Outrage of the week last week was the shutting down of the American Renaissance conference by anti-racist activists.
It impacted my schedule. I was planning to attend the conference (which was scheduled for Feb. 19 to Feb. 21).
It would have been a first for me. I’ve been a subscriber to the AR magazine since the mid-1990s, when I read Jared Taylor’s 1992 book Paved With Good Intentions. Jared is the moving spirit of American Renaissance (and a former National Review contributor). I debated — as in: took an opposing point of view to — him in 2006 at an event since made famous by 14-year-old Trotskyist Max Blumenthal, who knows absolutely everything about the world. The transcript of my address is here. You can hear a recording of the entire event here.
I’ve encountered Jared half a dozen times since then, and had dinner with him once when he was in New York. I like the guy a lot. He’s terrifically well-read and well-educated. Quite a good orientalist, too: he grew up in Japan — I think his parents were missionaries — and we once spent a happy half-hour comparing the odd semantic shifts between Japanese kanji and the ancestral Chinese ideograms. He’s also fluent in French: studied at the Sorbonne, I believe. I visited at his home once: Jared was raising his younger daughter — she was four years old at the time — to speak French. She chirruped “Bonjour, Monsieur” at me when I met her, with a very authentic accent. I consider Jared a fine American gentleman and patriot, with the exquisite manners of the old South, and the strong devotion to his family that a man should have.
My fondness for Jared notwithstanding, I don’t really think of myself as an American Renaissance type. For one thing, there is that ethos of the South, which I don’t really … get. I wonder if a foreigner ever can get it. It’s as odd and particular, in its own way, as Tibetan Buddhism.
For another thing, there is the antisemitism of the AR followers, which rubs me the wrong way. I fall in line with the long tradition of British philosemitism (Cromwell, Victoria, Lloyd George, Maggie Thatcher), and just have no patience with the other thing. I’d excuse Jared from that: in several hours of private conversation with him, I’ve never caught a whisper of antisemitism. The only remark I ever heard him make on the subject, to a third party, was: “They look white to me!” He has in fact taken pains to get Jewish writers and speakers into AR. His enemies say this is cynical “covering,” but my best guess, from my acquaintance with the man, is that it’s sincere. (My car-pool ride down to the AR conference, by the way, was to have been with Bob Weissberg.)
I had therefore turned down Jared’s invitations to the AR conference (which is held every other year). I wasn’t planning to attend this year, either. Then I read on one of the paleocon websites that the conference hotel had canceled AR’s booking after harassment by some hostile activists. I thought this was very shocking. Whatever you think of the AR ethos, they are genteel types (including a lot of academics, like Bob) who would no more think of burning a cross on someone’s lawn than they would of garotting their own grandmothers. They are people with opinions, that’s all — opinions, furthermore, that were perfectly mainstream 40 or 50 years ago. Well, they found another hotel.
In a fit of righteous indignation on hearing of the first cancellation, I had signed up for the conference & been duly registered. I set up the car pool with Bob and told Mrs. Bradlaugh I’d be away for the weekend. Then on Tuesday of the week of the conference, I got an email from AR saying the new venue had also canceled, after more intimidation from the anti-“hate” thugs. The email said AR would refund our conference fees, but I donated mine to AR in disgust.
The next day another email came saying that AR had found yet another hotel and the conference was on after all. This new hotel (we were assured) would stand up to any threats. In the event, they didn’t, and the conference was finally and thoroughly off. Jared set up some sort of truncated event, with some of the speakers, but by the time I found out about it, it was too late to go down to Virgina. He put out a press release through one of the regular services, but only Breitbart seems to have picked it up.
It is a shameful thing that the AR conference was shut down — an ominous thing too, in that this is the first time it’s happened. We may be losing our freedoms of speech and association, as they have in Britain and Europe. So much for American exceptionalism.
And just as shameful as the success of the anti-racist bully-boys is the utter silence of the media. I haven’t even heard one of those “First they came for American Renaissance …” admonitions. It’s as if the AR people are utterly beyond the pale. Yet why should they be? If they are wrong, why not expose their error in open debate, as I tried to? Isn’t that the civilized way to do things? (When I took on Jared in that 2006 debate, the organizers told me they’d invited a number of conservatives, but all had backed out when they heard they’d be sitting in a room with Jared. What on earth is the matter with people?)
AR’s position, in a nutshell, is that if it’s OK for blacks, Hispanics, Asians, etc. to organize in defence of their group interests, and to promote pride in their ancestry, why isn’t it OK for white Americans to do the same? It seems to me there is no very satisfactory answer to this question. The one usually given (by the aforementioned Blumenthal wunderkind here, for example) is that whites are a majority and the others are minorities, so it wouldn’t be fair. But this is already untrue in four states, and by 2042, according to the Census Bureau, will be untrue of the entire nation. Will American Renaissance be respectable then ? If not, why not?
My own strong preference, as I argued in that debate with Jared, would be for everybody to shut up with the race business. There doesn’t seem to be much prospect of this happening, though, so it’s not hard to see the AR-ers point of view. In any case, I say again, whatever you think of that point of view, it’s a point of view. It shouldn’t be shut out of the public square; and if it is so shut out, by goons phoning in death threats to hotel employees, there ought to be a fuss made. Well, here I am on Secular Right, making a fuss as best I can. Freedom of speech! Freedom of assembly! Liberty! Liberty!
@Polichinello
Whatever you say. Yes, I don’t mean what I say, only what you say I say. You’ve won. Now you can shut up.
Let me add (to Ronald)–unless Jared is just a complete liar, he does not seem to be much of an anti-Semite himself. But this only piques my curiosity on the points I raised to you that much more.
I guess it is not hard to figure out why AR attracts Nazis too. Jared Taylor believes in racial differences and so do the Nazis. Even Taylor’s enemies acknowledge he is one of the most intelligent and gifted speakers on the topic of race. No wonder why the crazies are attracted to him as well. So that is no surprise to me.
The more interesting question is whether Jared Taylor should do more to distance himself from those elements. My understanding is that Taylor believes that AR is not a political organization but should welcome all those who do not believe in the current orthodoxy about race. Others, such as Ian Joblin (see my post above), argue that by not taking a stand against national socialism or anti-antisemitism the organization will never get anywhere.
I personally think AR would be better off by distancing itself from some authoritarian political views and the politics of paranoia. To his credit, Taylor does not allow publications of that nature in the magazine, but perhaps he should do more.
Oops. I meant to write anti-semitism. Not anti-antisemitism 😉
I think I answered your follow-up post. As for not distancing himself stronger from such tendencies, perhaps Jared is of the view that such a stand would do more good than harm to his organization. I don’t think he would be correct in that perspective though.
As I indicated, perhaps there should be more discussion of how whites are causing their own decline. Blaming it on “the jews” is not very illuminating to me unless you attribute supernatural powers to them. As you may know, there are quite a number of Jewish AR supporters. The reason why they have not left AR in droves (as far as I am aware) might be similar to why some of us do not want to dismiss the organization completely. There is a lot of valuable writing in that magazine.
“It is important to remember that the hotel also has freedom of association. ”
They also have an obligation to uphold their contractual agreements. It is absolutely unacceptable for them to book a conference months in advance and then cancel at the last minute.
Thanks, JD, for writing this fine article. I only wish it would appear in the NR!
I’d like to point out that a *right* can only exist if it is mutually respected within civil society. A right that is protected by the government but despised by the people is not really a right at all, but rather a legal artifact or entitlement that can be swept away at political whim.
For example, our society would quickly collapse if merely a few people in the US respected the right to private property. The legal system would only be able to prosecute a fraction of the thieves, and no merchant could afford to open a shop to the public. Our commercial and social fabric depend on mutual respect of individual property rights, not merely the fact that stealing is illegal.
Mark: “AR’s problem is that they have no respectable friends to stand up with them”
I would say that *our* problem is that much of the public, and certainly the media, do not believe in the rights to freedom of speech or assocation at all. The media defines what is respectable, and the mob silences those who are not, while everyone else looks the other way.
American Renaissance is most certainly not a neo Nazi organization as some here say. It is basically the white equivalent of the NAACP (though not as hateful as that odious group). Please check out the website http://www.amren.com and tell me what is “Nazi” about this group.
And as for McCarthyism, AR and its conference goers are routinely hounded and hectored by both the SPLC. Several people have lost jobs simply by attending AR conferences.
I have been to several AR conferences and there are always at least a few non-whites and many Jews. One speaker this year was to be an American Indian named David Yeagley.
There have been some attendees who gather around the white nationalist Stormfront website. They give AR a bad name and I wish they would not attend. There numbers have been going down, however.
All I want is a non-Nazi group that looks out for the interests of whites. Given that, AR is the only game in town right now.
It’s really a bad idea to shut out the peaceful white nationalists. Whether the left, right, or anyone else likes it or not, white racial nationalism will grow in the United States and Europe. Isn’t it better to allow debate with the peaceful WNs than to force the violent WNs into action?
This same thing occurred with the Palestinians. For the most past, the Palestinians were peaceful until about the mid 90’s. Until that point, the most they would do is throw rocks at tanks. After years of living in concentration camps and being humiliated, the Palestinians started committing violent acts. And as soon as they did the media spun it as them “trying to push the Jews into the sea.”
Now that I think about it, this is probably the strategy of the establishment in the US? The idea is humiliate, intimidate, and demoralize whites until they can’t take it anymore. Then the hardcore White Nationalists will start taking action and the media will present them as “terrorists.” The problem with this approach is that either way, I can’t see how the WNists can be stopped? Its almost like the establishment wants the violent WN to carve out an white ethno-state in North America?
Perhaps this is the grand stratgey of the Nazis who joined the CIA after WWII?
I’m sorry, Taylor has close links with the most extreme anti-semites in North America.
Following the cancellation of his conference, the first interview he did was with the Stormfront website radio, with his ‘good friend’ ex American Nazi Party member Don Black.
http://www.stormfront.org/audio/Derek_Black_Show_02-16-2010.mp3
His best friend from college days is Mark Weber a well known anti semite and Holocaust denier.
Even Ian Jobling, a former American Renaissance writer, was disgusted with what could be described at best Taylor’s tolerance of Nazis.
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/Articles/Articles/the_decline_of_american_renaissance/
This thread is interesting. In it Taylor prevaricates spectacularly on Holocaust denial.
http://whiteamerica.us/index.php/news/news/another_eagle_eyed_white_nationalist_finds_me_out/
Taylor’s genteel image, while genuine, does hide a broader unpleasant agenda.
Another palaeoconservative Lawrence Auster also describes here why he parted way with the morally ‘obtuse’ Taylor.
http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/015720.html#feb19
The fact is who you hang out with does say an awful lot about you. The same goes for Taylor.
Don’t know who the perps were-presumably CPUSA and Jews-but it gives you an example of leftist attitudes towards civil liberties at the dawn of the Red Scare period:
http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/terminiello.html
(…)
There was certainly no fascist threat in Chicago or anywhere in the US in 1946. This was likely the CPUSA showing its muscle.
Wow, Godwin’s law didn’t take long to kick in there, did it? (Mark at #13.)
Mark’s plague-on-both-their-houses pose strikes me as unhelpful — to the maintenance of civilization, I mean. One house wants to engage in open, reasoned debate and empirical inquiry; the other house want to pose, shriek, strut, and drown out what everyone else is trying to say. Does it not occur to you that there is a race to the bottom waiting there somewhere, Mark?
A free market in ideas, like a free market in anything else, can only exist under a decorum. Robert’s Rules of Order does not exist for no reason. Absent decorum, there is nothing but street fighting, and supremacy of the most unscrupulous. I prefer Robert’s. And yes, I do realise — no need to tell me, thanks all the same — that I have just unmasked myself as a hopeless bourgeois reactionary.
In any case, Mark’s narrative of a frictionless market of ideas is fantasy. He surely knows that the state — every actual American state, and the swelling might and power of the federal Leviathan, supported by the media, universities, etc. — is heavily and totally invested in one side of this argument. In the marketplace of ideas, again as in the other marketplace, there are economic entrepreneurs (build a better mousetrap) and political entrepreneurs (get the government to pass a law giving you the monopoly on mousetrap distribution). Not too hard to figure which side is which here.
As to Mark’s presentist triumphalism, here are the words I wrote:
I am speaking of opinions — ideas about the observed facts of the world. Does Mark think that in this last 40 or 50 years we have progressed from widespread belief in false ideas, to widespread belief in true ideas? I disagree.
No doubt, I don’t think AR is something respectable conservatives should associate with, there’s an awful lot of “If only the South had won” and even a bit of “If only Hitler had won” on there. I don’t doubt that there’s an overlap between these fellows and some of the corners of the paleo-conservative and paleo-libertarian scene which again points at the kind of risks lurking beneath the Paul campaign.
But to reiterate, I think if you can have revolutionary Leninist meetings, pro-PLO meetings and what else peacefully in America the same courtesy ought to be granted to people like AR.
The kind of thing the CPUSA was up to the Thirties (in this case, violent action in support of a policy of mass murder) before they got into the espionage business via the Popular Front:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial_of_the_Holodomor
(…)
(…)
l
What’s “repugnant” about wanting the U.S. to remain a white majority country? What’s “repugnant” about opposing massive nonwhite immigration? What’s repugnant” about concern for the rights and interests of whites in relation to blacks and other minorities? What’s “repugnant” about opposing quotas and “affirmative action” and preferential treatment for blacks, “Hispanics,” and even Muslims? What “repugnant” about telling the truth about black crime, black-on-white violence, “Hispanic” gangs, black IQ, etc.? What’s “repugnant” about about criticizing the quasi-religion of “diversity” and “multiculturalism? What’s “repugnant” about exposing the lies and myths of black and “Hispanic” demagogues, revisionist historians, guilt-addled white left-liberals, fanatical immigrationists, etc.?
@Aaron
By the way, my example of Tim Wise was probably ill-chosen. Wise is a typical professional antiracist, but he did debate Jared Taylor at least once, so Wise is the proverbial exception that proves the rule. I think the debate was posted on the AR site. It was a civil and rational debate. Taylor was not at the top of his form, maybe because Wise is a lot more intelligent than most of Taylor’s adversaries. But it would be great if the rest of the “antiracists” were willing to engage Taylor’s arguments as Tim Wise did.
It would be great if discussion of race largely disappeared. But, now that it has become an article of faith of the religion of Equality that there can be no differences in average ability among ethnic groups, differences in success produce the widespread belief that Something is Wrong, probably involving discrimination, and resulting endless demands for quotas and preferences, anger, guilt, etc. Only understanding that all groups are not equal in ability would eliminate this preoccupation. The effectiveness of American Renaissance’s efforts to promote that understanding must be at least substantially reduced by the fact that it also holds the racist view that people are defined by their skin color.
John, you write:
Here’s an example of such opinion. It’s an extract from from James Burnham’s “Suicide of the West” (1964), page 86:
Burnham’s book was lavishly praised at the time and I reckon it is still one of the conservative classics. But imagine the storm of indignation it would generate if it were written today. In many European countries the author would be liable to face criminal charges for ‘incitement of racial hatred’.
Well, now it’s on line for the first time.
***Following the cancellation of his conference, the first interview he did was with the Stormfront website radio, with his ‘good friend’ ex American N@zi Party member Don Black.***
They sent out press releases to many press agencies (see the Amren report on the conference). They were met with silence. Perhaps it would be better to not do an interview at all in your view?
***This thread is interesting. In it Taylor prevaricates spectacularly***
Taylor responded to this on Amren, noting it was malicious to say he denied this.
Well, minorities tend to vote Democratic more than whites do. Also, hispanics tend to be less educated than whites and asians and are growing in total numbers much faster. Take La County now probaby over 4million in the hispanic category. LA County which is 47 to 48 percent versus Santa Clara which is about 30 percent asian and 25 percent hispanic, now has a 25,000 income advantage over La County. Upper-middle class white and asian burbs in Santa Clara county have an advantage. Granted, whites and asians in La County are probably more conservative than those in Santa Clara but the always growing hispanc population in La county which is lower income is the advantage of the Dems.
This statement is idiotic. Hotels should be free to deny service to anyone for any reason, but thanks to the odious, socialist civil rights movement, that is no longer the case.@Alleged Wisdom
Nobody here’s going to say its OK to shut down debate or that those with repugnant views ought to be shouted down. I think what’s uncomfortable to me and maybe others is what’s between the lines here- that the organization’s white supremecy and antisemitism are arfter all not all that repugnant to the author of the post.
Would we say Al Qaeda’s views rub us the wrong way or might we use some stronger language there? Would there be approving comments if we encountered a well read Jihadi with good table manners?
You hold a conference to express views that are repugnant to the vast majority of people, you tend to get this reaction. No, it doesn”t excuse the reaction, but this is what happens in the world. You go up to a tipsy football player and insult his mother, you might also get a reaction we wouldn’t condone.
Free speech isn’t in jeapardy and we’ve never had more freedom of speech than here & now, which is pretty obvious. If your problem is with the fact that white supremist and anti-semetic views are now beyond the pale, well that’s just how it is.
BS artist Tim Wise eviscerated:
http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/004046.html
@m.d.
“I think what’s uncomfortable to me and maybe others is what’s between the lines here- that the organization’s white supremecy and antisemitism are arfter all not all that repugnant to the author of the post.”
Let’s straighten this thinking out. For the New Left, ‘White (European) supremacy; and ‘antisemitism’ often means: not supporting post-identity socialism. For the New Conservatives ‘White (European) supremacism’ and ‘antisemitism’ often means: not supporting Multicultural Judeo-Christian (post-ethnic identity) Capitalism. For the Old Right, the illiberal right, ‘White (European) supremacy’ and ‘antisemitism’ meant: oppressing and libeling persons on the basis of their race and ethnoreligion. The Old right sees the US, from the perspective of a society, with a Christian European identity. Those people are what we now call paleoconservatives and, often, White nationalist. Philosophically, they are particularists. Politically they are particularists, living in a Universalist (or Liberal) society. They are your Zionists, ten years from now, trying to fight to maintain a Jewish-Israel. They are kind of like your average Han Chinese, who doesn’t want a Post-Han and post East Asian China. Now maybe they are backwards, and have not realized that Liberalism, whether of the Left or Conservative brand, is the way to go. But this is quite different from being antisemetic, racist, or Supremacist in the illiberal sense of the terms.
I am guessing that e m.d is a Liberal conservatives, and that he find Amren ipso facto repugnant — as it challenges the very identity of Multicultural (deEuropeanized) America. He is like your typical British, Swedish, French, and German conservative, who finds the very idea of an ethnostate repulsive — rather than the associates or behaviors of Amren.
I think this is an interesting position. And embracing Liberalism, or post ethnonationalism, might very well be the way to go. The West is sure banking on it. Regardless, I think we need to create some terms to help clarify the various forms of supremacisms. Here are my suggestions:
European supremacism type I — oppressing and libeling a non-European persons on the basis of their non-Europeanness
European supremacims type II — promoting European ethnic solidarity, interest, patriotism, or nationalism
European supremacims type III — not promoting non-European solidarity or interest enough, when in a Post European country, or not suppressing the promotion of non-European solidarity or interest enough, when in a Post European country
(European supremacism type IV — not oppressing and libeling European persons on the basis of their Europeanness, when in a Post European country)
Overall, If find it rather odd that those on a site dedicated to reasoning — don’t bother to create operant definitions for these terms. Whether and to what extent Amren or any other site is supremacist (I, II, III, IV) should be readily verifiable. To the extent that it is not, we are dealing in philosophical and theological speculation, and that should be analyzed.
Edit:
European supremacims type III — not promoting non-European solidarity or interest enough, when in a Post European country, or not suppressing the promotion of European solidarity or interest enough, when in a Post European country
M.d says:
“Would there be approving comments if we encountered a well read Jihadi with good table manners?”
“You hold a conference to express views that are repugnant to the vast majority of people, you tend to get this reaction. No, it doesn”t excuse the reaction”
Free speech isn’t in jeapardy … white supremist and anti-semetic views are now beyond the pale, well that’s just how it is.”
The first point being made is that it’s ok to suppress groups who argue for what is socially Wrong or socially harmful. The second, is that unpopular views (and groups who hold them ) are often suppressed. The third, ties the two together, arguing that the suppression of Amren is not a problem, since the group is socially wrong or harmful.
It makes sense that what is socially wrong or harmful should be suppressed. So the question is, are the views of Amren socially wrong or harmful — say as opposed to morally wrong, give some pieties? To answer this question we need a clarification of the terms — we need definitions of the various terms used to characterize that Wrongness, and a general idea of why that said Wrongness is socially wrong or harmful.
Now I have already suggested the Liberal reason: Amren’s views are a threat to the Multicultural identity of this society — just as Jewish or pagan non-assimilation was a threat to European Christian society, or Miscegenation and Minority equality, was a threat to the US Anglo-European society. That, of course, is the rub. Either you have to argue that liberal-morality,in the sense of post-Europeanism, is the natural progression of illiberal morality. That, there is a continuum running from freeing Black from slavery to freeing the US and Europe from hegemonic European control, and eventually freeing the nation of any particular identity, or there is not. If there is, they you can argue that a liberal society — as a self defined open or free society — has the right to supress or tolerate the suppression of freedoms. As they say: intolerance of intolerance is the only intolerance prescribes (where intolerance is not tolerating the deEuropeanization or once European nations). In this case, you must eventually advocate for the freeing of all nations from ethnic monopolies, because ethnic monopolies and ethnostates are wrong in the way that slavery is wrong. That is, you have to embrace the tenets of international cultural Marxism. If there is not a natural progression, you have to see Liberal, open, society as a particular type of society — a particular type of society that is hostile to the notion of a particular type of society. In this situation, the tenets of Liberalism, that is, open society, do not let one reject, ipso facto, the ethnonationalist view. One then has to argue that such groups like Amren must be protected, in they way that any other group is protected — or one has to show that such groups are socially dangerous in a way that warrants tolerating suppression. Now if the views of Amren are, in fact, beyond the pale, — it is hard to see the threat, so this doesn’t make a good argument.
To some extent you could make this same argument in favor of jihadism. What exactly is wrong with killing a few to expand or protect the religion of many? And that argument would have made sense, in the not to distant past, as our moral senses develops in relation to our socioeconomics. However, that we reject it, doesn’t mean we reject proselytizing or Islamic activism — unless we are some type of cultural marxist, we just expect jihadists not to kill. We usually argue against jihadism on the basis of classical liberalism, not cultural marxism. This is where M.d’s analogy is fundamentally flawed. To the extent that Amren is advocating killing or oppression, which modern liberals and modern illiberals agree is wrong, it should be suppressed. To the extent that it is just proselytizing, for the Liberal, it should be tolerated and protected to the degree that liberal society tolerates any ethnic, religious, or ideological proselytizing — which, by definition, is a lot.
To clarify:
“And that argument would have made sense, in the not to distant past, as our moral senses develops in relation to our socioeconomics.”
If you equate advocating from a European-US-national identity with European supremacism, you should logically equate advocating for a Christian or now Judeochristian-US-national identity with JudeoChristian supremacism, and you should relocate yourself to the far left — and advocate against any national identity. If you are not on the far left, you should at least, support, in principle, the right for people to advocate this — insofar as it is not socially dangerous.
@Mark
Or M.d. Can you reply to SMK?
“What’s “repugnant” about wanting the U.S. to remain a white majority country? What’s “repugnant” about opposing massive nonwhite immigration? What’s repugnant” about concern for the rights and interests of whites in relation to blacks and other minorities? What’s “repugnant” about opposing quotas and “affirmative action” and preferential treatment for blacks, “Hispanics,” and even Muslims? What “repugnant” about telling the truth about black crime, black-on-white violence, “Hispanic” gangs, black IQ, etc.? What’s “repugnant” about about criticizing the quasi-religion of “diversity” and “multiculturalism? What’s “repugnant” about exposing the lies and myths of black and “Hispanic” demagogues, revisionist historians, guilt-addled white left-liberals, fanatical immigrationists, etc.?”
That is to say, can you explain what exactly is repugnant, so some might address those issues. Or is just not being Liberally Moral repugnant? Is it repugnant in the sense that 1) advocating/conserving any national identity is, 2) in the sense that advocating/conserving any national ethnic-identity is, 3) in these sense of this http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1152257.html, or that advocating/conserving any national ethic-identity is given a history of problems is, or is is repugnant because those problems have not been addressed? If there is a Conservative-right slippery slope, there surely is a Liberal-conservative slippery slope.
Pingback: Christopher Donovan: Secular Right on AmRen Shutdown « The Occidental Observer Blog
Pingback: The Occidental Observer Blog
Oh hello there. Hadn’t come back to the blog here.
Well, I can’t say what “type” I am, except to say that I don’t personally believe- and I guess this is a pretty controversial stance around here- that any race is superior or inferior to any other. What type that makes me, you can decide.
Am I to explain what’s so repugnant about white supremicism? I predict I will not be able to do this to your satisfaction. You can say you won then, I guess, if you want.
And no, I’m not saying its OK to suppress unpopular views, in fact I’m pretty sure I didn’t say that at all, but to the extent I didn’t articulate too well: its never OK to suppress any ideas, popular or un-.
My problem is- the author of the original post made it out that this is the end of liberty. He knows this isn’t true. He’s just using that viewpoint as a way of showing his support for this racialist organization’s views, and to express his longing for the days when those views were mainstream.
You hold a white supremicist rally- even a well mannered, genteel rally attended by bowtie wearing bird watching finger sanwhich eating polo players- you’re going to get this reaction, because people are disgusted.
I understand NAMBLA’s had a heck of a time booking conventions too. I predict Liberty will survive this threat as well.
OK, have at me.
Pingback: No Extremists Here! · Secular Right
Oh, sorry, I forgot- I see that whether the organization in question can accurately be described as “white supremacist” is in dispute. To this, I can only say that its pretty clear to me that they do indeed believe certain races are superior while others are less so. And its also pretty clear which races are which, in their minds. Of course, maybe there are individuals in the organization who don’t quite believe this, anything’s possible.
Now, I was going to say- imagine you’re black and how would you feel about them, but I won’t subject you to your worst nightmare. Rather, I’ll say that while I’m not black my own self, I am something. And that these people- lovely and charming as they may be- would in an ideal world like to have me and my family put somewhere.
Their Perfect America would be as white and Christian as possible. In mine, we wouln’t keep score. We’d go ahead and make Don Rickles like jokes about any ethnicity we want with no worries, we’d associate as we want, we wouldn’t tell anyone else how to associate, but we would, ultimately, judge people as individuals. And so you can see how these- lets call them “folk”, they’d like that- might sort of turn me off.
They’re no better than that “sun people” professor, you remember him. Yeah, I know, his daughter couldn’t speak no french, but still.
sorry about all the spelling errors and typos but this is supposed to be the internet.