Let Your Voice Be Heard

Jared Taylor, Special to AR News, March 25, 2011

On Wednesday we posted a notice about a “White Privilege Summit” to be held at Augustana College on Rock Island, Illinois on March 30–next Wednesday. The all-day event, with many speakers and presentations, is open to the public, and the keynote speaker is Morris Dees of the Southern Poverty Law Center. No one from our organization can be there, but we urge AmRen readers in the Quad Cities area to attend and let audiences know that not everyone is fooled by this “white privilege” claptrap.

Even one person asking critical questions can have a jarring effect on an otherwise monolithic sense of moral superiority. If two or three people ask tough questions, it can completely wrong-foot the speaker and make the event backfire. Once a few activists have broken the ice, others in the audience may be emboldened to take a poke at orthodoxy.

Lefties and “anti-racists” have had the floor for too long. There are now enough race realists and other sensible people to stand up and refute the nonsense they are peddling. A public venue like this conference is a perfect opportunity.

It is easy to poke holes in “anti-racist” arguments. The lefties are used to being adored, not to being grilled, so they are unlikely to have good answers. Just listen to what they say, and you will come up with questions that should flummox them.

Here are just a few questions you might ask.

For Morris Dees and the SPLC.

1. I don’t understand why the word “poverty” is in the name of your organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center. According to IRS filings, you have $200 million in assets, and a staff payroll of about $10 million. Could you tell us how much the “poverty center” pays you and how you justify the name? (In 2008 he was paid $282,564 plus another $53,000 in benefits.)

2. You are in the business of designating organizations as “hate” groups. You call people who want to control immigration “haters,” and the same for people who oppose the homosexual agenda. By calling them “haters”–when you have no way of knowing how they actually feel about anyone–you are really just trying to discredit people you disagree with without even debating them, aren’t you?

3. If you find out that anyone you have called a “hater” is to have a speaking engagement or a media appearance, you make a point of contacting the inviting organization to tell them you think this person is a “hater.” Your purpose, of course, is to prevent people with whom you disagree from having a podium, so your real agenda is to suppress free speech, isn’t it?

4. If the groups you oppose are really as bad as you say, won’t what they say be so obviously wrong and hateful that no one will believe them? Isn’t the best policy, therefore, to encourage them to speak and appear publicly so the falseness of what they say will be clear to all?

Questions about “white privilege.”

1. Presumably whites benefit from white privilege only if there are non-whites in a society. Iceland is virtually all-white. Would the whites of Iceland suddenly be much better off and enjoy white privilege if 100,000 Somalis settled there?

2. Does white privilege increase with the number of non-whites? Demographic projections show whites will be a minority by 2042. Will the amount of white privilege just keep increasing? If whites become just 10 percent of the population, will they enjoy more or less white privilege than they enjoy now?

3. If the United States is a nation of white privilege, why is it that Asians–Chinese- and Japanese-Americans, for example–have higher incomes and higher educational achievements than whites?

4. If the United States is a nation of white privilege why do millions of non-whites want to come here?

5. (Someone will no doubt have made the point that blacks are stopped more often by the police, and that an example of white privilege is the fact that whites are stopped less often.) Women are stopped less often by the police than men. Is this an example of unfair sex privilege? Old men are stopped less often than young men is this an unfair example of unfair age privilege?

At the end of the day, there is even a “reflection session” during which you will certainly have a chance to say what you think of what was said. Make your voice heard!

Details about the schedule are here.

campus

Topics: ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Anonymous

    Alright, just one more response.

    #96 (Ben):

    “Surely you must be against this as you claim to let the “chips fall as they may.””

    Yes, I am against different standards for different groups, as that only emphasizes the perception of people as members of different groups.

    “One argument is in order to diminish notions of race and racism we must diversify an establishment by bringing minorities within an institution. It also said that in order to enhance communication between racial groups (i.e. police force), hiring minorities is required. Which one do you agree with? Or do you agree/disagree with both?”

    I disagree with both. To diminish notions of race, we must get rid of the notion of “minorities” altogether. People with AB blood are statistically rare, but nobody refers to them as a “minority”, because there is no notion that people with AB blood are “less American”. This is where we need to get with race. As long as we talk about “minorities”, we already imply they are “less American” than the majority. I believe that demographic shifts will help this process along, as long as people like Jared don’t interfere by encouraging whites to keep thinking of themselves as “whites” at the very time when ALL Americans have a chance at last to think of themselves simply as Americans.

    “I’m assuming then you would ban uniforms, allow unkempt facial hair, and hell, not even take a shower, because technically they have nothing to do with you actually “doing the job.” I assume deodorant is on the list as well.”

    I am fine with uniforms, deoderant, etc., as long as the employer supplies the uniforms, deoderant, etc. to the employees. I was against suits during INTERVIEW because it could lead to the guy with the better suit gaining an unfair advantage. Uniforms do not present this problem.

    “Do you practice the teachings you uphold?”

    I am not a business owner, so I can’t. But if I were, I would.

    “We must allow competition and hiring of different racial groups to combat “white nepotism,” yet you don’t believe in hiring based upon race?”

    We must allow anyone, regardless of race, to compete, and we must not judge them by race. White nepotism is the result of excluding/judging by race, so I oppose it. No contradiction.

    “You’re against, and want to eliminate, race-based perception, yet have notions of white privilege and that it needs to be destroyed?”

    If nobody referred to themselves as ‘whites’, it would be impossible for me to have a notion of ‘white privilege’. That is what I want. I want Jared to shut up so that I can shut up too, and let Americans simply be Americans. No contradiction.

    “You believe in “national identity” over “racial identitiy,” yet you don’t believe borders (which make a nation) should exist and we should hire across racial lines regardless of geographic location?”

    I believe that every person should be able to choose his own identity. Racial identity prevents this. Borders also prevent this. National identity with migration allows this, which is what I support. No contradiction. (Also, I am against dual citizenship.)

    Hope this helps.

  • Stillwarm

    To Anon 97:

    If nobody referred to themselves as ‘whites’, it would be impossible for me to have a notion of ‘white privilege’.

    You can believe in open borders all you want but countries such as Mexico, China, India, South Korea, and Japan are markedly more strict than the US in allowing foreign born people to permanently reside in their countries to compete with local labor. Open borders serve business interests and not the interests of the population at the bottom 95% of income. Since the US has allowed massive immigration since the mid-60s Black incarceration rates vs White incarceration rates have risen 5 fold. Per capita Black wealth vs White wealth has declined by 80% and the labor participation rate for Black men has declined by 20%.

    Borders also prevent this. National identity with migration allows this, which is what I support.

    If the US were to implement open borders we would have to give up welfare, social security, food stamps, and all forms of government subsidized healthcare. Is that what you want..? Since we would have open borders one could basically dispense with age and race discrimination. Say I have several middle aged Black employees who are nice people but have higher health costs and don’t work as fast as they used to… you know I could fire all of them and hire three times as many 20 something Ethiopians and say with a straight face that I am not practicing race discrimination… oh yes and save a bundle on health insurance since they are so much younger.. oh wait.. we are now a third world country.. to hell with their health insurance.. that’s for me.. the owner.

  • Stillwarm

    To Anon 97:

    The point is not that blacks are stopped more often, but that blacks are more likely to be stopped by white police officers than by black police officers.

    The majority of traffic stops of Blacks are at night.. how do police officers know that the inhabitants of the vehicle are Black..? When you see a car traveling in front of you during the day.. is it easy to notice the race of the driver or gender for that matter…? It isn’t for me until I pass the car.

    Note also Washington DC has a majority Black police force, a Black mayor..yet the incarceration rate for Blacks compared to Whites per capita is more than 29.3 to 1.

    http://www.lagriffedulion.f2s.com/prison.htm

    http://tinyurl.com/3m95bcu

    So it would seem that the Black police officers in DC are not treating their brethren in a manner substantially different than White police officers.

  • Anonymous

    Anonymous 95:

    “I made no comment about IQ in any of my posts.”

    Strictly speaking, no you didn’t, in that you didn’t use the actual term “IQ”. But don’t you think that goes along with the educational achievements that you explain by the “overcompensation” of Asians? Why do you think Asians test higher than whites and blacks test worse, if it’s not because of “white privilege”? And if you think it is because of “white privilege”, then answer my question as to why these results are the same in Asia and Africa as well as the United States.

    “When I said Emirati, I was referring to the natives. And I know they don’t complain because they don’t see the world the way you do.”

    Oh, I see. Let me see if I get this straight. You know the Emeratis aren’t racist because they don’t complain about their population being overrun by immigrants. And, of course, you know that they don’t complain because, well, they’re not racists, so obviously they would never do that.

    Well done, kid. Keep up that kind of logic, and you’re bound to be a top liberal columnist in no time!

    “Race identity is unimportant for Muslims.”

    Tell that to the Sub-Saharan Africans fleeing Libya:

    http://www.unhcr.org/4d7658719.html

    “GENEVA, March 8 (UNHCR) – UNHCR said on Tuesday it was alarmed by a growing number of accounts it has been hearing of violence and discrimination in Libya against sub-Saharan Africans.”

    Thanks for ignoring the entire main point of what I wrote and focusing just on the little tangents, though.

    “That’s all from me.”

    If only!

  • Ben

    @ Anonymous 97

    “Yes, I am against different standards for different groups, as that only emphasizes the perception of people as members of different groups.”

    Well those perceptions are biologically real. And even if they weren’t, and only cultural, that still denotes a diverse groupings where different standards apply.

    “I disagree with both. To diminish notions of race, we must get rid of the notion of “minorities” altogether. People with AB blood are statistically rare, but nobody refers to them as a ‘minority,’ because there is no notion that people with AB blood are ‘less American.'”

    Funny you mentioned blood. In medical community you are considered a minority with AB blood (this doesn’t even get into Rh). And failure to reconcile those differences often leads to complications and even death. You didn’t mention why it is rare. Both A and B blood types rarely mix. You know why?

    In the context that mention America is is true that blood type doesn’t denote American but then again American was never founded on different blood types.

    You keep referring back to America. I’m sure you know “all men created equal” was referred to white men who owned land.

    “This is where we need to get with race. As long as we talk about ‘minorities,’ we already imply they are ‘less American’ than the majority. I believe that demographic shifts will help this process along, as long as people like Jared don’t interfere by encouraging whites to keep thinking of themselves as “whites” at the very time when ALL Americans have a chance at last to think of themselves simply as Americans.”

    Populations groupings is a scientific fact. “Whites” is just a layman term for peoples Caucasoid decent. Yes it is true that if we stop talking about it there will be less division, but I find beauty in differences. You don’t. You think it is a threat and want to eliminate it.

    “…Jared don’t interfere by encouraging whites to keep thinking of themselves as “whites” at the very time when ALL Americans have a chance at last to think of themselves simply as Americans.”

    Jared isn’t preventing you from thinking otherwise. Just because one person says something doesn’t mean others can’t think differently.

    “I am fine with uniforms, deoderant, etc., as long as the employer supplies the uniforms, deoderant, etc. to the employees. I was against suits during INTERVIEW because it could lead to the guy with the better suit gaining an unfair advantage. Uniforms do not present this problem.”

    Deodorant during an INTERVIEW could also lead to the guy gaining an unfair advantage.

    “We must allow anyone, regardless of race, to compete, and we must not judge them by race. White nepotism is the result of excluding/judging by race, so I oppose it. No contradiction.”

    Yet, you did say in order to combat white nepotism someone needs to be of a different racial group…otherwise white nepotism would be stronger.

    “If nobody referred to themselves as ‘whites,’ it would be impossible for me to have a notion of ‘white privilege.’ That is what I want. I want Jared to shut up so that I can shut up too, and let Americans simply be Americans. No contradiction.”

    Jared and no one here is forcing you to mention white privilege or to talk/shut up about it. By your own view, you are contributing to the notions of race, thus inequality. You must at some level acknowledge its existence via your own accord, to talk to others about it, even if you don’t want to believe it truly exist.

    “I believe that every person should be able to choose his own identity. Racial identity prevents this. Borders also prevent this. National identity with migration allows this, which is what I support. No contradiction. (Also, I am against dual citizenship.)”

    National identity is constructed by borders. Nations divide people and can cause wars and inequality–with your arguments. Please clarify “National identity with migration allows this, which is what I support.”

    Thanks. I don’t know if we will continue to do this as this post will leave the thread. However, I did enjoy the debate.