![]() |
|
Racist Babies?
Not a Joke — An Actual Concern of the MSM
Christopher Donovan
September 14, 2009
Major
newsmagazines like Time and Newsweek have descended into increasing
irrelevance over the years, each one looking more like People magazine than
a serious journal of the times.
Shorter articles, more fluff.
But I could not
resist picking up the latest Newsweek.
With a picture of white baby's face on the cover, it asks in black
lettering, "Is
Your Baby Racist?"

Even in today's
political climate, I was taken aback.
Is it supposed to be humorous, like
this?
Well, no.
Like
this article from the British press about kids who don't like ethnic
food, it's serious.
Your baby might
actually be... racist.

Just like your dog.
Who knew that
the $PLC and the SPCA would one day need to merge?
The article
itself is actually an excerpt from a book titled
NurtureShock:
New Thinking About Children, by Po Bronson and Ashley
Merryman. According to their
bios, he's a novelist in San Francisco with two children, while she runs a
"church-based tutoring program" in Los Angeles' inner city... and is
apparently childless.
Though the
excerpt references the work of psychologists and research professors,
neither Bronson nor Merryman appear to have any scientific credentials.
But never mind.
Whatever else they're preaching in
NurtureShock, the MSM loves it,
which of course only makes me deeply skeptical.
In a nutshell,
the research recounted by Bronson and Merryman shows that children as young
as 6 months are able to distinguish among the races, that they're troubled
or puzzled by other races, and that as toddlers, they like to make
generalizations and prefer the company of their own racial group.
In other words,
everything that we as racially conscious whites could have predicted.
As Kevin
MacDonald has
written, this stuff goes all the way down to the amygdala.
And it tracks
the research of figures like Harvard's
Robert Putnam, who's found that racial diversity, rather than making
us happier, makes us all anxious and distrustful —even of persons in our
racial group.
Talk about
inconvenient truths.
Discovery that
decades of multiracial propaganda, from Sesame Street to Dora the Explorer,
have been useless exercises must be confounding.
Amazingly,
writers like Bronson and Merryman take this information and use it as a
reason double-up racial mindwashing.
Where, pray
tell, is the "naturalism" so beloved by liberals?
The "let nature take its course" attitude that they apply to
sexuality, for instance? Can you
imagine a sharp concern about "is your baby gay?" and efforts to uproot
that?
I can only hope
that someone out there — unaware of the racial consciousness movement and
its literature, but otherwise discerning — will take note of the concern
over racist babies and dogs and think, "Wait, isn't this all just a little
bit crazy?"
A pillar of the
multiracialist movement is that "racism" is a conscious and evil choice, and
that all that's needed to cure it is more "education."
Racist babies complicate that narrative.
Nobody really believes that babies are evil.
How nicely the absurdity of
multiracialism is revealed, then.
Take this
little gem from the Newsweek
excerpt: "Prone to
categorization, children's brains can't help but attempt to generalize rules
from the examples they see."
Of course,
scientists also have brains that are "prone to categorization," and if they
didn't, they wouldn't make good scientists.
This is something children are to be faulted for?
How to fix
these racist babies? You must be
explicit with your child, Bronson and Merryman say, approvingly quoting one
mother who hammered her child with "Remember, everybody's equal" over and
over.
"Remember,
everyone's equal." Can't anyone
call this for what it is, brainwashing?
The error that needs
force and
constant propaganda rather than the truth that stands alone?
Winston Smith and the number of fingers being held up?
It is fun to
watch the scientific data collide so spectacularly with multiracial dogma.
As I see it, this collision splits off in only two directions:
one, a recognition of racial reality that leads to an informed
discussion about the problems of multiracialism (and benefits Whites), or
two, efforts to censor the information or provide increasingly desperate
spins, all of which will be noted by smarter folks who might otherwise
remain racially unconscious.
In other words,
talk of racist babies is "good for Whites."
Christopher Donovan (email him) is the pen name of an attorney and former journalist.
Permanent link: http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/authors/Donovan-RacistBabies.html