Jennifer Eberhardt’s BiasedDonald Thoresen
Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See, Think, and Do
New York: Viking, 2019
If one were to design the perfect vessel for the transmission of anti-racist dogma framed wholly at the embarrassing level of superficiality liberals have come to regard as adequately stimulating, it would look exactly like Jennifer Eberhardt. The black Harvard graduate is a professor of psychology at Stanford University, a winner of the Macarthur “Genius Grant,” was listed by Foreign Policy as one their 100 Leading Global Thinkers and, through her work as co-founder and co-director of Stanford’s Social Psychological Answers to Real-World Questions (SPARQ), provides implicit bias training in a variety of contexts and settings, including police departments. In her new book, Biased, she uses these credentials to maximum effect: the same things Americans have been told about stereotypes and prejudice for decades are reiterated, old deceptions are rewritten for a new audience, and whites are depicted as mostly ignorant, vindictive creatures who have a deep and serious problem with people with dark skin.
Not content with an America in which whites would rather give their country away to foreigners, let their cities rot, their best universities reject them, their elderly be abused, and their daughters be raped than be called racist, anti-whites must keep their knives sharpened and always held to Joe Six-Pack’s throat. Whites must be primed for total dispossession by being kept always on edge, made always to feel guilty, nervous, and submissive. This is the point of Biased. Eberhardt’s argument is very simple: in order to combat racism, we must confront our hidden racial biases. These biases, she admits, are natural but must be suppressed for the greater good of the inevitable — always inevitable — multiracial society. This process means confronting uncomfortable truths with courage, or so says Eberhardt who does nothing of the sort and, amusingly, all but explicitly calls for restrictions on free speech by the end of the book in her attempt to prioritize the emotional well-being of blacks and other non-whites over truth. Biased is filled with incomplete data, anecdotes from the black perspective that betray a child-like understanding of the world, the obligatory Holocaust stories, and tedious commentary on the state of contemporary American culture. It is sure to make her a lot of money. Presented as a path forward, as a way to solve problems it is nothing of the sort. Her goal is instead to create problems because a destabilized white culture, a culture in which whites are scared to be themselves and assert their interests, are anxious about even voicing commonsensical observations about reality provides an opening for the furtherance of non-white sociopolitical power.
White Nationalists and others interested in the real science of race (what people like Eberhardt call “scientific racism”) will recognize immediately the flaws in her flimsy arguments. Despite her constant reminders to the reader that she is a scientist this is nothing but a work of political propaganda. Eberhardt, like so many academics today, has no connection to any traditional conception of science and is merely appropriating the term in the same way that drag queens appropriate the mannerisms and pronouns of the opposite sex, except it is even worse because instead of being flamboyant and obvious she is using her appropriation as a cloak of respectability to deceive and distort. But the entire Biased project is a grotesque performance. The author herself is just doing a blackface routine on the cultural stage by reciting anti-white talking points on behalf of Jews who know that her blackness provides them cover by shifting the dynamics of potential criticism: whites are far more reluctant to call blacks stupid in public than they are their own people (or anyone else) because of years of social conditioning towards deference and collective historical guilt. To be sure, the ideas put forth in this book benefit blacks as well, but Eberhardt’s obvious mediocrity would have found no platform in academia or with a major publisher had she not aligned herself with the temporarily rewarding and profitable global forces of anti-whiteness. The meat of the book is not her banal and fraudulent “science” but rather her anecdotes and her commentary.
It is somewhat telling that the only honest character in this book seems to be her young son, whose innocent observations (if true) betray a common sense completely lacking in his mother. She opens the book with a story about the two of them on an airplane, when at some point the son sees another black man and observes that he looks like his father. Instead of agreeing and explaining that they are both black, Eberhardt is taken aback and cannot figure out how her son made the connection: “I checked the guy’s height. No resemblance there. He was several inches shorter than my husband. I studied his face. There was nothing in his features that looked familiar. I looked at his skin color. No similarity there either . . .” (p. 3). She claims to only have done this after looking at everyone else on the plane first before finally landing on the one black man. “I couldn’t help but be struck by the irony: the race researcher having to explain to her own black child that not all black people look alike” (p. 3). But, rest assured, Eberhardt’s son probably did not have to teach himself not to touch pots sitting on stovetops without making sure they are cool first. Eberhardt is not quite as jaw-droppingly thick as she makes herself sound here because in the very next chapter she explains exactly why her child’s reaction was natural, thus accidentally betraying the purpose of the inclusion of this anecdote: pure emotional manipulation.
As a child, her parents moved to a “nearly all-white suburb” (p. 11) in which she attended school. She does not say why they made this decision but one can guess. The “white students went out of their way to welcome me” (p. 11) but no matter how much they tried to include her, and no matter how much time they spent together, Eberhardt could not recognize their faces, whereas she could those of random blacks she would encounter. This phenomenon, known as the cross-race effect, occurs among all races, as she acknowledges. Race consciousness is foundational to our very being. To not see race isn’t just strange but is almost certainly impossible. Those who claim to think this way are simply lying, usually with a metaphorical gun to their heads. Her son’s reaction was perfectly normal, and she knew it at the time, and she knows it now. And at numerous points later in the book she takes issue with the “colorblind” approach to race so we can further assume that this anecdote was included strategically to transpose the delicate and restrictive real-world social conventions of race onto the pages of the book, leaving the black Eberhardt with the power to silence any naughty thoughts among white readers even before they occur.
Even when it would be very helpful to be able to recognize black faces, non-blacks often cannot. She mentions the case of Chinese women in Oakland, California who had been terrorized by black muggers for months but were unable to identify any suspects. The blacks became aware of this and behaved like shoplifting children in a candy shop on the streets of the city’s Chinatown until cameras were installed. For Eberhardt, however, the real problem — the one that deserves an entire book — is that “[t]he women didn’t know whether they were being robbed by Michael or Jamal; they knew only they were being robbed by a constant stream of young black men” (p. 23). She continues: “Each frightening encounter with a lone black youth amplified an ambient stereotype the women might have previously felt free to ignore: black men are dangerous. This is how toxic associations are born” (p. 23). Here we see again what will be the author’s regular pattern of emotional manipulation followed by sound (or supposedly sound) information in an attempt to establish her scientific credentials and lend validity to her political views. Even among those who want desperately to agree with her, finding an association between black muggers and black crime problematic is a tough pill to swallow, and even she realizes this.
Following her lamentation over the toxic association among Oakland’s Chinese community between blacks and getting mugged, Eberhardt reminds her readers that categorization is a way that the brain “brings coherence to a chaotic world; it helps our brains make judgments more quickly and efficiently by instinctively relying on patterns that seem predictable” (p. 24). But this categorization, she worries, can lead to stereotyping and thus prejudice. In other words, sometimes racial categorization hurts non-whites’ feelings. Even if the prejudice is grounded in truth, and the resulting attitudes and behaviors have a positive impact on the physical and mental health of whites, it must be curtailed so that minority races can feel more comfortable and wield even more social power.
The book deals quite a bit with Eberhardt’s work with police departments and state agencies involving bias issues in criminal justice, doubtless connected to her work with SPARQ. The reader is given decontextualized and superficial accounts of a few well-known officer-involved shootings of blacks intended to highlight how bias against blacks can lead to death. Juries that reach not guilty verdicts when officers go to trial after such incidents are also guilty of bias, of course. She spends a fair amount of time on the case of Terence Crutcher, a black man who was shot after not following orders from a policewoman to kneel and show his hands while on PCP. Crutcher is portrayed as having been mercilessly slaughtered by a scared white woman simply for being black. In an interview with Crutcher’s sister, he is described, like so many other black criminals, as a “big teddy bear” (p. 55). The author goes on to relate that Crutcher had just enrolled in community college. In fact, his first class was later that very day — an odd time to take PCP for someone who had “found a new sense of purpose” in life (p. 55). His sister, when informed by the chief of police that knowledge of the vial of PCP found in Crutcher’s car was not going to be made public so as to not “demonize” him, became upset because she felt that the use of this word suggested that her brother was a demon (p. 56). It should be noted that his sister is a doctor of medicine and to always choose one’s doctor wisely.
As is Eberhardt’s pattern, the narrative of the shooting contains emotional manipulation which is then followed by an attempt at scientific analysis that contains qualifying statements after the initial impression has already been formed in the reader’s mind. She writes, for example: “As I examined the circumstances of the shooting, it seemed clear to me that bias — implicit or not — could [italics mine] have played some role in the encounter, from beginning to end” (p. 57). She wonders whether the association of blacks with crime is what prompted the policewoman to rush to the scene of Terence Crutcher’s eventual death, why the police were called on him in the first place, why more than one officer had his gun drawn, and why even a helicopter had been on scene (p. 58). Certainly the association of this black with what appeared to be a crime and which at least one bystander and multiple police officers assumed was a crime — and assumed correctly — led to Crutcher’s death but that somehow is not what she means. Bias against large black men abandoning their SUVs in the middle of streets led to the death of a black man on PCP, but who knows how many people it saved from a black man driving around on PCP in the middle of the day?
In a study she conducted with a California police department, subjects who had been prompted to think of crime-related words prior to viewing images of a white and a black face looked more at the black face (pp. 59–60). In a sane world, any officer who did not look at the black face first would have been fired or retrained, but those who reacted naturally were, in Eberhardt’s mind, demonstrating the insidious nature of stereotypes on police work. Thus, it might not have been someone calling the police because a large black man abandoned his SUV in the middle of the street, blocked traffic, ran from it while smoking PCP, and then failed to follow orders from the police that got Crutcher killed. It might have been implicit bias. And, since we know he was a big teddy bear who was turning his life around, it probably was. But could it go even deeper? Is the “big” part of the “big teddy bear” phrase also a part of the problem?
Eberhardt informs her readers that the “police characterized [Crutcher] as if he were a giant, estimating his weight to be 300 pounds” despite the fact that he “actually stood at five feet nine and weighed 255 pounds” (pp. 60–61). This, she attributes, to the perception among whites that blacks are a threat and thus overestimate their size and strength, something that has been demonstrated by one particular study she references. Never mind that a five-foot-nine-inch, 255-pound man is not very tall and is quite overweight and so an estimate of 300 pounds is perfectly reasonable, especially in such a tense situation. The author believes that white perception of blacks as capable of doing more physical harm than perhaps they actually can is a result of bias rather than lived experience: anyone — especially, one would imagine, a police officer — who has regular interaction with blacks knows that they are far more likely to be aggressive than other races, and so they are always going to be perceived as more threatening.
If these experiences translate into slight overestimations of size, perceptions of black body movements as more threatening, heightened visual ability to detect weapons when wielded by blacks, and other similar things mentioned by the author then this is just an example of the usefulness of racial bias as a self-preservation mechanism. But such common sense is sure to escape — or, more accurately, be ignored by — someone who later voices her disturbance at the “constant refrain” of “MALE BLACK” by police dispatchers because it “forces officers as they patrol the streets to constantly pair blackness with criminal activity” (p. 80). Eberhardt, like all anti-racists, is in the business of bullying whites into denying reality, of shaming them into silence with regard to what is right in front of their faces.
Eberhardt’s understanding of her own subject is so confused, so contrary to reality, and rational thought that it is impossible for her to maintain any sort of consistency outside of her all-consuming faith in the negative aspects of racial bias. Consider, for example, these two quotes:
Many officers who patrol diverse, high-crime communities come to view the racial disparities in policing as the sole result of who commits the crimes. People who live in those communities view those disparities as a result of police bias, because they know that the majority of their neighbors are not criminals (p. 86).
This is followed not long after by a quote from a black police officer interviewed by the author about growing up in an Oakland ghetto: “Nearly every boy between fourteen and twenty-five was selling crack” (p. 88). No matter what the underlying reason for the crime, it would be ludicrous for any police officer to not blame crime on the perpetrator in the context of his job. And the notion that a majority of blacks might not be criminals but that, per capita, the majority of criminals are blacks is something that Eberhardt as a member of the black elite probably has an ethical obligation to explain to her community. But if “nearly every” young black male in this police officer’s particular section of Oakland was a criminal, how does this square with her assertion that people in diverse communities know that a majority of their neighbors are not criminals anyway? It doesn’t really. Surely, his was not the only neighborhood like that. What it actually indicates is a sense of racial solidarity. Blacks view the police as enforcers of “white supremacy” and resist them, even though the law-abiding among them have much to gain by allowing them to do their jobs in peace. By making this an asymmetrical bias issue, Eberhardt tries to shift this attitude from one of fundamentally positive racial in-group sentiment to one of a negative reaction to a racialized police insurgency and ends up making blacks look totally irrational.
Eberhardt’s next chapter begins with a story of how she was stopped before her graduation from Harvard for having expired tags on her car and managed to get herself arrested by a policeman who was “hell-bent on punishing [her]” (p. 111). She, of course, did nothing wrong like refusing to get out of her vehicle, and bias or racism was to blame for the police response. It is only a few pages later that we learn that the arresting officer was black. Emotional manipulation followed by a sneaky bit of honesty is the Eberhardt way. The reader is informed in this chapter that the cash bail system is unfair to blacks because it takes into account such things as arrest records and job stability, that analysis of traffic stops in Oakland determined that blacks are not treated with enough respect, and that the amount of black parolees in Oakland create “racial disparities [which] criminalize entire neighborhoods, encouraging indiscriminate law enforcement stops and keeping in motion the revolving door between freedom and prison” (p. 113).
In a chapter entitled “The Scary Monster,” Eberhardt, the scientist, the race researcher, provides the reader with a superficial and emotional glance at early race science. Those scientists of the past who found unflattering differences between blacks and other races exhibited “racial bias of the most vicious kind” (p. 134). Discussions in which black biological features were analyzed suggest to Eberhardt a comparison of blacks with “dogs and horses” rather than biological analysis (p. 135) in the same childish way that the word “demonization” suggested to Terence Crutcher’s sister that he was a demon. And Samuel George Morton was not interested in skulls for research purposes, he was “obsessed” with skulls (p. 135). She continues in such a manner for a few pages before arriving at the IQ test which was asserts was used only to demonstrate the inferiority of various peoples’ intellectual capacities (no mention of whether or not it did or continues to do so) before ending with this choice line: “For decades, IQ testing helped to map and tally supposedly inherent differences between ethnic groups — that is until Hitler’s “Final Solution” exposed the ultimate evil of sanctioned racism” (p. 143).
She ends the chapter with a discussion of the common association of blacks with apes, which, according to her research is even stronger than that of blacks and crime. When presenting this important work at scientific conferences she was disturbed by how her colleagues responded:
At almost every talk, I would take a question from a scientist — young, old, male, female — who would begin wondering out loud about whether our findings were simply due to the fact that blacks actually look more like apes than whites. “Couldn’t all of these race effects you’re showing simply be due to color matching” someone would ask. Blacks and apes are similar in color, they’d note. When people see a dark-skinned person, they are more likely to attend a dark hairy ape because they both look the same . . . They saw our results without the frame of stereotypes: what we were picking up on was a natural, rational association, not some lingering racial toxicity (pp. 146–47).
She was bothered that “people would be comfortable enough . . . to say such things in public at scientific conferences (much less think them in private)” (p. 147). The uncomfortable conversations about race that America is constantly being urged to have are always just excuses to shut whites up, whether they are in scientific conferences, universities, corporate meeting rooms, or even the privacy of their own minds.
But what of color matching, a theory undoubtedly posed by someone trying to tell her as gently as possible that she was completely wasting her (and their) time? The author notes correctly that there is no evidence of a black-squirrel association or a black-alligator association despite their dark color (p. 147) and that South Asians are not compared to apes despite their dark skin tone (p. 148). But she knows there really is a morphological basis to the black-ape association, and so does everyone reading her book, and so does everyone at those conferences pretending they don’t.
In her next chapter, Eberhardt relates an incident at a Target store in Palo Alto in which a young white child spotted her baby and ran off to her mother excitedly proclaiming that she had seen a brown baby. The author claims to have been delighted and was looking forward to interacting with the white child’s mother but, as one would expect, the white mother was horrified and hurried off (pp. 155–56). This is precisely the kind of world Eberhardt is helping to create and indeed desires, and yet she has the audacity to claim to be disappointed at this example of total multigenerational white submission. She writes: “Just a few steps earlier, I’d imagined that we were about to have this moment of bonding; she was part of the in-group of motherhood that I’d just joined, and I was as wide-eyed as her daughter about the wonder of that” (p. 156). Are we really to believe that this implicit bias trainer, this race researcher is so blind to race relations in America that she actually expected this interaction to turn out this way? Only if we really believe that she looked around an entire airplane before realizing that her son meant that the one other black person on board was the one that looked like his father.
The rest of the chapter is an attempt to call whites demons — or rather to demonize whites — for not wanting to live around crime and squalor. She begins by pathologizing the desire to avoid living in black neighborhoods and then connects this to immigration restrictions (after all, there might only be another year or so to cash in on the “age of Trump” craze). Unsurprisingly, the white desire for safety, security, and health reminds her of Nazis, and so she includes an interview with a student of hers whose grandfather survived Auschwitz simply by dressing well and bathing every day so the Germans didn’t view him as unclean (pp. 164–65), which, interestingly, is also how one prevents typhus. Non-whites seem to get very worried when whites get sick of living around filth and disorder. They also get upset when whites begin taking community safety into their own hands, even in the most benign ways, such as with social media apps centered around neighborhood information exchange like Nextdoor, which allows people to accurately relay their concerns about suspicious happenings and characters to their neighbors, many of which inevitably end up being “racist” rather quickly. She discusses the corporate hand-wringing over complaints about racism on this and other apps in which people have a modicum of freedom of speech and behavioral choice.
Considering the amount of complaining non-whites do, living among whites must be absolutely hellish. But, on the contrary, they seem to want more. Or at least they want to occupy our spaces, filled as they are with the bright and shiny things they believe appear magically through the system of white supremacy. They want, for example, integrated schools but then begin to “integrate” whites right out the door. Although Eberhardt believes that “[i]ntegrated schools promise to turn us into global citizens, appreciative of cultural differences, skilled at navigating diversity” and that exposure to other races can help “blunt or mitigate bias,” she is also concerned that these environments can “heighten the threat of becoming a target of bias,” and “being devalued because of your racial or ethnic identity can be a burdensome load for a student to carry” (p. 205). What is her point? She is not really saying anything. She is merely keeping the white reader on edge, incapable of finding solid conceptual ground, and providing the non-white reader with an open-ended excuse for any grievance he can concoct. At the same time, she is not referring to whites when she worries about racial identity being devalued. Whites are nothing. Whites are generic humans, lacking any positive identity or any meaning outside of the conceptual framework necessary for non-white victimhood. The white racial collective is only acknowledged when it is a target for the non-white world’s venom.
Can a book purporting to be about the science of racial bias include a chapter about the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville? Indeed it can. But can Eberhardt herself explain the psychological motivation of the rally by describing one of the social consequences of contemporary universities? Indeed she can: “Idealistic young people — unchained from parochial views and exquisitely attuned to injustice — are not afraid to challenge authority and eager to change the world” (p. 228). The elites of the world and their lackeys really do seem to think that things will always stay the same, that their values are somehow permanent, that the knowledge of the past century is the final statement on truth and that history has truly ended. Theirs is not an enviable position: when the realization that their world was temporary hits them it will hit them very hard. They will likely regret having promulgated terms such as “social justice” among other things.
One always wonders when encountering the averagely intelligent minds that tend to make up the collaborator class whether they really believe that authority resides in the hands of whites, that white supremacy is indeed real or whether they simply know that they must maintain the lie so that their fraud goes unexposed. Authority is entirely on Eberhardt’s side, and certainly was in Charlottesville. But she doesn’t seem to think deeply about anything. For instance, she accuses those present at the rally who did not want the statue of Robert E. Lee removed of sanitizing history. The bulk of the chapter doesn’t even contain her own thoughts on the events but is rather a collection of stories related to her by an anxious Jewess, a nervous rabbi and his fearful wife, a self-hating Southern “white boy” (p. 241) law student, and a feminist law professor at the University of Virginia named Anne Coughlin who was so traumatized by the rally that she was “startled” for weeks afterwards every time she saw a white man on campus (p. 248).
The chapter ends with Eberhardt’s not-so-subtle anti-free speech advocacy. Like so many who want to suppress speech, she first claims that she doesn’t want to: “. . . you can condemn what people say without condemning their legal right to say it” (p. 252). Then she pivots: “. . . many students felt there wasn’t enough support for those who resisted and tried to douse the marchers’ rhetorical fires” (pp. 252–53). And finally:
University administrators and leaders across the country are trying to find a balance, but often seem more concerned about emphasizing the value of legal standards than the value of the lives that are being diminished, demeaned, and dehumanized. There is a rush to protect the law but more foot-dragging when it comes to protecting egalitarian norms on their campuses (p. 253).
One cannot have it both ways. Either there is free speech or there isn’t, and clearly she values the feelings of non-whites over the long-standing white tradition of free speech and indeed of the feelings of whites themselves. This is understandable, of course, but she and her people should not expect perpetual compliance or future reciprocity. Whites are growing very tired of this racket.
In the last chapter of the book, Eberhardt deals with blacks in the workplace. As usual, lack of black economic success is blamed on whites. She focuses mostly on names: Tyrone will not get a job, but Brad will even with the same credentials because Tyrone sounds black. Whether or not this is true, it would be a perfectly rational decision on the part of anyone in charge of the hiring process. Most Americans have interacted with blacks and are aware of how affirmative action works. Blacks are, for example, offered enrollment in universities with grades and test scores that would cause doors to be slammed in the faces of whites. Remember that Terence Crutcher’s sister is a medical doctor. Anyone concerned with competency would be foolish to choose a supposedly equally qualified black over a white for any position unless forced to do so in some way.
Eberhardt notes that blacks often feel that they must hide their true selves in order to appeal to potential employers. She quotes one student: “In the real world I think people . . . want to have like an awesome black worker, but they want one who they feel like fits within a certain box . . . [Someone who] will conform and lay low and just kind of do what’s expected of them” (p. 267). Eberhardt comments that these “contortions” made in order “to comfort the white majority” bother her (p. 268). Of course, it is the nature of a business or indeed any organization to want its members to do what is expected of them without causing any disturbances. Blacks might just not be used to this type of behavior, especially in the contemporary cultural climate of regular indulgence in every black “social justice” whim. What the author is observing is a pocket of residual freedom of association, an implicit whiteness that she must work to quash. She writes that the workplace racial diversity is “supposed to reflect . . . a willingness to hear and accommodate previously marginalized voices” but “seems to have become a numbers game” (p. 269). This is because the entire concept is farce, unnatural at its very core, and rejected subconsciously by those without the intelligence or courage to reject it consciously. It is a numbers game because that was all it ever could be.
In the final part of the chapter she discusses her ideas about the lucrative business of implicit bias training. It is worth quoting her at length in order to get the full impact of her staggering sense of self-importance and amusing insistence that she really is engaged in science instead of a political racial power grab:
. . . the value of training, with all its variables, is often hard to quantify. The vast majority of implicit bias trainings are never rigorously evaluated, in part because measuring their worth is hard. There are no agreed-upon metrics developed by scientists for evaluating training effectiveness. Should the training lead to an immediate reduction in implicit bias? That’s a tall order considering that these implicit associations have been practiced over a lifetime. What would a reduction in implicit bias even look like? Should the training lead to better employee decision making? Should it lead to improvements in customer satisfaction? And how would we measure and parse blame or credit for any of that?
Although this is an area that seems ripe for scientific discovery, many researchers are hesitant to get involved. They are concerned that the trainings are not evidence based, that they overpromise, and that they could leave us even worse off. From this perspective, everyone needs to slow down until we can get the science right.
I have a different perspective. It’s not that social scientists are too fast to act, we are too slow. There is so much concern over the prospect of acting before we know enough about a phenomenon that we never get around to taking action. And because the scientific enterprise is iterative, we never seem to get to a point where we think we know enough. Social scientists fret so much about the purity and precision of science that we rarely throw ourselves into the messy problems of the world. From my perspective, engaging in the world, tackling thorny problems, can open the way to scientific discovery. If we don’t know enough as scientists to shed light on a problem, sometimes it is because we simply aren’t close enough to it (pp. 279–80).
From the perspective of someone who shares Eberhardt’s general view of the world, those who claim that these trainings “leave us even worse off” are certainly correct. Being hauled into a room and forced for an entire day or even a week to listen to some smug black woman with an affirmative action doctorate tell whites that they are racists is not a very good way to make them want to hire more blacks, appreciate them in any way, or even want to see them on the street. But from a White Nationalist perspective, such training should be welcomed because it forces deracinated whites to think again in terms of race and, for many of them, to think defensively and angrily about the subject. Even a shared groan with a coworker afterwards might spark a meaningful discussion about white racial interests and, if so, the entire ordeal would be worth the ridiculous amount of money drained from some woke capitalist’s wallet and the lost hours of actual productivity.
The amount of intellectual contortion, lies, force, and propaganda required to maintain the facade of what is supposedly our greatest strength — racial diversity — is truly mind-boggling. As is the amount of daily suffering said to be endured by non-whites in white societies. It has been asked many times by many different people, but it bears repeating: if it is so hard to live with whites, why don’t they leave, and why do they keep coming? But we know the answer. It is because whites are very easy to live with and are not currently doing much to stop their loss of power, and non-whites know it. The only ones who don’t seem to know it yet are average whites. But they will figure it out, and people like Eberhardt are helping to accomplish this. She believes that she is helping her people climb the ladder of power, but instead she is just being annoying, grabbing a stick like so many others and poking at the hornet’s nest. It really is not very smart.
Meet the Hunburgers
Prioritizing Prestige Over Accomplishment: Britain from 1950 to 1956
The Honorable Cause: A Review
George Friedman’s The Next 100 Years
The (So-Called) New York “Thought Criminals” & the “Intellectual Dark Web”
The Psychology of the Politically Correct
Jennifer Eberhardt and her devout supporters are cordially invited to relocate to one of the three US States with the highest black population. These are, Mississippi – 37.3% , Louisiana – 32.4%, and Georgia -30.5%. This influx would, of course, displace the remaining white population who would be free to relocate to those other states with the highest white populations such as Maine – 95.5%, New Hampshire – 95.0%, West Virginia – 94.3%, Iowa – 92.9%, Idaho – 92.1%, Wyoming – 91.6%, Minnesota – 90.94%, or North Dakota – 90.9%. Having thus established one or two black ethno-States, the black population would be entirely free of any form of white influence and would thus be free to create an all black culture. Those whites in the primarily white States would be entirely free to establish white ethno-States free of any form of black influence. In this manner, Jennifer Eberhardt would be able to live in an all black culture in which whites could not be blamed for any inherent religious, political, economic or social anomalies that might arise in such a mono-culture. This would effectively end the Social Justice Warrior “cry-bully-equality-epidemic” now ravishing the entire cultural system in the US. In this scenario, other ethno-religious groups, such as Jews, Muslims, Chinese, Indians, etc., would also be free to relocate to a particular State in which they would be free to establish the culture of their common choice, without the so-called pernicious influence of the white race.
It is my prediction that, if this form of voluntary relocation is not undertaken and the current agenda for the extermination of the white race continues unabated, such relocation will eventually be induced by military force, as the white race, backed into a corner, takes self defensive action for its survival. Hell hath seen no fury greater than the white race scorned!
Perhaps Ms Eberhardt’s arguments are neither coherent nor persuasive because she has been afflicted with Stereotype Threat?
But it is actually rather gallant of her to have made the effort: Guardian columnist Afua Hirsch has recently deemed that patiently explaining the finer points of racism to a white person would be exploitative emotional labour.
In fact it is now white supremacy to volunteer any opinion or commentary on a person of colour. As the gorilla warriors of Wakanda memorably grunted: You cannot speak here!
Without positing the obvious anti-white agenda, it’s probably just cheaper in the short term to train whites to ignore black misbehavior than it is to train blacks to not misbehave—even after accounting for overpaying Eberhardt and her ilk. What can we do to make it more expensive? A strike against implicit bias training could be expensive if there were racial solidarity amongst whites, but as it stands positions can be filled by ethnomasochists. De-policing is already counted as racist, and any surplus of officers would likely be put against white interests, but policemen are harder to replace than your average office clerk.
If we trained ourselves, we could “fail” the implicit bias training so well that it would require further intensive re-education. Creating a demand for the Eberhardts of the world could blow a bubble thinner than any economics has yet known. Malicious compliance is a scourge on productivity already, so it might not be difficult to train.
It is my belief, observation and experience that racial differences are genetically determined in terms of physical, intellectual and psychological characteristics. These three are expressed as specific cultures relative to each race. Also, due to genetically determined modes of racial differentiation, the various races have naturally occurring in-group preferences and race related dominance hierarchies which create natural lines of separation between races. Recent neurological research shows differences in neurochemical constructs in the brains of different races. No amount of education or legislation can change what is genetically determined. The simple solution is racial segregation wherein each race is free to apply physical, intellectual and psychological characteristics to develop a homogenous mono-culture within an exclusive territory.
Just as in nature, the predator species cannot, by any means of education or legislation, be “forced” to co-exist in peace and harmony with the species they prey on. In the same manner, history shows clearly that different human races are unable to exist in harmony when they are forced by education or legislation to live in the so-called multicultural blending paradigm of sharing the same cage.
Nature, and humans, are ranked by genetic determination in a hierarchy in which one group is superior to others in terms of physical, intellectual and psychological capacity. This does not mean that one race is better than another on the generic scale, since all humans are identical there. However, when it comes to specifications of the generic, each specification is observably different. These differences are always related to greater or lesser competence across the spectrum of human endeavour.
For example, the white race is far superior to all other races in the field of scientific creativity in that fully 97% of all scientific developments on the planet have been undertaken by members of the white race. The white race currently accounts for 12% of the entire global population. All of these innovations have been shared equally to every other race on the planet for the general benefit of the entire human species. It is a proven fact that the white brain is different than others in its containment of more refined neural structures in the frontal cortex leading to a higher degree of imaginal and creative capacity.
In another example, male and female differences are genetically determined. A man cannot become a woman, or visa versa, simply due to a mental fantasy, a change of clothing, surgery, medication, psychological consultation or government legislation and education. Nor can two men or two women procreate.
A final example shows that the population of Somalia, with an average IQ of 76, is demonstrably incapable of integration with western technology. The US military tests for IQ and will not admit anyone with an IQ less than 80. The average Somalian, when introduced to American culture, is destined to a life on welfare, at the expense of the host population.
Genetic equality simply cannot be established by education, legislation or scientific manipulation.
Racial and sexual equality is a myth!
The general solution appears to be territorial segregation.
You bring up good points, but I think there has been a misunderstanding. A dog can be trained to do any number of tricks not psychologically prescribed to it. As far as educating the dog, you’re correct to point out that it will never be equal to a wolf, a coyote, or even another dog. Humans have a greater breadth of possible behaviors than dogs, which furthers us from the possibility of equality. Have you read Harrison Bergeron? Of our possible physiological responses, apathy has been seen in all human groups; whites have a long history of stoical repose, showing it is within us and can be drawn out.
As far as blacks go, they are capable of creating stable, healthy, if not static societies. I would highly recommend Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe, as it gives insight into the advent of Modernity. The trouble is not black IQ, and IQ arguments are merely attempts of a formal statement of the obvious, to wit that blacks are not whites with dark skin. The trouble is not capabilities, it is incentives. Blacks used to be a lot less pernicious when we whites had the strength of our convictions. Maybe we “oppressed” them by expecting them to act like us, but the expectations were straightforward enough, and social order was maintained. Now your average white goes out of his way to display deference, racial masochism, in a word weakness, and “social order” seems like an oxymoron.
Re-segregation would solve a lot of problems for everyone. But we find ourselves de-segregated, and most people white, black, or otherwise are “educated” to believe blatant non-truths about our natures. Most people act in opposition to the value of white autonomy in white countries, and do so in their own special ways depending on their personal/racial circumstances. It is up to us to re-affirm our continued existence through behavior and social arrangement, something we’ve shown the ability to do in the past.
I’m so profoundly weary of the constant bitching by Negroes. To be constantly hectored, harassed and demeaned by blacks, who in the same breath demand access to White wealth, civilization and largesse, is sickening and enervating in the extreme. Negroes are a malignancy, metastasizing relentlessly, endlessly increasing in virulence, but always demanding that the host continue to live and succor the tumor.
There’s no answer. National divorce won’t happen. White ethnostate won’t happen. Reparations might happen but will solve nothing and inflame everything. Short of a time machine that could take me back to Jamestown (“Uh, fellas? Let’s pick our own cotton. Trust me on this one.”) there is no solution. Our future is simply this: an increasingly unhappy marriage between Whites and shrieking, abrasive, promiscuous, impulsive, high-time preference, unproductive and unhappy Negroes…forever.
And by the way, Ms. (Dr.?) Eberhardt…take your degrees, diplomas, credentials, acronyms and awards and cram them up your ass. Everyone knows you are where and who you are because of the content of melanocytes in your dermis, nothing more.
Herein I serve up a strong brew of coffee; smell it if you can. In the conflict between races, as we have in the white vs black dichotomy, there are two primary responses, as follows:
1 The conclusion is made that there is no answer and no solution. This leaves the individual in the victim modality which admits only the response of chronic complaint with no action available to solve the conflict. Toleration leads to resentment and resentment leads either to violence or a diminished life of psychological and emotional distress.
2 The conclusion is made that there is an answer and a solution that leads to a resolution of the conflict in two modes.
The first mode is to remove the source of friction. In this case, the black population is removed physically from the environment. This can done in four stages,  Offer reason and logic leading to the voluntary departure of the problem group.  Offer an enhanced social position with ego recognition in return for the departure.  Offer money to the group for relocation.  Use military force to remove the problem group.
The second mode is to leave the area in conflict and relocate to a more hospitable locale.
The first mode has the full opposition of the Totalitarian Socialist State, which holds a monopoly on the use of force. Try any response containing violence and the individual trying to defend their racial integrity will be crushed.
Here in the Ozarks the white population averages 88% and greater in every County. The County I live in is populated by 12,500 individuals who are 98.5% white. The remaining 1.5% are primarily Cherokee and Hispanic. There are perhaps 20 blacks in the entire County. The City I live near has a population of 1295 and, of those, there are two black families. In this state of existence there is virtually no black-white conflict. I have lived here for two years now and have only seen a black person twice.
How can you say there is no answer and no solution? Perhaps stop whining and do what is right for your racial survival.
So…if I’m reading you right, my racial survival depends on me moving to the Ozarks?
White flight is hardly a novel solution, Paul. In fact, it’s not really a solution at all. More of a stopgap measure.
The area where you live will not stay as White as it is now. That is a simple fact of demography. There are probably federal employees even now who are looking at the racial imbalances in your area and muttering to themselves that this situation must be rectified. The brown tide will be lapping at your shores very soon my friend.
How am I so certain? Because I live in an area way whiter than yours, and every year brings more Negroes. More Guatemalans. More Mexicans, Congolese, and other forms of diverse vibrancy. There are many groups in our state, both governmental and private, that work surreptitiously but tirelessly to import these people into our communities. And these agencies don’t care that these castaways DO NOT BELONG HERE.
I’m not whining, my friend. I’ve turned my brain into a pretzel trying to envision any tangible solution to this problem and I’ve come up with nothing.
Negroes cannot survive without access to White largesse, and they have the full backing and force of every government, from municipal to federal, in this country ensuring they will have that access.
The day may come when you and your White neighbors make a stand to keep the Diversity our of your area. To keep what you have earned and preserve what you have built. And that’s the day that the 1st Armored Division will be dispatched to show you just how wrong you are.
Doubt it? Just look at the racial and gender makeup of West Point’s latest graduating class. This is not an accident.
Lieutenant D’Ontavious and Corporal Lakeshia would be happy to taze your cracka ass, put you in zip ties, and forcibly introduce a little mocha-hued vibrancy into your little slice of suburbia.
You and I are on the same exact side. I’m just more cynical and fatalistic than you.
Actually, we are NOT on the same side at all. By your own admission, you appear to be on the side of no answers, no solutions, therefore no action toward self preservation because it’s all futile. From your apparent point of view the entire White Nationalist movement has virtually no hope of preserving the white race because – there are no answers, no solutions and, every attempt at solving the problem will be crushed.
I am not cynical at all because I know, that for every problem there is a solution and, for every solution applied, there will be victory. I am optimistic, enthused and energized in the face of opposition and, for those reasons, I firmly believe the white race will gradually come to its senses and, through the agency of sites like this one, and others, the racial conflict will be solved. The result will be sovereigntarian white nations on more than one continent. This victory will be to the credit of those who believed there were answers and solutions and who stood and fought, not to those who succumb to cynicism, nihilism and hopelessness.
This will be my final comment on this thread. Have a great day!
Whites are in the condition we’re in because we’re shortsighted losers (as a race; many of us of course can peer into the future – it ain’t hard, liberals! it’s already here in South Africa, Baltimore, etc – and dislike what we see as inevitable). Most Whites cannot see what’s happening (either out of stupidity, or because they are willfully blind, having been evolutionarily maladapted/conditioned to reject any kind of racial non-utopianism) or if, like me, they can, they’re stuck, professionally and/or geographically.
I know what needs to be done, indeed, all that can be done, given that so many Whites prefer race suicide to undertaking even the most minimal and morally unimpugnable steps to ensure race preservation. That is, racially aware American Whites must territorially ingather into already overwhelmingly White areas of the country; engage in relentless metapolitical activism and awakening of their non-WN White neighbors; and then prepare themselves mentally to declare sovereignty (perhaps starting the process by putting secessionist measures on their state ballot[s]) when a national crisis hits.
This is both possible, and I think the only way a real ethnostate will arise. I hope that neither Greg Johnson nor anyone else here actually thinks we will persuade our colonizers to grant us our ‘leave’. OTOH, although an ethnostate could arise through terrorism, escalating into guerilla warfare, I don’t think it has to get to that. There is a middle ground. If 5 million pro-Whites gradually “White flight” themselves into one, already mostly White and conservative state, like Idaho (or 2-3 adjoining ones, like Idaho, Montana, Wyoming), and succeed in taking it over electorally (exactly as “minorities” have colonized and conquered California, Nevada, soon Florida, etc), then, if there should come to pass a major national crisis preoccupying the rest of the country, tanking the economy, and tying up the Federal government, then those WN states could secede (especially if they have a clear mandate at the ballot box), and I doubt the Feds would do anything about it. What could they do? Invade? I don’t think they would have sufficient support for that. For every hard (((antiwhite tyrant))) actively seeking to enslave our race to Diversity, there would be lots of ordinary White liberals and pro-business moderates who would say something like, “If those racists want to exit, why not let them? We’d be better off without them.” Without us “haters”, the liberals would reason (idiotically) there would be more racial harmony, while the capitalists would see the resistance to mass coolie labor importation evaporate.
The path to the ethnostate remains as was theorized by an earlier generation of WNs in the 60s-70s:
1. WN ingathering into a handful of already mostly White and conservative states, probably in the Upper Northwest, including encouragement of WN immigration from other occupied countries, like Canada and Britain;
2. WN networking and low-level racial activism among the host populations, to persuade ever more of them of the viability and desirability of state secession (and note that not all secessionists will be primarily motivated by race: I know persons in some of these states, and many of their neighbors are non-racist-pro-secessionist, mainly for “liberty” and anti-government reasons);
3. Gradual election of ever larger number of WN and/or secessionist state legislators;
4. State ballot measures proposing secession to gauge depth of popular support;
5. Declaration of peaceful state secession and sovereignty during a time of national crisis;
6. Once independent, a gradual hardening of attitudes toward resident nonwhites (exceptions might have to be made for Indian tribes and reservations), including aggressively pro-White school textbooks, placing of new pro-White statuary, repeal of holidays like MLK Day, etc, so that nonwhites are made to feel unwanted, and gradually decide to remove themselves to more minority-friendly parts of the US – exactly as Whites have had to do for the past half-centrury and counting.
I don’t know if this will happen, But it certainly could.
You make many salient points on the objective of creating a White Nation.
My particular orientation toward the White Nationalist Movement is that the primary concern of all White Nationalist must be to answer the questions – Who, What, Where, When, Why and How – concerning the creation of a White Nation. All other considerations are secondary. In the matter of white racial survival there is no necessity of any concern for what other races are or what they are doing. When one is drowning, the last thing on the mind is whether or not those on the shore are able to be trained to do new tricks!
Here are two resources to assist in bringing focus to the action of white survival via the creation of a White Nation.
One County At A Time: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLjGONzvY0sDWuh_ID8Lhpa7zo3dZPdnoB
There is also a book and study guide in PDF available at The American Vision site: https://store.americanvision.org/collections/books/products/restoring-america
Once the problem has been realized, the next series of steps is to design a working plan of action leading to a White Nation. I am looking forward to the time when White Nationalist sites each begin a specialized section dealing exclusively with the ideology and methodology of establishing a White Nation.
I eagerly await Ms Eberhardt’s response to this incisive critique.
Please keep us posted.
I actually attended an all day implicit bias training as referenced here. It was such a complete farce that I actually felt bad for the negroes facilitating it. The Hebrew strings pulling these affirmative action hires were all too visible.
There is nothing ignoble about Africans living traditional lifestyles in Africa. Tribes like the Maasai and Hamer have admirable, purposeful lives that I’m sometimes envious of. It is only when Africans attempt to live in a world of European invention that the dysfunction sets in. Our gift of modern infrastructure to the Dark Continent was an unforgivable curse.
It’s the sign of a real social sickness that our Africans in America would rather remain on the bottom of society here than forge a new life in the land of their own ancestors.
I totally agree with the last sentence of this article, that the author of the book, Dr. Eberhardt, is indeed “grabbing the stick and poking at the hornets’ nest” which is “not very smart”.
I myself just ‘got smart’ about a year ago when the avalanche of hatred poured out of the Left about Trump, and I read an article in Time Magazine along similar lines, where the writer was listed as a ‘Professor of Whiteness Studies’! I’d never heard that term before, and was most shocked that it was a part of a college curriculum for credit! After a lifetime of 50+ years working with Blacks and myriad other races in Los Angeles, with nary a serious bad word, though a few pithy observations, I felt the problem was under control. But — with that article (by Eddie Glaude, I believe), someone had taken a ‘stick to my hornet’s nest’, and here I am now, devouring White Nationalist literature right along! They might be ‘righteously indignant’ and ‘demanding justice’ about all this bias, but I am finally awake, alert and aware! So, thanks for the ‘head’s up’, Dr. Eberhardt, on “Implicit Bias” alongside my other awakening to “Whiteness Studies” and all that implies! ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!
I’ll take Eberhardt seriously when she quits straightening her hair.
Just as a side note, some useful words could be: genderpilled and racepilled.
Let’s turn this into an household term, guys. It’s so true and accurate it will hurt and bring our sworn enemies out of balance (The author herself is just doing a blackface routine on the cultural stage by reciting anti-white talking points on behalf of Jews who know that her blackness provides them cover by shifting the dynamics of potential criticism.)
Comments are closed.
If you have Paywall access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Edit your comment