En fremragende artikel fra 2020 om bogen “White Guilt: How Blacks and Whites Together Destroyed the Promise of the Civil Rights Era” i The American Spectator.

As defined by Steele, white guilt is “the vacuum of moral authority that comes from simply knowing that one’s race is associated with racism.” Such a vacuum cannot persist, however, since moral authority is needed for those in power to maintain legitimacy. So regaining and maintaining it is essential.

Achieving this, however, presents a double-edged sword. What whites in the late ’60s had to do was first “acknowledge historical racism to show themselves redeemed of it.” But once they did this, whites stepped into “a void of vulnerability” in which the authority they lost transferred “to the ‘victims’ of historical racism.” Only blacks could restore white legitimacy, in other words.

Blacks, therefore, gained a great power. Steele recounts how he personally wielded this new power over white liberals while still an activist in the ’60s. Specifically, he had obtained the “power to shame, silence, and muscle concessions from the larger society on the basis of past victimization” — ironically, a power that could be abused just like the abusive power wielded against him as a younger man in the pre-civil rights era.

Fast forward to today, with the viral images of white liberals washing the feet of blacks, engaging in literal self-flagellation, and more, and we can see the poignancy of Steele’s thesis.

While he doesn’t bore down into the psychology behind white guilt, he does describe a particular kind of neediness on the part of white liberals, one satisfied by helping, or trying to help, members of a victimized group. Elsewhere, he says “white terror,” or the psychological terror certain whites have of being perceived as racist, goes just as far in capturing the condition. It is a terror, he says, that’s caused whites to act in a similar way or “to act guiltily toward minorities even when they feel no actual guilt.”

Interestingly, studies since his book was published show that such terror, guilt, and similar emotions can to some extent be taught or imposed. Studies from Germany, Australia, and the U.S., all find that white racial guilt can be invoked in certain settings and used to induce greater support for minority causes. Another study in the U.S. disturbingly found that when a group of white, self-described liberals were “taught” about white privilege, their sympathy for poor, lower-class whites decreased. If happening today, this would seem to counter DiAngelo’s thesis that whites are “[s]ocialized into a deeply internalized sense of superiority” in America today and therefore can’t discuss racial realities honestly. Steele’s thesis, of course, would be the opposite: that it’s inferiority (in the moral sense) that is being imposed on whites today and at the core of today’s disjointed racial relations. In this respect, each author’s books are diametrically opposed. 

How White Guilt Induces Black Underachievement

The way white guilt actually manifests itself shows the full picture of the abusive relationship between black and white liberals. Whites make attempts to regain moral authority (apart from today’s “taking of the knee”) through gestures of, what Steele calls, “disassociation.” These are attempts by individuals (as well as U.S. institutions, which, of course, also require legitimacy) to remove themselves from their race’s persecutorial past and inoculate themselves from accusations of racism. When structural racism allegations began in earnest in the mid-60s, white liberals responded promptly with a coterie of “paternalistic interventions,” as Steele calls them: the Great Society programs, the Philadelphia Plan (affirmative action), the Supreme Court’s creation of disparate impact theory in Griggs v. Duke, race-based university quotas — programs that, decades on, have not ended and now look primed for a big new expansion.

Unsurprisingly, Steele’s position on affirmative action and related policies is resoundingly negative, and he contends they do the opposite of what they intend. On top of airing the criticisms made before and since the book was published — that university quotas produce dropouts and serial bar-exam failures, stigmatize meritorious blacks and tell them they can’t otherwise compete, and give a boost to privileged blacks who don’t need it — he points to measures of black legitimacy, educational attainment, and criminality, all of which have fared terribly in the face of white paternalism.

Et eksempel på hvíd paternalisme leverede Netflix for gud ved hvilken gang, da de annoncerede deres dokumentar om den Makedonske Cleopatra, der regerede Ægypten, skriver Daily Caller. For hun var nemlig sort

“It’s possible that she was an Egyptian,” one commentator in the documentary said.

“I imagine her to have curly hair like me and a similar skin color,” another commentator said.

“I remember my grandmother saying to me, ‘I don’t care what they tell you in school, Cleopatra was black,’” another commentator added.

Det siges at ansigtet på den store Sfinks ved Giza pyramiderne var skulptureret efter Cleopatra. Og at det var sufi-præsten Sa’im al-Dahr, der vandaliserede ansigtet i vrede over at den blev tilbedt som en afgud af de lokale. Eller også var han endnu en hvid racist, der ikke ville glo på en stor negertud på sin vej til arbejde?

Black Pigeon Speaks en video om hvorledes sorte skuespillere i stigende grad, tildeles roller hvor hvide havde været historisk korrekt

Imens fortsætter løgnene om hvides kværnende racisme i det amerikanske samfund, som New York Post leverer et eksempel på

A Florida State University criminology professor abruptly left his $190,000-a-year position following allegations that he fudged data on racism studies during his 16-year tenure.

Eric Stewart, who had six of his studies retracted, has been absent from the college since mid-March after a new investigation over his work renewed scrutiny over claims that he fabricated data by altering sample sizes to make the results appear more racist, the Florida Standard reports.

Stewart was first accused of falsifying data by Justin Pickett, a University of Albany criminology professor who co-authored a report on race and crime with Stewart in 2011.

In the study, the criminologists were looking to test whether the public was increasingly demanding longer sentences for black and Hispanic criminals as those minority populations grew.

(…)

Stewart, who is black, claimed that Pickett’s work to get the studies retracted effectively “lynched” him and his “academic character.”

Oh what a dead giveaway!