The Red Moon Journal

If there is a silver lining to the racial divisions that the Obama administration seems determined to amplify and encourage, it is that a more honest and open discussion of the very real differences between blacks and the rest of the population is now taking place. Not in The Elite Media Monoculture mind you. The Old Media would never allow that in the pages of their newspapers and magazines, or on their television shows lest it disturb the conventional wisdom. For the left certain ideas are dangerous because they are true.

And political correctness is not limited to the left or their press organs. The firing of John Derbyshire by The National Review shows that these topics are so risky that conservative publications like NR cannot allow them to be discussed either, for fear of playing into the leftist narrative of the mean and bigoted right-winger. Thus the unvarnished truth is left to the alternative media and blogs on the Internet where people feel free to speak their minds without fear of losing their jobs and reputations. The problem for old media is that the facts and data are available now for anyone who is interested in the subject. The gatekeepers have lost their power to prevent the debate.

At Alternative Right, Colin Liddell writes about the manner in which political correctness has made it all but impossible for the issue of race to be honestly discussed in the traditional media. And as Dinesh D’Sousa has also written, the collapse of liberal hope, which is the result of the continuing societal failure of blacks despite all of the advantages given to them over the decades, has brought a return of the notion that there really are differences between the races. These differences cannot be solved with catchy slogans or wealth re-distribution. And more and more people seem to be willing to say so, at least on the Internet.

The Obama administration has tried to use race tension to its benefit, and has done so to a degree. But the long term cost may be the dissolution of the liberal narrative that says that the problems of blacks are the result of evil whites. The alternative explanation, that blacks as a group suffer from lower IQs and other social pathologies that must by definition hold them back from competing in a technological and complex society, is one which goes against the narrative, and which is more and more commonly seen on the Internet. Many people have reached the point where they have rejected the narrative, and are now re-assessing their views. The result is a more blunt and unapologetic view on the subject that reflects the facts and not the wishful thinking that has prevailed in the past.

If these ideas are being seen more on blogs, chat rooms and in the comments sections of articles on the subject, it is an indication that the narrative is starting to break down, and a more realistic point of view is returning to society. Not everywhere, and not universally. But the fact that is under discussion at all is a sign that the bounds of political correctness are slowly being breached by those who are willing to question the conventional wisdom.

The basic racial asymmetry between Blacks and Whites means that the “Face-Saving Racial Myth” must never be challenged, for when it is the already tattered national fabric starts to unravel. Wherever you have a marked racial asymmetry, honest discussion of it will do two things. First it will be immensely offensive to the disadvantaged race and those who claim to speak for them (another indice of racial asymmetry is that Blacks usually need Whites to do their arguing for them). It is unrealistic not to expect them to be angry. They will be well and truly pissed. This is not an argument to placate them, but a mere statement of fact.

The second thing that will happen is that White people, even those who have nothing but goodwill for Blacks, will notice that the longer they honestly and frankly discuss race the more they will end up sounding exactly like “White supremacists” and so-called hard-line “racists.” This is not because they have “inherent racism” as leftists like to imagine, it is simply because the facts of the debate will push them in that direction.

Derbyshire’s article is a perfect example of both of these effects. Far from being hateful or racist, the tone of the article was one of stoical regret that things had to be the way they are, but that, because of undeniable facts and dangers, certain precautions were advisable to safeguard one’s children. Writing with his usual honesty and thoroughness, it wasn’t long before he was unwittingly saying things that couldn’t help but be offensive to Blacks, while nevertheless being completely true.