What To Do?

by Michael J. Polignano


19 September 2004

When I made the decision to stir controversy as a student at Emory, I didn't expect my initial column to be well-received. I expected sharp criticism from faculty, social isolation from peers, and possibly other consequences. However, I didn't write the column merely to stir controversy or to rebel against institutionalized anti-White bigotry (though I do not deny these motives played some role).

Call it youthful naïveté, but I thought my column would do some good in the short-term during the so-called "Year of Reconciliation." I believed (and still believe) that differing opinions are best "reconciled" through reasoned discourse and the free exchange of ideas. I hoped that at least a small number of other students and faculty members at the university would share this opinion. I also hoped that at some point during the year, a moderated "both sides"-type debate would occur on the topic of race differences, at which I could hopefully secure the attendance of like-minded academics.

I learned the hard way that arguing the facts, by itself, rarely changes peoples' minds. I also learned that one's motive in pursuing an argument, rather than the actual validity of the argument, plays a large role in whether an argument is convincing.

At parties my column often became a point of conversation. After several beers, many students were willing to admit to me that, yes, race differences were real, and yes, Blacks are generally less intelligent and more prone to crime than Whites, and yes, genes play a significant role in this difference.

But after admitting these things, "What to do?" became the next logical topic of conversation. Here is where the most disagreement occurred. A good number of students stated (or implied) that I acted irresponsibly by failing to explicitly address the "what to do" question after raising the race/IQ/crime issue. They believed that my column only served to inflame racial tension, and that nothing good could come of it.

These students wanted to know what my motive was: what exactly was I hoping to accomplish by starting this controversy? I didn't want to come across as overly fanatic, so I just informed them of my general belief that problems should be openly discussed rather than downplayed and ignored.

Over the past several months, I've received several emails from persons arguing basically the same point; namely, I should not discuss America's problems if I cannot solve them. It seems that the more aware people are of the magnitude of the race problem, the more afraid they are of confronting it. So most remain silent, hoping that somehow we can muddle through with insane policies premised on the falsehood of racial equality—policies that, in the long run, will lead to the dispossession and destruction of the White race as our living spaces are flooded, and our political institutions are taken over, by fast-breeding and hostile non-Whites.

These people are intimidated from discussing the problems of multiracial societies because they can envision no peaceful solution. The advocates of multiracialism claim—through all the channels of the mass media—that talk of racial separatism can lead only to ethnic cleansing and genocide. They are not willing to explore the possibility that different races occupying the same territory can part ways peacefully. And they smuggle in the premise that the ethnic cleansing and genocide of others is too high a price to pay for our own racial survival; i.e., for not becoming victims of ethnic cleansing and genocide ourselves.

I reject the notion that it is irresponsible to discuss racial problems unless one can also come up with a solution. Unfortunately, as with any other major problem, there's no such thing as a quick and easy fix. There's no solution I can suggest that would be easy to accept. But that doesn't mean we can't talk about the problem. In fact, the longer we avoid discussing it, the greater the likelihood of violence. Thus I think the best first step toward solving the race problem is simply for all sides to openly voice their opinions and the reasons they hold them.

Adults generally deal with problems by talking through them in their early stages, rather than keeping their opinions to themselves and then exploding in fury at a later stage, when the problem has grown so large that it can no longer be ignored—and, in some cases, can no longer be solved.

Imagine you are in an intimate relationship that isn't going anywhere, a relationship you know has to end sooner or later, the only question being "when?" Or let's say you have serious problems with your boss at work, problems you know won't go away by themselves.

Do you think it would be a good idea to not share your feelings until you have a concrete plan laid out for what has to be done? Or do you think it would be better to say what's on your mind, and why it is bothering you, as soon as possible?

I think that a better resolution would come about if both parties are able to freely voice what's on their mind as soon as a problem presents itself. This would give them an opportunity to more fully understand one another and hear one another out. Perhaps both parties could come to an understanding and remain friends, or, if they part ways, they can at least do so amicably, with mutual respect, rather than hating one another the rest of their lives.

This principle applies to race relations as well. I think all races would be better served by openly voicing mutual grievances. Not speaking up now will only compound the problem in the future, and like most problems, this one won't go away all by itself.

I of course don't think ethnic cleansing and genocide are desirable solutions. But I think the best way to avoid that sort of hatred and bloodshed is to have open discussion about problems. I think virtually any "conflict resolution" councilor would tell two opposing parties the best way to avoid violence is by talking things out.

The truth is, most Whites know something is wrong, no matter how resistant they may be to discussion. In fact, some of those most resistant to discussion are most aware of the problem, but are paralyzed by its very magnitude. It is important to keep this in mind, so that we are not too easily discouraged. The first victory is not to sway people to our side, but simply to get them talking.

MICHAEL J. POLIGNANO

--------------------------------

Visit Mr. Polignano's home page here.

Back to VNN Main Page