So rather than wasting their time waiting for that next Alabama lynching that never seems to come, they”€™ve decided to look inside you. They”€™re peeking inside your heart, even though you didn”€™t ask. It doesn”€™t matter that your behavior causes zero literal harm to other races; they”€™re going to find a way to prove you”€™re a racist, anyway.

And if you resist, well, that’s all the proof they need.

The yardstick these “€œscientists”€ wield to measure the evil that lurks within your heart is known as the Implicit Association Test (IAT), brought to you by our friends at Harvard, home to such eminently Caucasian-friendly personages as Noel Ignatiev and Derrick Bell.

You can take the test online. You”€™re instructed to plow through it as fast as possible”€”this will tap into your “€œsubconscious”€ mind. You use your left and right fingers to make selections while white and black faces along with positive and negative words (e.g., “€œHappy,”€ “€œSad,”€ “€œGlorious,”€ “€œAwful”€) flash before your eyes. They”€™ll switch the “€œgood”€ and “€œevil”€ words back and forth between the “€œEuropean American”€ and “€œAfrican American”€ sides, and your reaction time supposedly measures how rapidly you associate good and evil words with each side. The assumption is that if you quickly associate evil words with the black side, you”€™re prejudiced against them rather than, oh, the former victim of an armed robbery at the hands of five black assailants.

I took the test five times without chemically altering myself for the duration. Twice the results said I favored whites, twice they said I favored blacks, and once it said I”€™m neutral. If I”€™d decided to, say, pop a black-market Quaalude halfway through the testing and waited until it kicked in, the results could have been even more skewed and I may have wound up simultaneously loving and hating everyone. And this is the “€œscience”€ they”€™re using.

But even making the shaky assumption that the tests are accurate, some studies using the IAT yielded results that may not please progressive researchers”€™ fluffy golden ears. One of them concluded that whites were more color-blind“€”i.e., less “€œracist”€”€”than blacks and Latinos. Another showed that physicians who scored as more “€œbiased”€ in the IAT tests actually tended to discriminate less in practice than supposedly non-biased ones. One study’s results suggested that in day-to-day life, blacks preferred to interact with whites whom the IAT had categorized as “€œhighly racially biased“€ than with whites who weren”€™t. Another study claimed the IAT is fundamentally flawed because its results seemed to be based more on simple cognitive inertia at speeding through all those flashing faces and words.

In short: This recent Oxford study is worthless.

What deserves further study is a fairly recent leftist trend to eagerly dive into the murky waters of the Eugenics Ocean provided that the “€œscience”€ can somehow prove that they are biologically different than their thought-villain nemeses on the right. After rolling their eyes, holding their noses, and chanting “€œla-la-la-la”€ at any studies that appeared to establish innate racial differences, they are now wrapping their slender pink tentacles around any study”€”no matter how dubious its methodology”€”that suggests leftist egalitarians are almost a different race than their ideological enemies. After decades of claiming they”€™d eternally discredited what they called “€œscientific racism,”€ they are launching forward with a new academic discipline I”€™ll call “€œscientific anti-racism.”€ Or maybe “€œtotalitarian liberal eugenics.”€ Or maybe I”€™m still working on its name.

Leftists shrieked like happy hamsters at a recent Canadian (of course) study linking “prejudice” and “right-wing” ideology to “lower cognitive ability.”€ They also squealed like shiny baby piglets at another recent study that purported to show that liberals and conservatives (whatever that means) have different brain structures.

And though they claim to celebrate the rainbow of differences that Goddess has bequeathed us, somehow they find room in their wide-open minds to cheer for the day when we breed all of those differences into extinction. Neither will these diversicrats tolerate any true diversity of thought”€”they”€™re lurching toward Soviet-style political psychiatry by suggesting that ideological disagreement on racial matters is a mental disorder requiring medication.

Sound paranoid? I”€™m sure they”€™re working on a pill for that.

Sanity is in many ways a social construct, one that varies widely from society to society. In a pragmatic sense I”€™ll admit it’s crazy to go against the crowd, however abjectly deluded and brainwashed that crowd may be. If you run with them, they”€™ll stomp right over you like wild buffalo.

Despite the soul-blotting excesses of Soviet and Maoist totalitarianism, many neo-Marxists still appear to believe that the control freaks and power psychos are confined to the right.

How about we work on a pill that cures extreme partisan psychosis?

Or one that cures stupidity? Lotta that going around.

I haven”€™t dabbled in science since that seventh-grade project I did with the snails, but it’s obvious to me that “€œsocial science”€ is anything but a science. This new anti-racism snake oil they”€™re peddling is an unholy amalgamation of soft eugenics and punitive psychiatry. The Two Joes”€”Mengele and Stalin”€”are shaking hands inside a tiny little heart pill. Pop it in your mouth and smile.

 



Columnists

Sign Up to Receive Our Latest Updates!

SIGN UP

Daily updates with TM’s latest