly don’t think anyone else can publicly say such things. Have a job? Get accused of racism and get fired. Have a business? Get accused of racism and get boycotted out of business.

Think I’m paranoid and crazy? We live in a fundamentally Stalinist society. Stalinism is not a political system, or even a political philosophy, as is normally thought. It is a rhetorical device. It states that anyone not 100 percent in agreement with the program is not wrong, not in disagreement, but actually a secret enemy of the worst kind. Combined with a secret police force, you get Russia in 1937. But you don’t need a secret police force and a GULAG to make it work, you only need some way of effectively punishing people. Humans being social creatures, ridicule and ostracism are pretty effective all by themselves. Jon Stewart keeps busy every night skewering people who get a little bit out of line. Should the individual in question have a thick skin, he certainly still needs money to live, unless he is independently wealthy.

The U.S. supposedly has freedom of speech, but it is effectively illegal to be a racist—which means to express any dissent on racial issues. To object to the idea that whites are pervasively racist is itself proof you are a racist. In a supervisory position? You might discriminate against someone, so you must be fired. Not in a supervisory position? You might offend a black coworker, creating a hostile work environment, so you must be fired. Any contact with the public? You might offend a black customer, so you must be fired. It doesn’t matter if any of things haven’t happened, they could, and that’s enough.

Leftists are very aggressive. Pretty much anything can put you under attack. You may survive through the Stalinist ritual of “self-criticism,” admitting your crimes and evil thoughts, and going to reeducation, or you may not. Very few people with any sense want either an extremely frightening and uncomfortable confrontation or the loss of a job or a business. People are kept firmly in line, and unless you want to be a martyr you keep your mouth shut.

Nemo Quivedit writes:

Let me tell you what happens when a white person in today’s America steps outside the pale of orthodoxy with regard to black people.

I have worked in the entertainment industry since the early 1990s. A few years ago, when I had a Facebook account, I made the mistake of expressing there an opinion on the right of people freely to associate. I did not advocate separate drinking fountains for whites and coloreds, nor did I express my wish that the public schools could be once again segregated by race. I did not reminisce fondly about the happy, watermelon-munching, spiritual-hollering Negro slaves of plantations of the Old South, nor did I speak longingly of the joys of lynching or the burning cross. What I did do was opine that Title II of the Civil rights Act of 1964 be rescinded (along with subsequent legislation) allowing owners of privately owned accommodations to resume their traditional liberty to refuse admittance, service, and/or membership to anyone they wish. I made the further error of contrasting the current rates of black crime, black illegitimate birth, the overall state of black America, and black-white relations in general with those that preceded the end of legal segregation in America. And then to top it all off I added that so-called gay marriage was not only philosophically absurd and biologically ludicrous but that legislation enshrining sodomy as a civil right would prove to be as destructive and unjust as has the corpus of race-based civil rights law that preceded it.

What followed was like nothing I have ever experienced. Lifelong friends exploded in rage toward me. People to whom I had felt as close as brothers and sisters for many years wrote me by post to tell me in no uncertain terms that I was an evil racist hater and to formally end their friendships with me. One by one, my business clients informed me that my services were no longer required, and that I was no longer welcome upon their premises. A smear campaign was launched against me both in person and online, warning people in the industry of my status as a purveyor of hatred and intolerance. Entire web pages, complete with “incriminating” quotations from me and doctored photographs of my face, were established for the sole purpose of excoriating me by name. These are maintained to this day.

My career in the industry was essentially destroyed. My spouse and associates suffered similar treatment. To this day I am unwelcome in most of the venues in which I formerly plied my trade, and I was forced to develop an almost entirely new set of friends as well.

Fortunately, for some time prior I had been gradually tapering off my involvement in the industry in question, so the economic impact, while substantial, was manageable. I had also been gradually engaging myself with a new and more solid set of acquaintances, so the loss of so many lifetime friends—while painful in the extreme—was survivable. I am now better situated and happier than I was before, to the chagrin of my detractors. I consider the entire affair a valuable, if unpleasant, awakening to reality.

I am now awake, unum inter videntium. I see the truth now, and more clearly every day. I have since stopped playing pretend with regard to black people. While I do not now and have never hated black people, I am no longer afraid to look at the truth from which I had averted my eyes for so long: that black people and non-black people do not and cannot live together peacefully. I also have opened my eyes to the truth about the homosexualist movement in the West, and to the great lie that lies behind both the cult of diversity and the cult of pansexual hedonism. That Great Lie is none other than the promise made by the Serpent in Genesis 3:22—the promise that by joining the cosmic revolution against God and His order man could become a god unto himself, defining reality itself by will alone.

Now that I can See, I can perceive the Enemy as he is: the First Revolutionary. Instead of fighting against his Revolution openly, where his minions can train every weapon on me and mine, I now fight a guerrilla war. I have become an anonymous counter-revolutionary, striking him from behind dozens of Internet pseudonyms and with weapons he can neither defend against nor adopt.

I am happy now. I am also a great deal more free. I learned a lot from my own lynching—namely, that fighting the Enemy on his terms is a recipe for suicide.

I learned one more lesson as well: to stay the hell off Facebook.

If you choose to publish this message, please do not reveal my name, initials, or e-mail address, as I do not wish to expose my family to any further torment from our open-minded, accepting, diversity-loving countrymen.

Thank you for listening.

LA writes:

I’ve posted “Nemo Quivedit’s” comment, though, as I told him in an e-mail, I had some doubts as to whether it was legitimate, because his story seems a little too pat. Also, he uses a Chinese surname with his e-mail account, but describes himself in his comment as white.

LA adds:

In a subsequent reply, Nemo assures me that “the events decribed in the message I sent you truly did occur. I spent many long nights and days picking up the pieces that resulted from them.” He also explains the Asian nickname he uses with his e-mails, which I won’t quote him on because he says it could give away his identity.

Marie writes:

Hello Lawrence. I’ve been reading your posts for a little while now and want to thank you and your commenters for some very interesting discussions. I’ve been directed here by Mark Richardson at Oz Conservative.

Brain dead or fearful? I was a brain-dead liberal until September 11. From that point on I started reading everything I could. I’m no longer brain-dead. I wish I was. Now I’m fearful.

Buck, I liked your comment. I feel the same way. I am silently screaming whilst listening to small talk about the traffic, the weather, the football scores, etc. Useless small talk in the media, in social circles even in the family. You daren’t speak up.

I am hoping for a change, though, and all the people like Lawrence (and people here, and on the many other sites I’ve read) are helping to educate us and will be able to open the eyes and ears of the brain dead. Soon.

Jake F. writes:

Paul T. is right that getting a new job is more of a worry than just losing your current job. The New Jersey teacher who recently spoke out against homosexuality is in danger of never getting another teaching job. And yes, at least in our part of the country, sexuality issues are roughly equivalent to racial issues.

Alan Roebuck writes:

Bruce Charleton has a post relevant to this topic: What to do when forced to be corrupt. His basic point is that when the leftist system puts pressure on you to conform, you will probably have to go along with it externally, but you must never relent inwardly. If forced to give lip service to evil, you must do it with anguish and repentance.

I posted a comment of mine from a previous VFR post:

So imagine the following scenario. A non-liberal is being pressured publicly to approve of homosexuality. The liberals are able to bring overwhelming force to bear on him. He responds, publicly, like this:

I know in the privacy of my own mind and heart that homosexual activity is a sin, and harmful to society. But I will keep my beliefs private. Since you are holding a metaphorical gun to my head, I will obey your orders. When ordered to, I will do any of the following: Publicly honor homosexuality. Hire and promote homosexuals. Use the word “gay.” Go through the motions of publicly supporting “gay rights,” including same-sex pseudo-marriage. I will not publicly badmouth homosexuality, unless you ask me what my beliefs are. But in the privacy of my own mind and heart, I will know that you are wrong. I will never agree with you.

Karl D. writes:

Fear. You can probably guess that as I am involved in the arts most of the people around me are liberal. It would be downright suicidal to post anything about race. Most of my peers consider me to be a libertarian. Something I have carefully crafted as it allows me a degree of flexibility. They, as liberals, consider me as kind of a crazy cousin (philosophically speaking) rather then an outright enemy. But even that has lost me a couple of friends among the real hardcore liberals. But speak about racial issues openly and honestly? Forget about it. Which is why I find VFR a very important release valve for me. I know that there are others besides myself who think the way I do and with whom I can communicate without being excommunicated.

P.S. This have given me a great idea. There has to be a number of people out there who have been burned by speaking the truth on a number of issues. Maybe a documentary about these peoples stories would be a helpful thing? What life is really like under the regime of fear. And what the consequences are. People are generally moved much more these days by the moving image then reading about these things. Think about that video from a few years back that was made about what racism really is? This is something I would be willing to shoot and produce if I could get people to come forward along with some financial backing.

Sage McLaughlin writes:

As we discussed when we last met in New York, I take something of a risk by posting under my own name. I don’t think others necessarily are obligated to do so, and maybe someday I’ll come to regret it. But I feel a sort of duty to be as open as possible about who and what I am. There is actually more than one person out there with my exact name, so that’s helpful, but basically my name is so unusual that it would be hard to lie low if trouble ever came of it.

I’m convinced that at least one job was probably denied to me because of what I’ve written online, and I do worry that in the future I will be closed out of potential job opportunities. Still, there are some things I’m willing to risk, and I could never get quite accustomed to the idea of an America where I couldn’t attach my own name to a comment about basic political concerns. If that keeps me out of a life in politics or whatever else, then so be it. It’s a question of principle for me, though again, everyone’ situation is different I don’t think less of people who are more cautious.

Elli writes:

To a large degree, I do blame black pathology on the culture and economy created by the elite:

1) Welfare—the destruction of the black family

2) Abortion—likewise destructive, and not just of the bonds between father and mother, and father and children, but between mother and children

3) The elimination of factory jobs and the importation of a low-wage labor force—there is no “family wage” for menial work.

4) The elite’s intellectual contempt for non-intellectual work.

5) Consumerism—promotes envy, a sense of entitlement, a measure of people by what they have and not what they do.

6) The glorification of state-sanctioned victimhood by mass media and academics and the nurturing of resentment.

I am new and underemployed in a profession where “cultural competence and sensitivity” are exalted, so I would not dare write under my own name criticizing black pathology. But within my profession, there is a good deal of contact with feckless members of the welfare class of all colors, and resentment of its members who act with a sense of entitlement. The dysfunctions of the underclass are understood and condemned, but not discussed.

We have also seen our own industry cry “shortage” and attempt to import foreign workers when there is no shortage.

Remember that in the nineteenth century the pathologies in the London and Glasgow slums equaled the pathologies of the contemporary American underclass,—crime, bastardy, alcoholism, children brain-damaged by alcohol—and that do-gooding Victorian reformers greatly improved the conditions in those slums. Of course the burgeoning economy of the British empire helped enormously.

It should be possible for us to argue publicly that white racism is not the cause of black pathology, but that the machinations of the elite do play a major role, and so condemn the elite for condoning and fostering black pathology even as they blame non-elite whites for that pathology. It would be just of us to ask ourselves and society, how do people who are not bright (this is not the same thing as stating that black people are not bright as a group) form families and support them when the family wage for menial work has been so eroded? This is a major theme of Charles Murray’s work, the noblesse oblige of the intelligent and powerful shapers of society that is owed to the less intelligent.

And finally, as far as black responsibility goes, poor black people would not live lives of misery or lack opportunity if they had safe neighborhoods, and safe orderly schools for their children. That responsibility falls entirely on the people who live there and the problem is within their power and within their power only.

LA replies:

Very interesting remarks. However, you somewhat contradict yourself with your last point. On one hand you blame the elite for fostering black pathology, on the other you say that the violence and danger in black communities are solely the responsibility of the people who live there.

Elli replies:

The last paragraph may seem to contradict what I said before. But since there have been poor communities, poor to the point where hunger was sometimes a real problem and medical care unaffordable, that were nonetheless safe, low-crime neighborhoods with functioning schools, it seems clear that it is the character of the people and the culture that makes the neighborhood. Of course there are forces and influences from outside, and these can be powerful for good or bad. But as a Christian, I believe that God has given all of us free will.

To have free will is not the same thing as having power, of course, and for most of us our sphere of influence is small.

At any rate, my main point, which I approached rather discursively, was that if it is not safe for one’s social standing and ability to earn a living to condemn black pathology and to say that the ultimate remedy must come from within black society, then by all means attack directly the elite which fosters that pathology (many pathologies, really), the very elite that limits acceptable discourse. “The Man” is not the same man he used to be, but the old Man fell under attack, and the new Man can fall also.

And your editing was to the good. How seldom do I say that.

Jason E. writes:

Americans have been nobly fighting the liberal elite for a long time now. The problem with political action leading to a revolution, is that conservative America is actually seeking restoration—of the rule of law, the Constitution, a legislative Republic, etc.—and does not want to create a new utopian system created whole cloth from some ideology. Thus, American conservatives are more counter-revolutionary than revolutionary, and what they seek is more of a restoration than a revolution.

Admittedly, the situation can get so bad that a restoration of the Republic may appear revolutionary, but for now, as things stand, there remains a legal structure through which conservatives choose to operate which is the very legal system they are attempting to restore. So working the system, no matter how stripped down it may be, is, for now, the proper approach. Even though the protection of marriage has been attacked by the elites in a few places, in many more places the laws that have been passed have lasted.

Doug H. writes:

I will not post using my whole name no matter what, because my name and phone are readily available on the Internet. After I posted on a website, and did not use my whole name, I had my home e-mail tracked down by a black person or someone posing as black, and received threatening comments. So it doesn’t really seem to matter whether you try to hide or not, at least as far as the Web goes.

I have a disabled wife who relies on me. Knowing that I would lose my job and possibly leave her subjected to violent intimidation without any help is my rational reason for not speaking the truth more publicly.

Are we doomed because of our fear?

Mark Jaws writes:

Whites are certainly not brain dead, but they are fearful of losing their jobs. You may remember my sad story back in 2009 when I was outed due to an indiscretion by a fellow pro-white activist at a school board meeting. As a result, a local reporter was able to trace my writings on a pro-white website under my real name which led to the entire county school board and board of supervisors being made aware of my “crimes.” There were some very unexpected silver linings, but it was mostly dark clouds for several months. I feared for my job and future livelihood.

There are two competing forces here: the escalating fear and frustration experienced by whites who must live and work with blacks, and the pressures exerted by the PC truth deniers. The result is a build up in pressure, with the truth just begging to leak out. What truth is that? A very sizable minority of blacks are a danger and a menace to non-blacks. It is that simple.

Paul Nachman writes:

Mark Jaws wrote:

“A very sizable plurality of blacks are a danger and a menace to non-blacks. It is that simple.”

Doesn’t “plurality” mean that a whole is divided into at least three groups, none of which attains a majority? If so, how does he see the division?

LA replies:

The plurality is the largest of the groups, none of which is a majority.

Paul Nachman replies:

Yes, so what are the other groups/classifications that he has in mind? There have to be at least two other groups …

LA replies:

Well, the other two groups are, uh … Ok, I get your point. It should be, “A sizable minority.” I’ll change it.

Paul K. writes:

I have followed this discussion with interest and have not had anything to add to the comments made by others who are in the same predicament as me.

In his current column, “Rising Black Social Pathology,” Walter Williams makes a point similar to the one I did, arguing that the problems of blacks are created largely by their own behavior. I quote the concluding paragraph below. Though the column focuses on education, you could replace the word “education” with “crime” or “licentiousness” and have an equally apt message:

The fact that black parents, teachers, politicians and civil rights organizations tolerate and make excuses for the despicable and destructive behavior of so many young blacks is a gross betrayal of the memory, struggle, sacrifice, sweat and blood of our ancestors. The sorry and tragic state of black education is not going to be turned around until there’s a change in what’s acceptable and unacceptable behavior by young people. That change has to come from within the black community.

Reading the column, I first took it as an example of the license blacks enjoy to express truths that are forbidden whites. At the same time, the views of Williams and other black conservatives are hardly considered acceptable by the elite.

D. Edwards writes:

I recommend Vaclav Havel’s essay, “Power of the Powerless.” His description of a totalitarian regime corresponds in important ways to the PC thought control that pervades this society.

Here is a excerpt:

Let us now imagine that one day something in our greengrocer snaps and he stops putting up the slogans merely to ingratiate himself. He stops voting in elections he knows are a farce. He begins to say what he really thinks at political meetings. And he even finds the strength in himself to express solidarity with those whom his conscience commands him to support. In this revolt the greengrocer steps out of living within the lie. He rejects the ritual and breaks the rules of the game. He discovers once more his suppressed identity and dignity.

He gives his freedom a concrete significance. His revolt is an attempt to live within the truth….

The bill is not long in coming. He will be relieved of his post as manager of the shop and transferred to the warehouse. His pay will be reduced. His hopes for a holiday in Bulgaria will evaporate. His children’s access to higher education will be threatened. His superiors will harass him and his fellow workers will wonder about him. Most of those who apply these sanctions, however, will not do so from any authentic inner conviction but simply under pressure from conditions, the same conditions that once pressured the greengrocer to display the official slogans. They will persecute the greengrocer either because it is expected of them, or to demonstrate their loyalty, or simply as part of the general panorama, to which belongs an awareness that this is how situations of this sort are dealt with, that this, in fact, is how things are always done, particularly if one is not to become suspect oneself. The executors, therefore, behave essentially like everyone else, to a greater or lesser degree: as components of the post-totalitarian system, as agents of its automatism, as petty instruments of the social auto-totality.

Thus the power structure, through the agency of those who carry out the sanctions, those anonymous components of the system, will spew the greengrocer from its mouth. The system, through its alienating presence in people, will punish him for his rebellion. It must do so because the logic of its automatism and self-defense dictate it. The greengrocer has not committed a simple, individual offense, isolated in its own uniqueness, but something incomparably more serious. By breaking the rules of the game, he has disrupted the game as such. He has exposed it as a mere game. He has shattered the world of appearances, the fundamental pillar of the system. He has upset the power structure by tearing apart what holds it together. He has demonstrated that living a lie is living a lie. He has broken through the exalted facade of the system and exposed the real, base foundations of power. He has said that the emperor is naked. And because the emperor is in fact naked, something extremely dangerous has happened: by his action, the greengrocer has addressed the world.

He has enabled everyone to peer behind the curtain. He has shown everyone that it is possible to live within the truth. Living within the lie can constitute the system only if it is universal. The principle must embrace and permeate everything. There are no terms whatsoever on which it can co-exist with living within the truth, and therefore everyone who steps out of line denies it in principle and threatens it in its entirety.

[end of excerpt]

So this is the same as many of your readers’ thoughts about what would happen to them if they were to step outside the boundaries of PC.

A reader writes:

I would not be willing to post Paul’s comment under my own name. I’m a computer programmer working as an independent contractor. My contracts typically last from a couple of months to a year and a client can drop me at any time. If word got around that I supported ideas expressed in Paul’s comment I would expect to be let go immediately. Recommendations from previous clients would probably be withdrawn. This would make future work much harder to find. Although I’m sure I could eventually find another job, I would have to keep my opinions to myself.

The following is a personal observation in which I think you may be interested. I currently work in a small office that is all white. This is very unusual, as my profession has been invaded by Indians in recent years. After a meeting we were discussing the Indian invasion and one man wanted to say something critical of working with Indians. But before he did he had to preface it by announcing that he was not racist. His critical comment was that it is sometimes difficult to communicate with the Indians. His comment was obviously true, an American who speaks only English is going to have a difficult time conversing with an Indian who speaks English very differently from Americans. But he felt he had to build up his non-racist credentials before making the mildest of criticisms. In fact, I have heard the phrase “I’m not a racist, but…” said by whites before criticizing other cultures and races several times recently. And the comments made after this phrase are usually obvious statements of fact that differentiate Americans from non-Western cultures and races. But whites are so fearful of being branded a racist that they must declare they are not one.

Please do not use my real name if you post this comment. Thank you for your blog and keep up the good work.

February 16

Joe S. writes:

My vote is for “brain-dead,” because I think the fearfulness is being taken too far.

I agree with Elli that it is possible to raise these issues in ways that are less socially and professionally risky, for example by attacking elites. But I would go further and state that a properly planned rhetorical campaign, which begins by quoting respectable mainstream opinions and commentators like Thomas Sowell or Mickey Kaus in order to get intelligent and reasonable liberals involved in the discussion, can get quite deeply into serious issues. The trick is either to avoid triggering taboos that invoke the demonization reflex, or else deliberately to trigger them for the extreme liberals who will react in an absurd way and thus discredit themselves. (For example, one can raise the issue of higher crime rates among blacks as a social problem which you would like to understand the causes of, without initially committing to an opinion on causes, in a way that will cause crazy liberals absurdly to deny even the existence of a racial gap in the crime rates, and thereby marginalize themselves.) [LA replies: I agree. This is one method I have found works in personal conversation with liberals. I earnestly ask them their opinion about something, which I profess (sincerely) to be interested in learning and understanding.]

However, there is a more fundamental issue here, which is that fear is being used as a cop-out by most of your commentators. There is a failure to recognize the continuous nature of the social pressure. In some types of job (for example in the entertainment industry especially Hollywood, or in much of American academia), even being publicly Republican is enough to get one blacklisted, despite the manifestly mainstream status of Republicanism. Half the country votes Republican, and one may loudly and publicly declare that one is being punished for by extremists for holding a mainstream position that ought not to be disqualifying and point to the extreme under-representation of Republicans. The left half of the country wants to ostracize Republicans so much that nobody will admit to being one, but this is impossible, and they are vulnerable when they try to do it. However, this depends on Republicans being brave enough to stand up for themselves. Similar remarks apply to pro-lifers—this is also a mainstream position, and one can even be forgiven for invoking religious reasons for one’s convictions because the liberals don’t dare attack Christianity as such and won’t be able to for quite a while.

Reticence which looks like prudence when applied to positions which, however reasonable they may be, are statistically on the fringe and are held by, say, five to ten percent of Americans, is obviously cowardice when applied to mainstream positions which have a lot of overall popular support, even though they might be socially and professionally damaging to hold in certain circles. You have to draw a line somewhere, and people ashamed to be known as pro-life or as Republicans are certainly on the wrong side of the line.

But even more bravery is necessary. The way to get people to change is to move rightward the “Overton window” which contains politically thinkable positions. This can’t be done without taking some heat. The discussion should focus not on how scary it is publicly to proclaim certain opinions, but on how much duty to the truth trumps personal comfort and security, so that a line can be drawn and stoutly defended, thus enabling further rightward movement of the line over time.

Matt writes:

You asked for a factual answer to an objective question: would publicly endorsing Paul K.’s comment under one’s own name harm one’s capacity to function in society and earn a living? The factual answer to that question is that yes, certainly in some and probably many areas of work, such a public endorsement would constitute career suicide.

That factual answer to the factual question says nothing about bravery, cowardice, etc. Indeed, it says nothing about what the right choice happens to be for a particular person: doubtless different answers are appropriate for men in different circumstances. That is a question of personal priorities. I expect that telling fathers they are cowards if they choose not to sacrifice their families on that particular hill—as if publishing one’s full name might be just the thing that turns the tide, so why not sacrifice the livelihood and children on that altar?—probably won’t win many friends.

In other words, Joe S.,—and what is your last name, anyway?—you go first.

Matt continues:

Also, moving beyond the specific question of endorsing Paul K.’s specific words by name, I think I can boil down the approach which is proposed to “work”: as long as respectful questions about matters of fact are posed in such a way that liberal orthodoxy is never questioned, progress with particular individuals may be possible. It might even lead to that particular individual questioning liberal orthodoxy, since after all liberal orthodoxy is opposed to reality.

That is fine and all, but it doesn’t change the fact that OPENLY opposing liberal orthodoxy on race is career suicide in many or most fields of work. Nota bene: I am NOT saying whether or not any particular person is or is not brave/cowardly in choosing/not choosing career suicide. I think it is foolish and irresponsible to lead (especially young) traditionalists to believe they can have a career in the modern world and openly speak as Paul K. spoke, however. They can’t: such a thing is as mythical as the career Mom who “has it all”, and similarly, I am sure we could be subjected to the rare exception which proves the rule.

LA replies:

It is true that the approach suggested by Joe S. does not come close to the behavior I was asking about: publicly endorsing Paul K.’s statement. So, while Joe may have intended to say that people were being too fearful because they are giving up on saying even the milder kinds of things that Joe is proposing, that’s not the way he came across. He said: “fear is being used as a cop-out by most of your commentators.” That makes it sound as if he is calling them cowardly for not being willing to endorse Paul’s statement, justifying Matt’s stiff response to him. But then Joe says:

Reticence which looks like prudence when applied to positions which, however reasonable they may be, are statistically on the fringe and are held by, say, five to ten percent of Americans, is obviously cowardice when applied to mainstream positions which have a lot of overall popular support, even though they might be socially and professionally damaging to hold in certain circles. You have to draw a line somewhere, and people ashamed to be known as pro-life or as Republicans are certainly on the wrong side of the line.

So Joe is not saying that people are cowardly for not endorsing Paul’s statement; he says that not endorsing Paul’s statement is prudent. But he is saying they are cowardly for not making other kinds of statements—actually very mild, mainstream statements, such as “I am pro-life,” or “I am a Republican,” that have not even been the subject of this discussion.

Nemo Quivedit writes:

Re Joe S.’s assertion that “[E]ven more bravery is necessary … This can’t be done without taking some heat.”

A lack of bravery isn’t the problem. It’s easy for a man to be brave when he himself will bear the full brunt of battle. I myself enjoy the sting of combat, and I suspect most white men are likewise more than brave enough to speak out against anti-white genocide—and to take whatever punishment the Enemy might dish out in response.

But the Enemy isn’t stupid. He isn’t going to lay the stripes across the broad back of a strong, fearless adult man. He will instead bind that man’s wife, children, and family business to the whipping post and punish them for the sins of the father. The Enemy knows that torturing a man’s family will make even the toughest fighter, the bravest hero, into a willing slave.

This is why I and others like me hide behind these idiotic online personae: to shield our own from the consequences of our rebellion. The people who hate me know they can’t hurt me directly, but they also know that by hurting the ones I love, they can force me to do whatever they want. I refuse to give them the opportunity to do so. This was the hard lesson I learned from my Facebook lynching: strike from the darkness, then disappear.

Someday, when my children are grown and able to defend themselves, the masks will come off, and the Enemy will see my true face. I look forward to that day. I’m not personally afraid of any man. I can take whatever the Enemy can dish out.

But I will not allow my family to be tortured for my sake. I hope Joe S. will reconsider his position.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Joe S. writes:

I am sorry I “came across” as calling people cowardly for not endorsing Paul’s statement; actually, I was criticizing their apparent unwillingness to declare themselves publicly for any controversial political statement. No other commenter made my point about there being a continuum and about there being a duty to go as far as is prudent, and maybe a bit further; and when you say “mild, mainstream statements” have not been the subject of this discussion, you make my point for me, which is that the discussion needs to be about the entire spectrum of political opinions and the appropriateness and prudence of declaring oneself in relation to this whole spectrum.

Given the strategy I outlined, I am willing to make, in the context of a public discussion with liberals, statements that would be considered quite outrageous in other contexts, because I would be able to say what I wanted to say in a way which could not be easily distorted and misinterpreted. For example, even Paul’s statement is not difficult to get to by starting with the right questions. Socrates is the model here.

I would not be ashamed to post anything I have said here publicly under my own name, except for a different kind of professional reason: it’s not that I am afraid of not getting jobs, it is that I am currently doing political consulting work for an organization which, while it is aware of my opinions and knows that the quality of my work is unaffected by those opinions , prefers for the sake of its own reputation for neutrality not to have the political opinions of its employees discussed publicly until the campaign season is over.

Buck writes

Joe S. votes for “brain-dead,” which, I thought, meant brain dead. If it only means that “conservatives” are dumb or stupid, then Joe’s strategy seems way too challenging. And, it requires that the targets of the tactic be somewhat “brain-dead” themselves.

It seems to me that the content of this thread involves the day-to-day lives and predicaments that the commenters experience, not a planned or arranged “rhetorical campaign.” And what if the boss or co-worker doesn’t know or give one hoot who Thomas Sowell or Mickey Kaus are? Or, if they already do and they already don’t like them? Telling a black man that another black man agrees with a lot of white men … ?

I understand that there are ways to make a point. I think that everyone does. I like the Socratic. Trickery and avoiding taboos, or alternately poking someone with a stick to provoke them is asking a lot. Granted, the point is that a lot is what is needed, but that doesn’t get anyone past the fear of harm to their livelihood or well-being. Risk is risk, no matter how wily one may be.

Are we talking about a tactic against strangers that we encounter in our day-to-day, or regulars that we work with, or our family and neighbors? The likely hood of having a profound effect in a chance encounter with a stranger, though less risky, seems highly unlikely and ephemeral. My neighbors? I choose to live on my small cul-de-sac in peace. If I had a job, I’m sure that I wouldn’t risk it with my minority supervisor, or the friendly lady in Human Resources, or the very nice black lady in the next cubicle. A man picks his fights. I wouldn’t risk challenging someone who could ruin my own nest.

Joe S. is simply saying that we need more courage and that we need to be smarter than we are. Really. I pledge to be smarter. I think that I’ve discovered many of the smartest Americans right here at this blog. I’m certain that there is a greater than average measure of courage and experience represented right here. To suggest that all that we need to do is frame the discussion more tactfully and to be more courageous, ignores an awful lot of what’s already been said, and repeated in many ways.

It’s not like we are all not looking for the answer. Whatever we put into the “Overton window,” is immediately shattered by a modern liberal rock thrower. I don’t want people throwing rocks at my house. I live in Maryland, where it’s illegal to fire my weapon out through my front door.

Mark Jaws writes:

Nemo is right on the money about the collateral damage our families suffer for our being frank and honest about race. I mentioned earlier my county-wide outing in early 2009 for my having posted the simple statistical truth about blacks and non-white Hispanics at a pro-white website using my real name. Initially, I handled the heat satisfactorily, even after the chairman of the country board of supervisors gave me a vicious tongue lashing (for which he apologized no less than three times), but when my wife discovered my outing, her sense of embarrassment and outrage were too much to handle, even for me, a guy who has always skated right up to the line in provoking outrage.

Since I am a practical guy, I will list three of the many options we have before us. First, we can help elect conservative leaders who CAN create the right atmospherics for all whites—regardless of age and job status—to speak the truth. Given the absence of a white Martin Luther King on the horizon, that is a long way off, unfortunately. I sense Governor Christie may have some potential.

Second, we can use the tactics of the left against blacks and non-white Hispanics in our own little guerrilla warfare against the PC establishment. This involves some mental acuity, but that is not exactly a rare commodity among VFR readers. In my own little sphere, I consistently snipe against liberals all the time. For example, in their presence I refer to affirmative action as “anti-white racial profiling” since it assumes all whites have had it made simply because they are white.

Third, we can wait until we retire and have nothing to lose from employers or peers if we speak the unfettered truth about blacks. Oh, how I long for that day.

I could drone on, but I’d rather hear what others have to say.

James N. writes (Feb. 15):

I really have nothing to add to all the excellent comments on the thread.

I rarely post at all on these matters, because the truth is inconsistent with my employment, and probably my career in any meaningful form, should I become a serious commenter.

I do think that the enormous number and complexity of lies necessary to sustain the status quo are becoming quite a heavy burden, and that the whites, even the liberals, are feeling it. How they will react to the weight is hard to predict, but their non-tribal behavior, although born of deeply-felt emotion, is quite un-historical, and thus, a reversion to tribalism on their part would be the way to bet.

Who would have imagined at the 1984 Winter Olympics in Sarajevo that the city would become a slaughterhouse in less than ten years, with tribes most members of which barely knew their tribal names in 1984 at each others throats?

April 7, 2012

LA writes:

It might be noted that the phrase “reign of fear” was coined by Irv P. in an August 2011 entry about a Florida teacher who was suspended from his job for criticizing homosexual “marriage” on his Facebook page. Irv had initially used the expression “reign of terror” to describe this situation in which people could lose their livelihoods for expressing their opinions, even away from their place of work. In an e-mail exchange, I suggested that “reign of terror” was a bit too strong to describe the threat of the loss of one’s job, as compared with the threat of imprisonment or death, with which the word “terror” is normally associated. Irv then suggested “reign of fear,” and we both agreed that this, rather than “reign of terror,” was a more accurate and less sensational description for the PC dispensation under which the entire West now lives.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 14, 2012 04:03 PM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):